E-commerce Project Governance Overview

Transcription

1 Implementing Effective ERP Governance and Portfolio Management Walter Sevon Deputy CIO and Executive Director Technology Systems Division Jennifer Flagel Director of Technology Projects Enrollment Services May 28, 2008 John Wheat Senior Manager BearingPoint

2 Agenda History Implementation Process Outcomes Lessons Learned 2

3 About Mason Established as George Mason University in ,000 students (From ,300 students) 5,000 faculty and staff 150+ degree programs Four campuses in Virginia and one in the United Arab Emirates Distributed IT support 3

4 History

5 Legacy ERP (IA/IDMS) Installed IA IDMS (Circa 1990) SIS/FRS/HRS Became heavily modified over time Functional Offices very happy with functionality Unable to upgrade due to modifications 5

6 Banner ERP Project Phased Implementation Finance (July 2002) HR (Jan 2003) Admissions (Fall 2003) Student (Fall 2004) Project Governance During Implementation Projects Co-Led by AVP Controller/ITU DAS Director HR/Finance Steering and Implementation Committees Student Steering and Implementation Committees Banner Coordinating Committee Expected General Acceptance by Fall

7 Post Banner Installation Experience - 1 Expectations Functional Offices would adjust business practices Mods would be rare Functional Offices would eventually be happy with new system Reality Mods are rare Some Functional Offices had to make many adjustments Many project requests to restore functionality Governance structure for installations was no longer effective The ITU could not meet the project demands Frustration started to build 7

8 Post Banner Installation Experience - 2 Created Project Lists Phase II Project List (Restore lost functionality) Phase III Project List (New functionality) Established New Governance Groups Started with BAG-L, BAG-R Admin Systems Leadership Team Administrative Systems & Reporting Oversight Committee Banner Coordination Committee 8

9 Deficiencies in IT Governance Priorities assigned unsystematically and insufficiently coordinated with business priorities Approval process for modifications and add-ons informal and lacking full cost-benefit perspective New projects subject to lengthy deliberation and approval intervals Delineation of IT vs. business role poorly defined IT commitments informal and inappropriately estimated 9

10 Banner Portfolio Management Project Mason Needed Improved collaboration between ITU & Functional Offices Transparent & coherent process for project resource allocation Project priorities aligned with institutional strategy & goals Bearing Point s Charge Recommend effective governance structures Identify more effective method to prioritize projects Optimize skill sets & other functional office resources Identify method to estimate project costs 10

11 Process

12 Milestones Engage Bearing Point (August-October 2006) Create Implementation Plan (January 2007) Execute Phased Approach (February 2007-August 2008) Phase I completed April 2007 Phase II completed April 2008 Phase III to be completed August

13 Heart of the Recommendations: Increase Process Maturity 13

14 Proposed Project Governance Model BFO IT Project Governance Council PMO BFO Portfolio Evaluation Committee Architecture/ Standards Sub-Group Project Coordination Sub-Group Program/Project Governance Program Management and Governance Support 14

15 Committee Mapping 15

16 Implemented Governance Model ITU Portfolio Governance Council (PGC) Banner Functional Offices (BFO) TSD PMO BFO Portfolio Evaluation Committee (PEC) BSO/IT Support Teams Architecture Standards Committee Project Coordinating Sub-Committee (PCS) Program Management Project Portfolio Governance 16

17 A Phased Approach to Implementation Designate core BFO-ITU team to refine and launch BFO project governance Establish BFO project governance bodies and validate/refine roles and responsibilities Formalize PMO role and assign SW application -experienced resource to BFO project/request stream Validate/refine BFO project prioritization methodology and criteria Validate/refine project estimation methodology and project effort estimation tool Update BFO project/ request list apply prioritization scheme and selective high -level estimation and costing Develop/adapt essential governance artifacts (request templates, escalation process, decision criteria and weights, etc.) Plateau 1 3 Months Mobilize BFO project governance bodies Re-purpose Coordinating Committee into Project Coordination Sub-Group Formalize Architecture/ Standards review body and mechanisms Incorporate process support tools (e.g., Serena TeamTrack and Version Control) into governance framework Develop/adapt additional governance artifacts (business case/justification template, Banner modification evaluation criteria and principles, project impact assessment checklist, standards compliance exception criteria, etc.) Plateau 2 6 Months Implement project portfolio performance tracking dashboard Develop/adapt additional governance artifacts as needed (governance process flows, cross-bfo collaboration opportunity assessment, lessons learned template, etc.) Evaluate and refine BFO project governance framework based on initial experience Plateau 3 12 Months Plateau N 17

