CRP Evaluation Analysis Sunflower Project Chris Lewis, Stacey Calhoon and Annette Witt January 13, 2009

2 About Survey Sent to all CRP participants on December 19 –Cutoff Date – January 8, 2009 (3 weeks to respond) –One survey per person Ex: 1 CRP attended = 1 Survey, 10 CRPs attended = 1 Survey –130 – CRP Participants Surveyed Questions About: –Name, Title and Agency –CRPs attended –Reactions to CRPs –Ways to be effectively engaged by Sunflower Project –General Comments about the CRPs

3 Purpose of Survey Obtain feedback to prepare for future agency meetings and workshops Why? –Feedback Will identify what was good about CRP interactions and what needs improvements –Project Growth Improved Ideas, Processes Maintain and Build agency relationships

4 Response Statistics Sent to: –130 Participants – sent to primary contact for each agency advising them of the survey Responses: –68 Total Responses through January 8, % Response Rate

5 CRPs Respondents Participated In:

6 Reactions to CRPs The CRPs were generally presented in an appropriate format: –4.07 out of 5(81.4%) –Comments: Info/Requirements before meeting. Bigger Conference Rooms Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeitherAgreeStrongly Agree

7 Reactions to CRPs Clearly described purposes of the CRP session: –4.25 out of 5(85.0%) Adequate time was devoted to cover CRP subject matters: –3.90 out of 5(78.0%) Interact about session content with Sunflower Project Team Members at an appropriate level of detail: –4.08 out of 5(81.6%) Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeitherAgreeStrongly Agree

8 Reactions to CRPs Interact with Sunflower Project Team Members about session content for an appropriate amount of time: –4.05 out of 5(81.0%) Interact with other participants about session content at an appropriate level of detail: –3.92 out of 5(78.4%) Interact with other participants about the session content for an appropriate amount of time: –3.88 out of 5(77.6%) Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeitherAgreeStrongly Agree

9 Reactions to CRPs Representatives from other agencies actively participated in the CRP process: –4.02 out of 5(80.4%) My agency's business requirements were adequately captured during the CRPs: –3.44 out of 5(68.8%) The CRP format was an effective way for me to participate in the Sunflower Project: –3.97 out of 5(79.4%) Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeitherAgreeStrongly Agree

10 Feedback Positive –Beneficial and Very Informative –Very high knowledge level –Willingness to be as involved as needed

11 Feedback Negative –Allow more than one person to attend meetings –Not feasible to participate in multiple CRP tracks See whole picture See more interaction between modules –Half Day sessions Smaller agencies need/want to attend all meetings, but cannot afford to be out of office all day, everyday –Timing Agencies would like to receive specific CRP information before the sessions to adequately assess –To have the right people at the right sessions If the presentation is going to be cut short (by 1-2 hours) possibly doing multiple sessions in one time slot. –For Agency Reps not working downtown

12 Summary Agencies want more –More one on one time with Project staff –More knowledge of PeopleSoft functionality –More knowledge of PeopleSoft integration –More communication on decisions like SHaRP, Time and Labor, COA, Program Codes –How the FMS will work for their agencies

13 Summary Finance Team take-a-ways –Provide future meeting information in advance if possible –Be respectful of agency staff time –Provide follow up information –More sessions –More participants –Smaller groups

14 Questions and Answers?