1. CHECO Spring 2011 Conference
CIO Corner: Project Prioritization and Communication Panel Prepared by: Rick Beck; Director, IT Application Services
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

2. CHECO Spring 2011 Conference
Background
Institution size
Bachelors and now 3 masters programs
About 33,000 unduplicated heads per year
24,000 per term
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

3. Background (Continued)
Funds annually for projects
Depends, and is based on approved mission-related projects
<$500,000 although this year over $1M
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

4. Background (Continued)
Number of working/planned projects and initiatives in Central IT:
About 30 IT staff to work on 80 or so projects
Size range from 2 weeks to year +
Projects completed by staff with ongoing duties
Percentage of time to work on projects varies from 15% to 60% (est.)
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

5. Background (Continued)
IT Governance:
Due to reorganization, new organization not determined.
Past included the STAC (Strategic Technology Advisor Committee)
Made up of chairs of other committees (Banner Managers, Lab Advisory), faculty from each school (3), Select IT Directors and the VP for IT
This Committee was never asked to prioritize projects.
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

6. Process for Prioritizing
Prioritization based on 3 levels:
Up to 5 “Gold” projects which are of highest institutional priority
Up to 5 “Silver” projects per Director’s area, as determined by individual director.
Other
Rightsizing with Technology Initiative:
Projects prioritized by the sponsor
Ease of Implementation
Easy, medium, hard
Benefit
High, medium, low
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

7. Criteria for Prioritizing
Mandate (State, Federal, etc)
Mission related
Reputation
Available Funding
Breadth of benefit
Efficiencies, positive ROI, or cost avoidance
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

8. Additional Criteria when Scheduling:
Staff Skillset availability
When needed:
E.g. can only implement at beginning of a term, calendar or fiscal year boundary.
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

9. List and Rank including weighting systems, etc.
10 years ago attempted to create a weighting system.
On 2 occasions IT staff attempted to have ‘prioritization sessions’.
Took 4 hours to prioritize 4 projects.
Abandoned as too clumsy and time-consuming.
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

10. Communicating Projects:
Complaints of campus constituents:
IT is ‘doing nothing’ due to IT not communicating its activities.
Frustration not knowing where their project is in the queue.
Lesson learned: Need to communicate activities
Where communicated:
College web site or perhaps Microsoft SharePoint site
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

11. Communicating Projects: (continued)
What to include:
List of projects including:
Name, Sponsor, Stakeholders, PM, start and end dates, current status, and planned activities for next ‘n’ weeks into the future.
Updated Project Plan:
Charter
Requirements Document
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

12. Communication Tools Used
Old Methods:
Project Plans:
Old tools included MS Project, Excel Spreadsheets.
Project Listings:
Excel Spreadsheets
New Methods not determined:
Many freeware tools available for Project Plans, and already looked at CorasWorks PPM to work with Sharepoint.
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

13. Keeping Project Info Current
How kept up-to-date
Directors responsible for keeping Master lists updated.
Project leads responsible for keeping plans updated.
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

14. CHECO Spring 2011 Conference
Challenges
Prioritizing projects in an objective manner and being fair.
Using a Consistent Toolset for tracking.
Over-committing of some staff.
Estimating Project rigor and duration:
Allowing for ‘ongoing work’
Items out of IT’s control like contracting.
Training for Staff.
Time allowance to keep plans updated.
Scope control. …
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

15. Differences between Higher Ed and Business
CIO.com says:
Only 10% of companies have a set prioritization policy.
Only 1/3 have a prioritization process.
(Translation: Business has trouble with this too.)
Business Criteria:
alignment with Organizational goals, type of Project (Compliance, Strategic, Tactical, Quick-Win, and Support), Cost/Benefit Analysis and Constrained date.
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

16. Business Scoring methods
One dimensional Scoring Grid
Different evaluation criteria are given as scoring option and if a project gets negative in any of such criteria, it will be given the lowest priority.
Two Dimensional Scoring Model
In this model, two relative questions are mapped with the scoring points.
Weightage Scheme
In this model, all criteria are given weightage based on their importance in any organization and projects are grouped as per the scores.
One Dimensional example:
Criteria: Alignment with Organization Goals
Project aligns to 3 or more Goals (+ve) * Project aligns to one or more Goals (neutral) * Project aligns to none of Goals (-ve)
Two Dimensional example:
For eg:
Criteria: What is the geographic extent of the implementation of the project? What is the base of the reason?
* Global * Regional * Local * Base anecdotal moderate conclusive
Weightage Scheme Example:
Criteria: Type of Project
* Compliance 5 * Strategic 3 * Support 2
Criteria: Alignment with Business Goals
3 or more goals 5 * 2 Goals 3 * 1 Goal 1
04/13/2011
CHECO Spring 2011 Conference

17. Questions