1. When Things Go Right Cornell’s PeopleSoft 8.9 Upgrade Lisa Stensland Manager, CIT Project Management Office May 15, 2008

2. Agenda Challenge Change in Methodology and How We Manage Resources Results

3. Challenge Two critical projects competing for resources –Upgrade PeopleSoft (HR, Payroll, Contributor Relations) from 8.0 to 8.9 –Implement PeopleSoft Student Administration modules Technical implementations could not overlap They both must be done ASAP

4. Analysis Conducted forecasting of schedule and budget for multiple options –Upgrade first, then implement Student Admin …or… –Implement Student Admin, then upgrade the whole thing Decision –Upgrade first, do it as quickly as possible

5. What We Knew The forecasting effort indicated that the PS 8.9 Upgrade project would take approximately 15-18 months to complete –Late Summer 2005 - Spring 2007 We spent 3 months doing more detailed planning, which resulted –Targeted completion in Winter of 2006 –Estimated $5M budget

6. What We Knew The timing of a Fall 2006 upgrade was not ideal –Competing business cycles –A “tax/fix version” of PS comes out at that time, and how would we address that? How do we bring the schedule in further when all our planning indicates that we can’t?

7. I did some digging….

8. Critical Chain Project Management A way to schedule and track a project that encourages: –Aggressive scheduling –Team Focus –Team ownership of the project commitment

9. The old way…. Create list of tasks Project Manager asks, “How long will each task take?” Well…about 5 days + I am working on another project + I get interrupted alot + Something usually goes wrong So…10 days!

10. Safety in estimation Time needed to protect the work estimate commitment from: –Murphy’s Law - what can go wrong, will go wrong –Distraction –Multi-tasking

11. Parkinson’s Law Work expands to fill the time allotted

12. “Student Syndrome” Many people will start to fully apply themselves to a task at the last possible moment before a deadline.

13. What do these factors do to a project? It is normal to focus on task ‘due dates’ Student Syndrome -> Late starts Parkinson’s Law –If nothing goes wrong, the task will finish on time –If something goes wrong, the task will likely finish late Late tasks on the critical path will delay the project

14. What should be done differently? Remove the safety from the individual tasks Safety Move it to the end…the Project Buffer Safety End Earliest Possible Finish Committed Finish

15. Refocus the team on… Starting tasks on time Completing tasks as aggressively as possible Managing the amount of Project Buffer that is consumed –Project Buffer is consumed when a task on the critical path is late –Project Buffer is replenished when a task on the critical path is early

16. July October December

18. What Had to Change? Estimate aggressively by removing safety from individual tasks –Trust management to not hold staff accountable to aggressive estimates without safety Put safety where the project can use it Minimize multi-tasking Track progress using buffer consumption –Not individual milestones!

19. Benefits Protection against Murphy’s Law Took advantage of early finishes Team protected the project buffer Opportunity for team to focus Sponsor visibility to what is possible vs realistic Better visibility to when project is in trouble

20. The Results? Team cutover to PeopleSoft 8.9 in July 2006 –Our most aggressive possible go-live! Project delivered 40% under-budget –$3M spent –$2M saved Staff time not needed - $1.3M Unused contingency - $500K

21. Moral of the story… Encourage aggressive planning by developing trust between management and the team Allow staff to focus on one task at a time rather than multitask across projects Implement mechanisms that encourage the team to protect the project commitment, rathern than individual commitments

22. More information… Critical Chain Project Management –http://www.focusedperformance.com/articles/ccpm.htmlhttp://www.focusedperformance.com/articles/ccpm.html