Dutch University's Successful Enterprise System Implementation Yields Valuable Lessons

Transcription

1 Industry Research G Dutch University's Successful Enterprise System Implementation Yields Valuable Lessons Published: 28 March 2012 Analyst(s): Ron Bonig When Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam implemented an enterprise-level student management system, it was an unqualified success. This effort, led by an executive project board, exhibited most of the success factors required for an enterprise system implementation. Key Findings Vrije Universiteit (VU) addressed several key factors of successful implementations: A comprehensive, well-designed and supported governance model was established in advance. The university properly managed its contractors, properly defining tasks and successfully managing the university-contractor relationship All the necessary internal advance work, from proper institutional engagement and open communications to business process and procedures documentation, was completed. Recommendations CIOs in higher or post-secondary educational institutions: Consider the lessons learned, as described in this research, in light of the two concurrently published research notes addressing educational institutions' enterprise system efforts: "Enterprise System Implementation Issues in Postsecondary Educational Institutions" "A Checklist for Educational Institutions to Assess Success Factors in Enterprise System Implementations" Assess your institution's level of awareness of the critical factors of success for these projects. Make any necessary adjustments before embarking on an enterprise project costing millions of dollars or euros.

2 Use the lessons learned from other universities' experiences. Analysis The Challenge When VU needed to undertake implementation of an enterprise-level student management system, the Dutch university faced a daunting coordination problem requiring a dozen faculties to harmonize and standardize their modes of operation and operational requirements. This is a significant challenge for any organization, and the fact that VU was able to accomplish this within its governance and engagement structure is an extremely important indicator of the level of ownership assumed by the various constituencies involved. The Approach VU had an engaged steering group composed of key functional leaders, and although the IT department led the technical implementation (along with an integration contractor), the project was regarded as the university's project and system, not the IT department's project or system. Leadership residing in the functional areas led to business ownership and engagement of the end product, and provided an example for all of the university participants to follow. For the system to have a good chance of success, it was necessary for 12 faculties to harmonize and standardize their modes of operation and requirements. The project board was headed by Erna Klein Ikkink, director of student administration, who organized the faculty involvement in tandem with CIO Richard Oerlemans, who oversaw the cooperation among the other parties, the student involvement and the establishment of the usersupport organization. The key organizations, the implementation partner, the software vendor, the IT department, the student administration and the faculties, and the student representatives all were involved throughout the implementation. Scheduling and Project Management At the start of the project, executive commitment from all faculty deans was ensured. Then the process design began with full faculty involvement. Only then was the actual system design and implementation partner selection initiated. A project startup architecture ensured integration into the VU application landscape. Several audits were performed during the design and implementation on the architecture, and VU made a point of incorporating lessons learned. Also, lessons learned from other universities were incorporated into the project approach. In the project office, the senior program director was responsible for the overall project and faculty commitment, a former head of faculty student office was assigned as change agent, and an experienced project manager was assigned to oversee successful completion of the project. The Page 2 of 6 Gartner, Inc. G

3 university also judged that the integrator's project management was well done and contributed to the overall success of the project. In tandem with these efforts, the CIO coordinated several other projects to provide essential elements for the new student management system landscape: enterprise-level identity management and single sign-on, enterprise service bus implementation, and the VUnet portal for students. While scheduling was important and the financial commitment of the university was respected, the leadership was confident enough and in sufficient control to agree to a project delay in order to improve portions of the system. Overall Project Schedule 2H08: The project leaders created the business case and recruited executive sponsors. 1H09: The harmonization of student information and logistics across faculties was achieved. 2H09: The implementation partner was selected and functional requirements were created. 1Q10: The implementation of requirements began. 3Q10: The first deliverables were released, user acceptance testing began, and a decision was made to revise the system's design. 4Q10: Accurate system integration and data migration took longer than planned. 1Q11: At the end of the quarter, the first modules went live. 2Q11: Actual handover to the user-support organization took place. At the end of the quarter, outstanding issues were down to a normal operational level, and system availability and performance were stable. 3Q11: A the start of the new academic year, the new system landscape was performing well, allowing a peak of 16,000 students a day into the system. Because of several remaining business logic and process issues (graduation, enrolment, grades, course registration), operational workload rose to a peak as well in response to first-time usage by the full student population. 1Q12: Optimization was achieved and additional functionality was added for example, for mobile usage and teacher services. Results Not only did VU select the system to acquire and implement by using solid criteria based on its operations, goals and environment, the university created a structure that was capable of delivering against its list of requirements. For example: The student system that was selected enabled process integration with the back-end office functionality and new academic structure. Gartner, Inc. G Page 3 of 6

