1. Project Intake, Evaluation and Decision Making Process Proposed Recommendations
August 8, 2017

2. Agenda Scope of Work Objectives and Principles Assumptions
Overall Approach
Proposed Process
Implementation, Communication Plans

3. Scope of Work Develop “IT Project Proposal” Definition
Create Project Proposal Intake Template
Develop Scoring Methodology, Routing Strategy
Route Proposals through IT Governance
Identify Issues, Types of Proposals that may Need Further Scrutiny by the IT Steering Committee (ITSC)

4. Objectives and Principles
Rationalization - create rational, effective, consistent framework
Prioritization – no more “one-off” project evaluation, funding requests
Governance driven, collaborative, transparent, expert-based
Agility and flexibility – easily modified/improved; “One size does not fit all.”
Pace/Speed – rapid evaluation and decision-making
Innovation – recognize/encourage innovative services
Minimize duplications and redundancies
Identify IT infrastructure/resource requirements

5. Assumptions
Mandatory: All IT project proposals will go through the process
Service Catalog and Project Repository will be used
Adequate professional and administrative staff

6. Overall Approach Two Workgroups were Created
Project Proposal Intake, Scoring and Routing
Project Prioritization and Recommendation
Various Sources were used by Groups, Including EITDM Materials

7. Committee Members Tamra Dagnon Senior IT Business Analyst, DoIT
J.J. Du Chateau
Enterprise Architect, DoIT (Chair of Subgroup B)
John Ford
Deputy Director, Academic Technology, DoIT
Eric Giefer
Director Information Technology, Law School
Karen Hanson
Manager Project Management Office, DoIT
Elizabeth Harris
Director of CEETE, College of Engineering
Phil Hull
Associate Registrar, Enrollment Management
Rafi Lazimy
Exec Dir IT Planning & Strategy, CIO Office (Chair)
Sabrina Messer
Manager User Services, School of Education
Alan Ng
Dir Outreach Tech & Faculty, Div of Continuing Studies
David Pagenkopf
Director of Application Development & Integration, DoIT
Jason Pursian
Interim CIO, College of Agriculture & Life Sciences
Greg Putnam
Sr Info Proc Consultant, College of Letters & Sciences
Bruce Riley
Procurement Specialist, Purchasing Services
Alan Silver
Comp Sys Admin, Dept of Chemistry (Chair of Subgroup A)
Sara Tate-Pederson
IS Specialist, AIMS
David Towers
CFO, Wisconsin School of Business
Steve Van Der Weide
Dir of IT Solutions, Wisconsin School of Business

8. Definition of “IT Project Proposal”
A “Project Proposal” is a…
“Request by a campus unit to implement an IT service that is owned by the campus unit and is designed to support the mission and the operational and managerial business needs of the unit with well-defined business outcomes. The service employs information technologies and resources, people, and processes to collect, manipulate, store and disseminate information to achieve its objectives.”

9. Types of Services Customer Facing Infrastructure Services
Projects that aim to develop or re-design services that deliver value to customers by facilitating outcomes customers want to achieve
Infrastructure Services
Projects that aim to develop or re-design services that deliver core infrastructure functionalities that enable customer-facing services
Innovative Projects
Proposals that aim to create new, innovative IT services

10. Intake Form Intake Form includes:
Project Name and Description; Contact Info
Reasons for – Purpose of - the Project
Scope of Impact, Including:
Users/Customers; Total Num. of People
that will be Impacted
Privacy, Security Concerns
Cost and Effort Estimates: to Implement; to Operate
Impact on IT Resources/Infrastructure Capacities

11. Project Classification
Scoring Process
Scoring Process
10 questions will be scored
Each question will be scored on a scale of:
0 – Low Impact
2 – Medium Impact
4 – High Impact
Aggregate Score determines Project Classification
Aggregate Score
Project Classification
0 - 13
Low Impact
Medium Impact
26+
High Impact

12. Approval Process Review and Approval Low Impact Proposals
Approved “automatically”
Medium and High Impact Proposals
Route to Relevant TAGs for review, recommendations
to ITSC
Review may require additional information
Route to ITSC for decision-making

13. Review by Advisory Groups
Advisory Groups are encouraged to identify proposals that need further scrutiny by the ITSC. Examples:
Duplicate existing services and/or projects
Have potential to become shared, campus-wide services
Have significant impact on (1) the campus portfolio of core IT infrastructure, and/or (2) the campus IT resources/infrastructure capabilities
Meet compliance and other mandated requirements, and/or significantly reduce the risk to UW-Madison
Need campus funding
Are innovative and/or ”interesting”

14. Review by Advisory Groups (continued)
Advisory Groups are encouraged to:
Establish a process to manage, review, make recommendations to the ITSC
Appoint standing and/or ad-hoc committees/subgroups to review, make recommendations
Establish and maintain a uniform, consistent format for making recommendations to ITSC:
Initial “context” list: Items in the previous slide

15. Implementation Plan Team-Based: Executives/Directors in the CIO Office
Professional Staff
Subject-Matter Experts (as needed)
Admin Staff
Project Portfolio/Repository

16. Communication Plan To Campus Leadership, Deans
Broader Message to Associate Deans/Directors
Announce the new process on Oct. 1, 2017, and invite units to start submitting proposals

17. Discussion Questions:
Are we missing any relevant questions in the Intake Process?
2. Are we missing important impact filtering questions?
3. Do you recommend other issues, considerations, and types of proposals - in addition to the ones listed in Section 9.c - that will help Advisory Groups in making recommendations to the ITSC and that may need further scrutiny by the ITSC?

18. Project Intake, Evaluation and Decision Making Process – Questions?
Thank you for your time and attention!