1 The University of Massachusetts A Multi-campus ERP Implementation Case Study: What Worked and What didn't Robert Solis Director, Information Technology

1

The University of MassachusettsThe University of Massachusetts

A Multi-campus ERP Implementation Case Study:A Multi-campus ERP Implementation Case Study:

What Worked and What didn'tWhat Worked and What didn't

Robert SolisDirector, Information Technology ServicesMarch 17th, 2003 – 8 am, Meeting Room A

NERCOMP 2003 Conference – Worcester, MA.

2

Copyright

Copyright Robert Solis, 2003 – University of Massachusetts.

This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

3

Themes for the DayThemes for the Day

• Chapter 1 - The BeginningChapter 1 - The Beginning• Chapter 2 - Transition/CollaborationChapter 2 - Transition/Collaboration• Chapter 3 - Staffing the ProjectChapter 3 - Staffing the Project• Chapter 4 - Project Structure and GovernanceChapter 4 - Project Structure and Governance• Chapter 5 - Project ExecutionChapter 5 - Project Execution• Chapter 6 - Go Live and Preparing for Chapter 6 - Go Live and Preparing for

Operations Operations

4

Chapter 1 – The BeginningChapter 1 – The Beginning

5

The BeginningThe Beginning• Some quick facts about UMASS-Some quick facts about UMASS-

– Established in 1863 in AmherstEstablished in 1863 in Amherst

– More than 70,000 students enrolled in undergraduate, More than 70,000 students enrolled in undergraduate, graduate and continuing studies programsgraduate and continuing studies programs

– 22,000 employees22,000 employees

– Annual payroll of $806 million ($31 million/pay period)Annual payroll of $806 million ($31 million/pay period)

– FY ’03 operating budget of $1.3 billionFY ’03 operating budget of $1.3 billion

1863 – Amherst

Agricultural College

Established

1947 – Amherst

Agricultural College

becomes U

MASS-Am

herst1952 – U

MASS-W

orcester

Established

1954 – UM

ASS-Boston

Established

1991 – UM

ASS-Dartm

outh and

UM

ASS-Lowell Established

2003 – 5 Cam

pus

System & the

President’s Office

6

The BeginningThe Beginning

• UMASS Consists of 5 campuses (Amherst, Boston, UMASS Consists of 5 campuses (Amherst, Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell and Worcester) and the President’s Dartmouth, Lowell and Worcester) and the President’s OfficeOffice

Worcester

AmherstPresident’s

OfficeLowell

Dartmouth

Boston

7


– Each campus and the President’s Office had their Each campus and the President’s Office had their own HRMS/Financials mainframe applicationsown HRMS/Financials mainframe applications

Worcester


OfficeLowell

Dartmouth

Boston

http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/800.html

http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/800.html

8


• Because the 5 campus/President’s Office UMASS system was in it’s infancy in the 90’s, 3 Because the 5 campus/President’s Office UMASS system was in it’s infancy in the 90’s, 3 autonomous PeopleSoft Projects had started (and stopped)…autonomous PeopleSoft Projects had started (and stopped)…– Each had their own project team, governance model, database, requirements, modifications, Each had their own project team, governance model, database, requirements, modifications,

consultants, budgets and timelinesconsultants, budgets and timelines– However, each had to meet the same Board of Trustees requirements and interface with the However, each had to meet the same Board of Trustees requirements and interface with the

President’s OfficePresident’s Office

Amherst (Project Pioneer)

•Started in 1999

Boston and Lowell

•Started in 1999

Dartmouth, President’s

Office, Worcester

•Started in 2000

Board of Trustees Requirements

Inte

rfa

ces

Inte

rfa

ces

Inte

rfa

ces Looks like silos to

me (trying to accomplish the same thing)…

9


Then someone had an idea in the new millennium…Then someone had an idea in the new millennium…

Why not consolidate projects?Why not consolidate projects?

Oh @#$%!Oh @#$%!

10

Chapter 2 – Transition/CollaborationChapter 2 – Transition/Collaboration

11

Transition/CollaborationTransition/Collaboration

The Transition Phase (May 2000 – July 2000):The Transition Phase (May 2000 – July 2000):

“ “The Summer Summit”The Summer Summit”

– Campus/President’s Office subject matter experts convened to:Campus/President’s Office subject matter experts convened to:

1.1. Agree on project logistics, staffing and governanceAgree on project logistics, staffing and governance2.2. Develop consolidated implementation work planDevelop consolidated implementation work plan3.3. Identify and prioritize application modifications, interfaces and reportsIdentify and prioritize application modifications, interfaces and reports4.4. Jointly design business processesJointly design business processes

12


A typical Transition Phase working sessionA typical Transition Phase working session

My campus can’t live without this report…

Why do we always have to do what Amherst wants?