4 The choice to select an integrator to integrate the student administration system into the existing ERP-environment reduced the project costs and risks considerably. RFP was issued based on a global design made by faculty representatives involved in the project. The system selected was user-centric and customizable to accommodate the diverse target audiences in the institution. Given the critical business processes involved, priority was given to this multifaceted project. University board member Kees Rutten personally acted as ambassador at decisive moments throughout the project to foster broad acceptance among the various constituencies. The process of establishing identity access for new students was transformed from a traditional paper operation into a fully digital process. The key reasons for postponing three months to achieve the required quality included the completion and optimization of student self-services, data conversion verification and the adequate implementation of the support organization. VU tested the functional designs for user interface, digital self-service workflows, and usability of the portal via "eyeball" tracking and engagement with each of the user constituencies. This led to the selection of a system that allowed VU to implement a personalized student portal, which would enable integration with a number of applications and processes, such as a learning management system, news and notifications, , and request forms. The creation and use of management information, a key goal of the initiative, was given additional emphasis by making it a separate track in the ERP implementation. Just one month after going live, the project was handed over to the user-support organization. Faculty representatives continuously review the actual performance of the processes, deciding on optimization prioritization and recommending further functionality developments. The IT department is advising the user group and responsible process owners on the tactical and strategic issues. Operational service and performance expectations are formalized in a service agreement. Although the exact figures are confidential, the initial budget was exceeded due to the additional quarter's worth of work and the extra time spent on student self-services. However, the project leadership, due to its deep involvement, knew that these were wise and necessary moves that were not the result of management issues or scope creep. Critical Success Factors As we noted earlier, one of the most significant factors of success in enterprise system implementation in a postsecondary/higher education environment is the leadership and decision-making structure within the institution. Many issues that threaten a large project's timeliness, budget, efficacy and overall success can be mitigated or solved if the organization has an effective leadership structure and the full engagement of the institution. The overarching success factor of the project was the governance and engagement led by functional representatives and backed by faculty executives. In addition, standard and bestpractice project methodologies (overseen by project manager Walter Groen) were followed, from original conception through vendor selections, functional requirements, user/usability Page 4 of 6 Gartner, Inc. G

5 testing, integration and data migration, and IT auditing. Although everything didn't always go right, the project's high level of governance and engagement enabled issues to be resolved before they become the seeds of a disaster. VU has been able to adopt a development-oriented project culture, enabling people to perform, enjoy and learn while working. The senior program director, Anne Kaldewaij, was instrumental in instituting this cooperative team culture. Kaldewaij was able build a "one team" effort across the faculties, student administration, IT department and implementation staff. This effect was not only one of the success factors, it proved to be the basis for new and other project developments at VU. Lessons Learned It is critical to establish broad enterprise ownership of a project prior to launch. In the VU case, the process design started with full faculty involvement and followed with total buy-in from the implementation partner, the software vendor, the IT department, and the student administration and student representatives. All were involved throughout the implementation. In addition, Marjolijn Witte's role as an active and respected change agent was critical for VU. Project leadership was confident enough to agree to a delay in completion of the project to ensure all aspects of the initiative met end-user expectations. Although this caused the project to exceed the initial budget, the leadership was well-engaged and agreed to the move, which involved additional work on student self-services. Slavish devotion to the original schedule and budget when it becomes obvious that additional incremental time and budget allowances will significantly improve the project's success and reduce the risk of failure is not a positive characteristic. Recommended Reading Some documents may not be available as part of your current Gartner subscription. "How to Accelerate Your ERP Requirements Definition" "How to Deliver a More User-Centric ERP Solution" "Life Cycle Guide to ERP Research, Update 2011" "A Checklist for Educational Institutions to Assess Success Factors in Enterprise System Implementations" "Enterprise System Implementation Issues in Postsecondary Educational Institutions" Gartner, Inc. G Page 5 of 6

6 Regional Headquarters Corporate Headquarters 56 Top Gallant Road Stamford, CT USA European Headquarters Tamesis The Glanty Egham Surrey, TW20 9AW UNITED KINGDOM Japan Headquarters Gartner Japan Ltd. Atago Green Hills MORI Tower 5F Atago, Minato-ku Tokyo JAPAN Latin America Headquarters Gartner do Brazil Av. das Nações Unidas, andar World Trade Center São Paulo SP BRAZIL Asia/Pacific Headquarters Gartner Australasia Pty. Ltd. Level 9, 141 Walker Street North Sydney New South Wales 2060 AUSTRALIA Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Gartner is a registered trademark of Gartner, Inc. or its affiliates. This publication may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without Gartner s prior written permission. The information contained in this publication has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. Gartner disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such information and shall have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in such information. This publication consists of the opinions of Gartner s research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. The opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice. Although Gartner research may include a discussion of related legal issues, Gartner does not provide legal advice or services and its research should not be construed or used as such. Gartner is a public company, and its shareholders may include firms and funds that have financial interests in entities covered in Gartner research. Gartner s Board of Directors may include senior managers of these firms or funds. Gartner research is produced independently by its research organization without input or influence from these firms, funds or their managers. For further information on the independence and integrity of Gartner research, see Guiding Principles on Independence and Objectivity on its website, ombudsman/omb_guide2.jsp. Page 6 of 6 Gartner, Inc. G