Lessons Learned Business Systems Review of Office of Marine Operations Columbia University

1. Implementation Plan:Midterm Report to University LeadersResponse to Business Systems ReviewNational Science Foundation Lessons LearnedBusiness Systems Review of Office of Marine Operations Columbia University Grant Goodrich, Project Manager April 19, 2011

2. What was our experience with the Business System Review? How did we formulate our response? What are the key lessons learned? Strategic Level University Level Facility Level Concluding thoughts Agenda

3. 2009-2010 – The NSF reviewed the management systems for the Research Vessel Marcus G. Langseth R/V Langseth managed by the Office of Marine Operations at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, part of the Earth Institute, Columbia University Results of BSR: Administrative business systems not aligned with NSF expectations The most significant findings were in the Property and Equipment Management functional core area Other Key Findings: Insufficient documentation of processes and procedures across the organization Significant gaps in training and training management Confusing organizational and reporting structures What was our experience with the BSR?

4. Assembled the project team Identified senior leaders in Columbia University Central Administration as module leaders for the 8 functional core areas Identified an organizational lead (the Earth Institute) Designated a Project Manager Drafted an Implementation Plan Developed a narrative response, explaining Columbia University’s approach Created a finding-by-finding response matrix Highlighted 17 “key” or “overarching” outputs Compiled a shipyard/maintenance plan and timeline Created Microsoft Project Plan to facilitate project management Established an “Implementation Task Force” to manage the response How did we formulate our response?

5. At the Strategic Level: The BSR addresses enhanced management needs Opportunity: Strengthens position of those who want to improve management systems Challenge: Many scientists think that resources directed to administration and management would be better used if dedicated to science. The Process has to have a “reward” Scientists need to see that improved management results in more research work or improved support for research work If there is no “reward,” there is risk of backlash What are key lessons learned?

6. At the University Level: The BSR results in improved management for the Facility Leverage for making improvements The BSR stimulates attention of University leaders In addition to analyzing the BSR, the University should evaluate the state of the Facility’s management systems Characterize the types of issues facing the University: Routine, Easy to Fix Routine, Not Easy to Fix Complicated Key lessons learned (continued) • Stimulates Management Improvement

7. At the University Level (continued): Identify the Facility’s current situation Sustaining success Realignment Start-up Turnaround Match strategy to situation Why were some pieces of the system(s) found to be inadequate? People? Process? Technology? All Three? Key lessons learned (continued)

8. At the University Level (continued): Leadership and Decision Making Are the right people involved in the response process to make decisions at every level? University Leadership must be informed and on-board Ability to make quick, informed decisions Role of the Task Force Chair Arbiter with Access Evaluate leadership of the Facility If this is the wrong person, you are “dead in the water” Key lessons learned (continued)

9. At the University Level (continued): The University’s experience in responding to the BSR can be transformational, if perceived as successful The process facilitates an organizational management identity An experienced team in place for future evaluations and reviews “Contagiousness” of success If people learn what the standard looks like, it creates a “story” “If we can do what they did on the Langseth…” Examples of best practices in place within the organization A cadre of people within the organization who can train others Key lessons learned (continued)

10. At the Facility Level: Choose the right person to lead the project Requires significant familiarity with university personnel and systems at all levels Sufficient experience, scope and breadth to manage the project Consider their position within the organization Requires access to both decision makers and employees performing the detailed actions Strong communication, mediation, and technical skills required What are key lessons learned?

11. At the Facility Level (continued): Assemble the right people for the project team Hiring of additional staff Consultants Interns Ensure that the people assigned particular tasks in executing the plan have the skills to perform those tasks Need people with “mastery” of a given process involved Training may not be an option, given time restrictions Be mindful of the individual’s writing ability Key lessons learned (continued)

12. At the Facility Level (continued): Project Management Developing a manageable response How do you comprehensively respond to a 120-page report? Clearly communicate expectations for product quality What does a “First Draft” look like? Stay on schedule Realistic deadlines with several intermediate review steps Milestones are critical Define how / when the schedule may change Standardize templates for documents Clarify review procedures Key lessons learned (continued)

13. “Know thyself” Communicate commitment Good people at key positions Outside help doesn’t always help Leverage the opportunity to change Scientists need to see the reward The BSR results in improved management for the Facility Concluding Thoughts