18 Phase I Deliverables Establishment of core project governance bodies with defined roles and responsibilities Preliminary PPM framework Version 1 of Team Track request management system Functional requirements to guide selection of commercial PPM tools Expanded project management support framework Preliminary Banner service catalog Initial set of Service Delivery Guides for selected services in the catalog 18

19 PPM Framework Capture Assess Prioritize Schedule Manage Obtain data for proposed projects in a standardized format Classification Review proposed projects to determine business justification Classify projects into portfolio classes Estimation Score and rank projects to develop a prioritized project list Allocate project funding based on a portfolio management approach Prioritization Schedule projects based on available capacity, BFO constraints, and project priority Estimation Demand & Capacity Forecasting/Tracking Provide ongoing oversight of project progress and adherence to technical standards 19

20 Proposed Project Classification 20

21 Implemented Classification Capture Assess Prioritize Schedule Manage A Scale = small or medium and Urgency = critical; or Primary Work Type = security B C Scale = small and Urgency = high or normal Scale = medium and Urgency = high or normal; or Scale = large and Reason = mandate; or any modification to baseline D Scale = large and Urgency = any 21

22 Team Track Capture Form 22

23 Sample Service Catalog Entries Service Primary Category Primary Work Type Primary Application Intended Customers Administer security in Workflow Maintenance and Support Security (Rights/ Access) Workflow Workflow users Alter a script for a database job Enhanced Functionality Programming Database Banner Functional Offices Apply a change via Web Tailor Enhanced Functionality Programming Banner Web Tailor Banner Functional Offices Assist in evaluation and planning for a new application Evaluation and Planning Application Interface Banner related Banner Functional Offices 23

24 Phase II Deliverables Complete implementation of governance structure Develop service request cycle procedures & documentation Enhance TeamTrack request management system Select and implement commercial PPM tools Develop management reports from Team Track Implement project time-tracking capability in TeamTrack Draft technical architecture and standards to guide selection and integration of commercial products to extend Banner Produce Service Delivery Guides to define delivery terms for services in Banner support service catalog 24

25 Phase III Deliverables Complete first set of technical architecture standards including procedures for functional office technical staff Define and implement communication plan Implement project management toolset Implement project portfolio performance tracking Conduct gap analysis 25

26 Outcomes

27 Outcomes Realized Requests evaluated on own merits as well as collectively from portfolio perspective Complete framework and processes in place for evaluating, selecting, and tracking requests Governance guided by common principles and evaluation criteria reflecting shared IT and business perspective Modifications and add-ons evaluated based on thorough cost -benefit analysis from life-cycle perspective Tiered governance structure exists with clear delegation and escalation rules, sufficient budget/resource control, and decision -making authority Governance roles and responsibilities clearly defined and adhered to Essential tools, templates, and processes implemented for most critical needs 27

28 Outcomes Anticipated Program and project management capabilities in place to administer governance and assessment Decisions about new applications, tools, or platforms reviewed for consistency with established architecture guidelines and compliance with technical standards Essential tools, templates, and processes implemented more broadly 28

29 Initial Capacity Distribution 29

30 Changes to Capacity Distribution Banner Phase II & III Project Lists Systematically Reviewed by Governance Bodies and Rolled into New PPM Processes Impromptu Requests Essentially Eliminated by Requiring All Requests to Go through PPM Processes All New Functional Office Requests Are Now Reviewed and Evaluated through the Structured PPM Processes Resulting in. 30

31 Current Capacity Distribution... the Law of Unintended Consequences 2007 Closed Requests by Scale 31

32 Lessons Learned

33 Lessons Learned Governance process used for system installation does not work well for continued support It takes a significant investment in time & people to establish a workable governance process Combining governance with improved program management tools and procedures improves management data & control Much of the work in establishing effective governance can be done in advance Bringing in a consulting organization to help is less threatening to the organization and can be very effective Don t underestimate the scale of effort required to create an effective communication program Keep it simple so it s manageable. 33

34 Closing Comments and Questions Walt Sevon Jennifer Flagel John Wheat This work is the intellectual property of the University. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the authors listed above. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the authors.