1. Project Intake, Evaluation and Decision Making Process Summary & Recommendations
September 11, 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/Classification 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
Minimize duplications and redundancies
Assess impact on IT infrastructure/resources capacities
Innovation – recognize/encourage innovative services
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

5. Assumptions
Mandatory: All IT project proposals will go through the process
Vast majority of projects are expected to have their own funding:
This is NOT a “request for funding” process
Request for campus funding: A prioritized list will be taken to campus 3 times a year: September, January, May
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…
“a request by a campus unit to create or significantly modify an IT service – including expanding the scope, functionality and/or capabilities of existing services - that is owned by the campus unit (department, college, school, administrative 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. Who Can Submit a Project; Project Sponsor; Notifications to Divisional Officials
Divisional CIOs have the authority to submit proposals. They can delegate that authority.
The divisional CIO should receive a copy of the proposal.
If a proposal seeks campus funding: The divisional CIO will notify divisional officials (dean/director; associate dean/director; CFO) so they can weigh in on the proposal.
A project proposal should have a sponsor. Typically - the owner/manager of the business process and/or functionality that the proposed IT service will support. The sponsor must approve the submission.

11. Intake Form Intake Form includes:
Project name and description; Proposer and sponsor information
Reasons for – Purpose of - the Project
Proposed solution or general approach
Alignment with the campus strategic framework
Similar existing campus IT services or IT projects

12. Intake Form (continued)
Intake Form includes:
Potential to become campus-wide service
Privacy, security concerns
Estimated cost and effort to complete and implement the project; to operate the solution
Scope of Impact, Including:
Users/Customers; Total Num. of People
that will be Impacted
Impact on IT Resources/Infrastructure Capacities

13. Project Classification
Scoring Process
Scoring/Classification Process
10 questions will be scored
Each question will be scored on a scale of 1, 3, 5. Some of the questions are weighted
Aggregate weighted score determines Project Classification
Aggregate Score
Project Classification
Low Impact
Medium Impact
High Impact

14. 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

15. Review in the CIO Office; “Red flags”
Additional information will be collected for Medium and High Impact proposals.
The initial review in the CIO Office will focus on proposals that need further scrutiny: Identify proposals that raise “red flags:”
Seek campus funding
Duplicate existing services and/or projects
Have significant impact on the campus IT resources/infrastructure capabilities
Have the potential to become shared, campus-wide services; could benefit multiple campus units.
Have Federal, state or campus policy compliance implications

16. Review by Advisory Groups:
Review proposals; do additional analysis as they see fit. May interact with proposers and consult with subject matter experts (SMEs).
Review will primarily focus on the issues that need scrutiny by IT governance, that is, on the “red flags.”
Make recommendations to the IT Steering Committee (ITSC) as necessary.

17. 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

18. Decision-Making
The IT Steering Committee (ITSC) will make decisions about project proposals, based on recommendations by the Advisory Groups
Will focus on major issues and considerations (“red flags” issues)
Prioritize high impact projects, assemble a prioritized list of requests for campus funding, and take other necessary action(s). IT leadership will go to campus three times a year with a prioritized list of funding requests

19. Implementation Plan The Intake Process will “go live” on Oct. 1, 2017
Review Team in the CIO Office:
Executives/directors in the CIO Office.
Chairs of the Advisory Groups: DTAG, TLTAG, RTAG, IAG.
Professional staff: Business Analyst(s); Enterprise Architect(s).
Subject Matter Experts (as needed)
Administrative staff.

20. Implementation Plan (continued)
Reviewing issues that require further scrutiny (“red flags”):
Proposals that seem to duplicate an existing service or project:
The proposer/sponsor will be required to meet with the IT and/or business sponsors of the existing similar services/projects in order to explore opportunities for collaboration and consolidation.
Proposals with significant impact on campus IT infrastructure and resources:
Review group will periodically aggregate the impact of proposals on the campus IT infrastructure and resources.
Will discuss the aggregate impact with the “owners/managers” of IT infrastructure and resources in order to assess the effect on the campus infrastructure capacities and capabilities.

21. Implementation Plan (continued)
Review by Advisory Groups:
Cross-TAGs Standing Review Group, composed of:
TAG members.
Non-TAG members
Subject-Matter Experts (SMEs) (as needed).
May also engage proposers/project-sponsors.
TAGs authorize the TAGs Review Group to act on behalf of the TAGs.
Analysis will primarily focus on “red flag” issues. The Group will present its analysis and recommendations to the Advisory Groups.
Review will be done monthly.

22. Advisory Groups Recommendations to the ITSC: Template
Project
Name
Descrip-
tion
Red Flags
summary
analysis
reco-
mend-
ations
Prio-
rities
campus
funding
duplicate
service
impact on
infra-
structure
poten.
to be shared
compli-
ance
issues

23. Communication Plan Interim CIO: To Campus Leadership, Deans
CIO Office:
Broader Message to all TAG members, Associate Deans/Directors, etc.
Orientation sessions to explain the Intake Form and submission process
“Project Intake Procedures and Guidelines” document

24. Communication Plan (continued):
Value to “end users:”
Communications will emphasize/demonstrate the VALUE of the Intake process to “end users:”
The campus already has a license for this software that a proposer requests.
The existence of similar services that satisfy the needs/requirements of a proposed project.
Providing help to users as early as possible in the submission process; Helping them get the necessary resources they need.
Assessing the impact on the campus infrastructure and IT resources – will benefit everyone on campus.
Contributing to the “greater good on the campus” will benefit everyone.

25. 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 that will help Advisory Groups in making recommendations to the ITSC and that may need further scrutiny by the ITSC?

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