Effective Involvement of Shareholders in Key Activities

1. Effective Involvement of Shareholders in Key Activities SACRAO 2009 February 10, 2009 Session T1.10

2. The University of Virginia • Founded in 1819 by Thomas Jefferson • Enrollment: 13,762 undergraduate, 6,629 graduate & professional • 2008 Budget: $2.2 billion total; $1.2 billion academic division • Endowment: 4.0 billion (last time we checked) • 21,511 applications for 3,170 UG slots • 6 year graduation rate: 93.1%

4. Background • Implemented Oracle 11.0.3 Finance in July 2001 • Implemented Oracle 11.0.3 Payroll and HR in October 2002 • In March 2006, selected Oracle (former PeopleSoft) Campus Solutions 9.0 for Student Information System

5. Student System Project (SSP) • Project Team: 46 team members plus 7 additional UVa personnel allocated to the project at varying levels of involvement • Consulting Team: 16 full-time and additional consultants • Timeline: Deployment activities began 1/2007; phased go-live of modules concludes in fall 2009

6. Silo Spotting Early involvement

7. Workshops • Goal • Develop broad models for global business processes that help define requirements in advance of selecting a system vendor • Objectives • Review processes and operational issues at a high level • Develop high-level understanding of key issues that: • Support the vision set for by UVa leadership • Address key current operational issues • Identify strategic issues for consideration by UVa leadership

8. Workshops: Process Flows

9. Workshops: Process Flows

10. Workshops: Strategic Issues

11. Workshops: Academic Issues

12. How Unique is Unique, Really? Requirements gathering

13. Requirements Gathering • Objective: Streamline and automate the system planning and selection process • Decision Director, from Advantiv, a web-based collaboration and decisions support tool • ~75 HE projects; 200+ institutions; over 45,000 participants

14. Requirements Gathering • Did not want to reinvent the requirements wheel • Started with a comprehensive set of best-practice requirements • Review, reorganize, and modify as necessary • Wanted to involve stakeholders • Stakeholder buy-in and support is critical • Must be easy for stakeholders to participate • Goals: completeness, quality, speed

15. Decision Director

16. Timeline and Results • Requirements Gathering Timeline • Preparation: 6/25-9/24 • Stakeholder Input: 9/25-10/19 • Validation: 10/20-10/29 • Requirements Gathering Results • Input from 155 people • 2,523 functional/technical requirements • Foundation for RFI and vendor evaluation

17. Continued Review • Process Mapping • Created Visio diagrams of all business processes • Tollgating • Reviewed diagrams, contingency plans, etc., with stakeholders and governance groups. • Requirements Review • Constantly review Decision Director requirements list to update how critical and important needs are being met

18. Learning from Others Strategic Site visits

19. Why Travel? • Learn • Various vendors—strengths and shortcomings • Evolution of project structures and timelines at other institutions • Gather primary lessons learned • Create resource network to use during the implementation • Involve key stakeholders

20. Who Should Travel?

21. Lessons Learned • Executive commitment and visible support is of paramount importance for project success. • Strategic policy and system-based decision making is required for project success. • Regular communication with appropriate administrators regarding policy and system issues is an effective risk mitigation strategy.

22. Stakeholder Structure and Organizational Tools Managing Involvement

23. Stakeholder Structures • Governance Groups • Executive Sponsorship – President’s Cabinet • Institutional Policy Makers – Vice Presidents’ Designees • Academic Policy Makers – Deans’ Designees • Advisory Groups • System Advisors • Faculty Advisors • Student Advisors • Other • Local Project Groups • Issues of Common Interest (involving IT organization, etc.) • UREG/SSP, SCPS, Financial Issues, etc. • Student Lifecycle

24. Tools

25. Structure for Going Forward Continuing to Communicate

26. Communicate Wisely • Choose Wisely! • Key offices must be represented • Size groups wisely – too many people at once doesn’t work • Need people who know how things work, but also people thinking of how things might work • Beware the toxic participants – oftentimes, you’re stuck with them

27. Communicate Wisely • Be Patient • Everyone wants (needs) to be heard • Groups need time to coalesce and compromise • Communicate, Communicate, Communicate • Policy and procedure changes can’t be communicated too much • Training, advertising, e-mail, etc.—all can help • People are inclined to trust you; build on past relationships with your office

28. Policy Support • Deans’ Designees • Policy decisions • School-level communication • New programs and degrees • Student Lifecycle • Procedural changes • Information sharing • Common communication

29. Infrastructure Support • Draw down consultants • End date of 12/2009 • Expect to join with Integrated System Deployment & Support • Support upgrades and future modifications • Help Desk

30. Conclusions • Involve stakeholders early and often • Encourage search for commonalities • Let stakeholders learn along with you • Set up structures and tools to facilitate continued stakeholder input and ownership • Share info on new programs and policy

31. Robert LeHeupTeam Lead, Student Records and Academic AdvisementUVa Student System Projectrdl9e@virginia.edu Questions?