Business Process Re-engineering Hype or Reality? Three Approaches, Three Perspectives, Three Examples

Participants Approach Nela Petkovic, CIO. Wilfrid Laurier University Gayleen Grey, Deputy CIO & Associate Director, Computing and Communications Services, Guelph University Graham Kemp, Director, Enterprise Applications and Solutions Integration, University of Toronto Approach Each panelist will provide a 10 minute overview of their institutional experiences and approach to business process reengineering , including challenges and successes. This will be followed by a 30 minute discussion/Q & A period where the audience Is encouraged to engage with the panel or share experiences of their own.

Business Process Re-engineering: Hype or Reality? BPA’s History @Laurier

Key Points Before 2012 BPA Journey Today Current Engagements Added Benefits Templates Methodology

Before 2012 Business Process Analysts did not exist Systems Analysts (Developers) and/or Subject (Functional) Matter Experts worked on requirements Formal requirements gathering was not in existence Lack of requirements’ validation No documentation or templates Sparse training documentation Current State (Business Processes) was anecdotal Rationale for decision making mostly verbal and silo-ed Efficiencies could not be recognized

BPA Journey Summer 2012: BPA rationale and position created September 2012: Project intake process implemented November 2012: First Full-time Business Process Analyst hired August 2013: Basecamp collaboration tool Initial engagements: Consulting e.g. HR On-boarding Immediate RFP involvement Requirements gathering for new initiatives

Today Two Full-time Business Process Analysts 3rd to be hired for the Web Renewal Project (limited term) Business Cases for other projects might bring more Responsibilities: Business Process documentation Requirements gathering Scope optimization Use case development, QA, test strategies, etc. Training, user support Documentation development Emphasis on communication Conduit between client community and developers

Current Engagements Student Behavioural Intervention Management Graduate Admissions Lifecycle Faculty Teaching Evaluations WLU Press Technical Review Payroll Leave Processing Disaster Recovery Planning Project: Institutional Impact Analysis Study Abroad feasibility Laurier English and Academic Foundation (LEAF) Program Process Review

Added Benefits Formal Vendor Management Software Specifications Defined Cost for Current and Future States Collaboration Efficiencies Visibility Cost Reduction Automation etc.

Templates Current Business Processes and New State (Visio) Proposed Tool Summaries Requirements Spreadsheet Business Case (Software selection) – Detailed and Executive Summary TCO – Yearly & Quarterly Use Case Gap Analysis Testing Scenarios Requirement Validation (in development) Conversion Strategy BA Terms of Reference

Methodology IIBA (International Institute of Business Analysis) BABOK Guide (Business Analysis Body of Knowledge)

Contact Nela Petkovic CIO npetkovic@wlu.ca 519-884-0710 x3899

Business Process Re-engineering Graduate Application Process Gayleen Gray, Deputy CIO and Associate Director, CCS With input from Ruth Smith, Manager Enterprise Applications

CCS Key Principles Collaborative partnerships Business priorities core to IT decisions Solutions priorities: Use current services and systems where possible Off the shelf before custom development Hosted when it fits our security/privacy principles

Business Analysis at UofG BA Framework methodology and community of practice Standardized approach for BA activities Focus on current state to future state analysis Business process re-engineering a core requirement before new systems implemented

Business need Graduate admissions process had a level of complexity and manual effort Paper and manual process targets to increase applications but couldn’t scale manual processes Improve experience with online service – no phones, no mailing of applications or supporting documents Want a common process with ability to have unique features within campus departments Register first approached about the undergrad admissions process but OGS was more complex and could provide a process that could be used by undergrads as well While grad numbers were increasing, the overall numbers were much smaller than undergrad and had staggered deadlines, so wanted to use them as the test case before changing undergrad admissions processes for larger student population with common deadlines

Business Process Analysis Use our BA framework to define the problem: challenges, current state, future state, gap analysis, Defined 5 processes for handling applicants: Application including supporting documents from applicant Referee Process U of G workflow to make an offer U of G workflow from offer through to acceptance Communications between applicants, departments and OGS during the processes identified above

Business Process Analysis Artifacts to define ‘current to future state’ processes: Business requirements models (context diagram, data requirements models, process flowcharts and/or swim lanes, RACI matrix) Business requirements list with priorities and acceptance criteria (defined by client) Integration requirements with other systems as needed Recommended implementation options (solutions) with cost estimates Functional specification to guide the solution implementation

Goals and Objectives of the project Reduce turn-around time to process an application Improve communication to all parties Convert a mainly paper process to electronic online process Provide graduate applicants with a centralized place to check the status and requirements for their application, providing ‘one-stop shopping’ for their application needs Enable the University of Guelph to remain competitive by making earlier offers to high-quality applicants Centralize certain communications to meet quality control measures for AVP, previously decentralized process at times resulted in departments sending out an offer to an applicant before it was approved by central grad office (e.g. funding commitments offered by dept couldn’t be met by their budget, english language experience hadn’t been properly vetted) Integrate fully with the existing Student Information System, so that at all times it remained the authoritative data source for key criteria on the applicant record Empower the departments on campus to offer improved service to applicants and retain their decision making role in the grad admissions process, e.g. a dept admissions officer can also see where the applicant’s application is at all times in the decision making process, providing a level of insight not possible with a paper based process, and let the applicant know when the dept had sent their application to the central grad department for the final review stage before an offer was made

Solutions Online system to submit supporting documentation (delivered using custom web applications, Image Now and WebAdvisor “Documents” screen) Electronic reference letter for referees to submit online(delivered using using custom web application and Image Now) Modifying and centralizing communications to the applicant (using Colleague Communications package in Student Information System)

Re-engineered Process

Re-engineered communications

Key project dates January 2013: Project planning February 2013: Project kick-off April 2013: Delivery of Phase 1, Applicants and Referees submitting documents online June 2013: Delivery of Phase 2, Detailed process for moving from paper to online system workflow August 2013: Delivery of Phase 3, workflow using Image Now and online Applicant Offers /acceptance September – December 2013: post-go-live monitoring phase

Challenges Complexity of process required specialized Higher Ed knowledge (e.g. failed external BA engagement) Changing processes while existing process is being executed operationally Repurposing existing technology for students for the first time Dedicated staff time required for SME knowledge of admissions processes Grad admissions is a decentralized project with many stakeholders, both internal and external (e.g. referees)

Successes Fully engaged client and assigned SME full time who knew the grad admissions processes Client willing to take on new learning, e.g. creating their own process flow diagrams Executive support, championing and “selling” the benefits to large group of stakeholders Dedicated IT staff with BA skills and Admissions experience Involved CIO Communications area to design and deliver complex project communications

Lessons learned Lessons learned: Business process re-engineering works… BUT only with: Dedicated experienced SME staff Clients who are capable of managing large scale change Leadership support Process re-engineering for one project may not be applicable for another Although the original belief was that the Grad application process would be portable/scalable to the undergrad application process, it urns out this process won’t scale May need to put in temporary systems or technology automation to fill the gaps with current system so that we address the right business process and then find a way to implement a longer term strategy for ensuring longer term technology success

Business Process Re-engineering: Hype or Reality? Information Technology Services Business Process Re-engineering: Hype or Reality? Graham Kemp – CAUBO 2015

University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015 How are coins like BPR? University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015

Working Together to Effect Change The Business Unit Needs: Transparency/Auditability/Accountability Internally and externally (regulatory and funding agencies) Cost reduction/efficiencies Streamlined business processes Reduce mundane tasks/staff doing more meaningful work Intuitive - Easy to use University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015

University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015 What IT Brings to BPR Broad view of the university and a variety of experiences A different set of eyes Business analysis and project management skills Other skill sets not available within a business unit – UX, AODA Process Streamlining Knowledge of the different technologies that can be applied A different set of eyes – Objective perspective University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015

Why Isn’t BPR Successful People who know everything We have always done it this way Complications through exceptions This is the University of Toronto We’re special Or: Hi, we’re from IT and we have the solution for you? Boiling the Ocean Silo’s Not understanding of the full process University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015

What do we (IT) need to do Win trust and build confidence Establish credibility Engage the clients Immediate problems fixed and small wins while the larger needs are addressed Communicate Embed staff/Joint teams with dedicated resources Don’t drink the KOOL AID Creative funding models Everyone has skin in the game University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015

Current Practices with BPR Joint Business Case preparation (Business Unit and IT) IT does NOT own the project but we have joint responsibility for it’s success Partnership with the business owner to achieve the stated goals Build trust and relationships at all levels Engage Project Leadership Group Early wins as larger phases are developed Right people: Project management, technical and functional Positive attitude and desire to work to deliver a successful outcome Budget preparation and business case a joint proposal between the Business Unit and IT IT does NOT own the project but we have joint responsibility for it’s success Build trust and relationships Project Leadership Engagement Keep them in the loop at all times and deliver all the news not just the good and make sure there are no surprises Meet weekly provide quick decisions, right group, take the project seriously Show progress and what has been accomplished Project plan – provide as much lead time as possible on issues Bring stress levels down Early wins as larger phases are developed Right people: Technical and functional Positive attitude and desire to work to make a positive change University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015

University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015 Project Examples Research Administration Improvement & Systems Enhancement (RAISE) Embedded IT staff in the Research department Engaged with the end user – Principal Investigators Manage Contractor relationships uSOURCE – Procurement Embed IT staff in the Procurement Services Department Engage with the ultimate end user – Faculty and Staff Develop positive vendor relationships University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015

University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015

University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015 In Summary Building Trust Process Streamlines It may be a big project but providing early wins to build credibility and trust Demonstrate progress Agile – willing to see the other side of the argument and change the process University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015

University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015 Because Change is Hard University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015

Now it is your turn… …Questions …Discussion …Experiences Thank You