Effective Involvement of Shareholders in Key Activities SACRAO 2009 February 10, 2009 Session T1.10

The University of Virginia  Founded in 1819 by Thomas Jefferson  Enrollment: 13,762 undergraduate, 6,629 graduate & professional  2008 Budget: $2.2 billion total; $1.2 billion academic division  Endowment: 4.0 billion (last time we checked)  21,511 applications for 3,170 UG slots  6 year graduation rate: 93.1%

Background  Implemented Oracle Finance in July 2001  Implemented Oracle Payroll and HR in October 2002  In March 2006, selected Oracle (former PeopleSoft) Campus Solutions 9.0 for Student Information System

Student System Project (SSP)  Project Team: 46 team members plus 7 additional UVa personnel allocated to the project at varying levels of involvement  Consulting Team: 16 full-time and additional consultants  Timeline: Deployment activities began 1/2007; phased go-live of modules concludes in fall 2009

EARLY INVOLVEMENT Silo Spotting

Workshops  Goal  Develop broad models for global business processes that help define requirements in advance of selecting a system vendor  Objectives  Review processes and operational issues at a high level  Develop high-level understanding of key issues that: Support the vision set for by UVa leadership Address key current operational issues  Identify strategic issues for consideration by UVa leadership

Workshops: Process Flows

Workshops: Strategic Issues

Workshops: Academic Issues

REQUIREMENTS GATHERING How Unique is Unique, Really?

Requirements Gathering  Objective: Streamline and automate the system planning and selection process  Decision Director, from Advantiv, a web-based collaboration and decisions support tool  ~75 HE projects; 200+ institutions; over 45,000 participants

Requirements Gathering  Did not want to reinvent the requirements wheel Started with a comprehensive set of best-practice requirements Review, reorganize, and modify as necessary  Wanted to involve stakeholders Stakeholder buy-in and support is critical Must be easy for stakeholders to participate Goals: completeness, quality, speed

Decision Director

Timeline and Results  Requirements Gathering Timeline Preparation: 6/25-9/24 Stakeholder Input: 9/25-10/19 Validation:10/20-10/29  Requirements Gathering Results Input from 155 people 2,523 functional/technical requirements Foundation for RFI and vendor evaluation

Continued Review  Process Mapping Created Visio diagrams of all business processes  Tollgating Reviewed diagrams, contingency plans, etc., with stakeholders and governance groups.  Requirements Review Constantly review Decision Director requirements list to update how critical and important needs are being met

STRATEGIC SITE VISITS Learning from Others

Why Travel?  Learn Various vendors—strengths and shortcomings Evolution of project structures and timelines at other institutions  Gather primary lessons learned  Create resource network to use during the implementation  Involve key stakeholders

Who Should Travel?

Lessons Learned  Executive commitment and visible support is of paramount importance for project success.  Strategic policy and system-based decision making is required for project success.  Regular communication with appropriate administrators regarding policy and system issues is an effective risk mitigation strategy.

MANAGING INVOLVEMENT Stakeholder Structure and Organizational Tools

Stakeholder Structures  Governance Groups Executive Sponsorship – President’s Cabinet Institutional Policy Makers – Vice Presidents’ Designees Academic Policy Makers – Deans’ Designees  Advisory Groups System Advisors Faculty Advisors Student Advisors  Other Local Project Groups Issues of Common Interest (involving IT organization, etc.) UREG/SSP, SCPS, Financial Issues, etc. Student Lifecycle

Tools

CONTINUING TO COMMUNICATE Structure for Going Forward

Communicate Wisely  Choose Wisely! Key offices must be represented Size groups wisely – too many people at once doesn’t work Need people who know how things work, but also people thinking of how things might work Beware the toxic participants – oftentimes, you’re stuck with them

Communicate Wisely  Be Patient Everyone wants (needs) to be heard Groups need time to coalesce and compromise  Communicate, Communicate, Communicate Policy and procedure changes can’t be communicated too much Training, advertising, , etc.—all can help People are inclined to trust you; build on past relationships with your office

Policy Support  Deans’ Designees Policy decisions School-level communication New programs and degrees  Student Lifecycle Procedural changes Information sharing Common communication

Infrastructure Support  Draw down consultants  End date of 12/2009  Expect to join with Integrated System Deployment & Support Support upgrades and future modifications Help Desk

Conclusions  Involve stakeholders early and often  Encourage search for commonalities  Let stakeholders learn along with you  Set up structures and tools to facilitate continued stakeholder input and ownership  Share info on new programs and policy

QUESTIONS? Robert LeHeup Team Lead, Student Records and Academic Advisement UVa Student System Project