A Presentation Given to the Technology Task Force by Byron Lilly on February 16, 2011 Proposed Process for Requesting/Prioritizing New Technology Projects.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Reliability Center Data Request Task Force Report WECC Board Meeting April 2009.

Advertisements

Renee L. Wallace Associate Vice President Academic Personnel Services August 8, 2013.

 Humboldt State University Joyce Lopes, Carol Lorentzen, Volga Koval, Randi Darnall Burke, Kate Stroup, Teal Sexton, Amber Blakeslee, Jacque Honda.

Integrated Budget Allocation & Program Review Process Rick Bennett VPAS CBAC Chair CBAC 10/8 and Academic Senate 10/9.

1 PTA Process Task Force January Task Force Participants Alan Gellman Beth Rhine Elizabeth Moyle LaShawn Route-Chatmon Lisa Hobbs Lisa Puntillo.

Role of Budget Committee Create consensus on definitions Emergency Maintenance of Effort New Initiatives Discretionary Funds All Money Carryovers Base.

New Academic Programs Task Force Update April, 2013.

Budget Flexibility Financial Planning & Budgets

Sacramento City College Budget Committee Handbook October 28, 2002.

Updates to the Post-Submission Proposal Change Process in eRPM (aka “The Revised PAF”)

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 New Web-Tools Tuition & Fees, User Fees, Initiatives.

Budget Development Timeline (subject to change) Budget Process Kickoff  October 26. VP’s and deans determine how budget discussions will occur in their.

ECM Project Roles and Responsibilities

AS /AA Clarification of the Formation, Dissolution, Merger or Movement of an Academic Department- Resubmission.

© 2008 Prentice Hall11-1 Introduction to Project Management Chapter 11 Managing Project Execution Information Systems Project Management: A Process and.

Project Execution.

1 AU Five-Year Strategic Plan (2014 – 2018) Meeting of School Representatives 27 February 2014 Dr. Sompit Porsutyaruk Vice President for Academic Affairs.

© 2003 IBM Corporation July 2004 Technology planning for not-for-profit organizations IBM volunteer name Title, organization.

COD Institutional Effectiveness Process (IEP) Planning, Assessment, Allocation Learn More.

2nd Accounts Payable Workshop February 24,

AR 3110 – Basic Aid Allocation Board of Trustees Presentation February 27, 2012.

Recommended Strategic Plan Board of Trustees August 27, 2012 Moravian Manor.

Marin Lutheran Church Constitution Task Force Forum 3: Proposed Structure.

Faculty Senate Orientation October 10, 2011 Faculty Senate.

Planning and Budget Committee March 13, Agenda Current Financial Position Original charge of this committee Sub-committee findings regarding Enrollment.

Successfully Aligning Resources With Planning League of Innovation Conference March 10, 2013 Greg Nelson Vice President of Administrative Services Tammeil.

University of Massachusetts Boston FY11 Budget Process February 25, 2010.

Ch. 5: Project Planning Good Quote: Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately degenerate into hard work Lame excuses for not planning: Takes.

Annual Planning Development Task Force (APDTF) Recommendations MARCH 3, 2015.

Legislative Policy Committee ISAC Board approved concept at their meeting in December.

Lecture 11 Managing Project Execution. Project Execution The phase of a project in which work towards direct achievement of the project’s objectives and.

The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system is an Equal Opportunity employer and educator. Minnesota State Colleges and Universities FY

Institutional Fees Business Affairs Office Denise Reid, Assistant Director September 21, 2015.

FY10 Budget Update Finance and Administration Advisory Group July 9, 2009.

Systems Analysis and Design

College Wide Planning Process and College Wide Master Plan (CWMP) Brought to you by : Institutional Effectiveness Committee Presenters: Kathy Werle.

Antelope Valley College Budget Development Process Diana Keelen Administrative Council Meeting April 23, 2013.

Sacramento City College Budget Committee Handbook October 22, 2001.

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO SCARBOROUGH 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4 CAMPUS DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT (CDD) COMMITTEE.

QUALITY OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 15 Points (recommend 5 pages)

Technology Task Force Mission Review/Discussion March 5, 2015 Technology Task Force Mission Review/Discussion March 5, 2015.

Program Review: The Sequel Institutional Briefing on the Process and Outcomes of the Process.

Antelope Valley College Budget Development Process Diana Keelen Administrative Council Meeting December 9, 2014.

Master Plan Process FY Proposed Draft. October - February Cluster Groups and Units Identify Initiatives These are general goals or outcomes that.