Boston and Lowell have been talking and we’ve decided…

This is ridiculous, I’m outta here!

Better run that by the President’s Office… What you propose is

in violation of Trustee policy…

13


• Drivers for Consolidation vs. SeparationDrivers for Consolidation vs. Separation

– Standardization of university business processesStandardization of university business processes– Increased coordination/communication between campuses/President’s OfficeIncreased coordination/communication between campuses/President’s Office

• Formal and informal knowledge transfer networksFormal and informal knowledge transfer networks– One university applicationOne university application– Resulting in:Resulting in:

• Shared implementation costsShared implementation costs• Shared maintenance costsShared maintenance costs• Shared technology infrastructureShared technology infrastructure

14

What worked…

• Creating an immediate inventory of consolidation ‘topics’ to be tackled

• Agreeing quickly on the ‘summit’ participants• Making the commitment to focus on the

transition phase• Centralization of the project office; dedicated

work space to accommodate each work group

15

What didn't…

• Deliberation on EVERY issue, not always tailored to the net impact of the issue

• Not nearly enough time developing the work plan / project framework for the upcoming project

16

Chapter 3 – Staffing the ProjectChapter 3 – Staffing the Project

17

Internal Staffing

• Defining roles– What role would the campus and IT play

– Applications/module teams created

– Team leads assigned

• Functional/Business resources– Filled by campus central admin staff (HR and Finance)

• Technology resources– Created a central IT organization to manage the

project and assume operational responsibility at go-live

18

Consulting Staffing

• Selecting an implementation partner was a joint decision by the campus leadership

• Chose to ‘partner’ by segmenting the work 50/50 – UMass to Consulting

• Used management, applications and technical consulting in order to learn for future projects

19

What worked…

• Solid commitment for business knowledgeable project resources at each campus

• Each campus offered some level of ‘incentive’ for travel to the central project site

• Buy in from leadership and project team on:– Project location

– Expected time commitment to the project

– Who filled what role

• Good knowledge transfer from the consulting staff

20

What didn't…

• Project resources and the communication to leadership back at the campus

• ‘End users’ not involved at the right level• Filled internal staff positions late in the

process (hiring of PS expertise)• Multiple consulting partners relationship was

complex and ‘clumsy’ at times

21

Chapter 4 – Project Structure and GovernanceChapter 4 – Project Structure and Governance

22

Project Structure andProject Structure andGovernanceGovernance

ProjectImplementation Partner

UMass - HR, Financial & Administrative (PeopleSoft) Project OrganizationProject Sponsor

Administrative SystemsSteering Sub- Committee

Project Office Project Office DirectorProject Administration

PMT - Project Management Team

FinancialsBudgetProcurement

Human Res.

Facilities

Grants & Cont. Internal AuditInform. Serv.Dept Reps.

Student AdminAdvancement

Admin Systems Steering Committee

Project Management Team(PMT) Committee

Project Steering CommitteeFinancials

Project Steering CommitteeHuman Resources

Project Steering CommitteeStudent Administration

Project Modules

Project Manager

Project Modules

Project Manager

Project Modules

Project Manager

Representative Executive Membership

Project Advisor

23


UMass - Financial, HR & Administrative (PeopleSoft) Project Organization

Project Office

Project DirectorProject AdminstrationProject AdvisorProject Implementation PartnerProject Communications (PA)Internal Audit

Project Plan, BudgetMngmt, Scope, and

Communication

Financial Services/SystemsCo - Project ManagerInternal / Consultant

ModuleCo - Project LeadsInternal / Consultant

Functional LeadInternal / Consultant(s)

Technical LeadInternal / Consultant(s)

Functional SpecialistsInternal / Consultant(s)

Functional ResourcesInternal

Technical SpecialistsInternal / Consultant(s)

ProcessOwner(s)

Human Resources Services/SystemsCo - Project ManagerInternal / Consultant







ProcessOwner(s)

Student Admin Services/SystemsCo - Project ManagerInternal / Consultant







ProcessOwner(s)

Cross Project Organizational Standards and Support Efforts

End User and Remote Site Departmental Representation

Conversion Team (Standards, Approach, Dedicated Staffing (Internal & External)Team Lead

Testing Team (Standards, Approach, Dedicated Staffing (Internal & External)Team Lead

Training Team (Standards, Approach, Dedicated Staffing (Internal & External)Team Lead

Customizations, Reports and Interface(s) Team (Standards, Approach, