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

2. 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.

3. Business Process Re-engineering: Hype or Reality?
BPA’s

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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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

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

12. Contact
Nela Petkovic
CIO
x3899

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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

20. 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

21. 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)

22. Re-engineered Process

23. Re-engineered communications

24. 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

25. 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)

26. 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

27. 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

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

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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. University of Toronto - CAUBO 2015

37. 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

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

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