SPC Advisory Committee Training - TAC Fall 2015 Institutional Research President’s Office 1 Abridged from the SPC Advisory Committee Training on October.

SPC Advisory Committee Training Fall 2015 Institutional Research President’s Office SPC 10/9/20151.

Program-Review Process Ohio University Link to Program Review Web Site.

CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE INTERNAL AUDIT FRAMEWORK January 25, 2016 Audit Committee Meeting Presented by: Ruthe Holden, Internal Audit Manager.

Budget Call Diana Keelen, Budget Commiteee Co-Chair Dr. Irit Gat, Budget Committee Co-Chair Administrative Council Meeting, November 17, 2015.

Spring,  STEP ONE: Core Services Matrix  Each administrative and student support department (including division offices) will complete a core.

27 February 2012 Provost's Report to College Senate.

College-wide Meeting Budget Planning For FY March 17, /10/20161.

Presentation to the Finance and Administration Advisory Group ▸Implementing a New Space Request Process ▸Process for requesting additional space.

1 District Office Administrative Services Unit Review (ASUR) and Annual Operational Planning November 7, 2013 Presented by Dr. George Railey Vice Chancellor.

Orientation Overview April 14, 2017

COD Institutional Effectiveness Process (IEP)

Standards and Certification Training

College of Alameda Integrated Planning and Budgeting Process

Authorization to Fill a Vacancy

[Project Name] Project Gating Presentation

OUHSC Graduate College Program Review Overview and Timeline

Planning and Budget Committee

MODULE B - PROCESS SUBMODULES B1. Organizational Structure

In Preparation to ACCJC team site visit on 10/8-10/11

DEPT OF TRANSPORT BRIEFING ON SCHOLAR TRANSPORT TO THE PARLIAMENTARY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT 30 AUGUST 2011.

UCR Space Request Process Flowchart

CAMPUS DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT (CDD) COMMITTEE

A two-phase, faculty and staff driven process

Presentation transcript:

A Presentation Given to the Technology Task Force by Byron Lilly on February 16, 2011 Proposed Process for Requesting/Prioritizing New Technology Projects at De Anza

The Old Project Prioritization Process Many project requests are sent directly to ETS personnel Users frequently describe projects as “critical” and insist they must be completed in a short period of time Users frequently have not involved ETS personnel in the planning process, and additional resources, either initial or on-going or both, are identified after college administration have been persuaded by users that project is “critical” and “worthwhile.” Requestors (and ETS personnel) are often frustrated

Proposed New Project Prioritization Process

President Senior Staff College Council Tech Task Force

Some of the Outstanding Issues Will all projects that require ETS labor time go through this process, or will some projects be excluded and have their own process? What will the role of the following groups be vis-à-vis this process?:  The Campus Technology Prioritization Committee  The Campus Budget Committee

Measure C Prioritization Process 1: Replacement Equipment President Campus Tech Prioritization Committee Vice Presidents Deans and Managers

Measure C Prioritization Process 2: New Equipment President College Council Campus Budget & TTF Committees Deans & Mgrs submit to VPs and PBTs Senior Staff

Things Fred and/or Letha Have Suggested Would Not Be Prioritized by TTF 1. Measure C work 2. Banner functionality improvements that are within the original project scope 3. Projects that take less than 40 ETS man-hours to complete 4. Routine break/fixes

Additional Outstanding Issues Is it sufficient for the prioritization process to continue to bucket projects into one of three priority levels, or do we need to produce a numbered ranking of the projects?  Fred said Monday (2/14/11) that “just the C’s will probably take my group 5 years to complete.” That suggests to me that we need to cut the C’s finer. Who will negotiate with ETS on such issues as  How many phases to break a given project into?  What the committed completion date of each project phase is?  Changes in the prioritization levels and committed completion dates of the various projects over time?

Additional Outstanding Issues Should we be concerned that we are proposing one process for prioritizing ETS’s labor time and a different process for allocating budget to projects? What will happen if there are significant differences in the priorities established by these two groups?  Most likely, projects would need both budget and labor time in order to get completed. Projects missing either would languish.

Proposed New Project Prioritization Process

Next Steps Forward a recommendation to College Council to accept and approve ETS’s proposal that “projects and project phases that have been started cannot be stopped midstream.”  In the interests of ETS efficiency, no new projects could be started until all projects or project phases that have been started are completed.” Forward to College Council a recommendation to adopt, on a provisional or pilot test basis, ETS’s proposed flowchart and prioritization methodology (the Excel spreadsheet.)

Next Steps Develop and forward to College Council a recommended process to occupy the “De Anza College Review Authority” box in ETS’s prioritization flowchart.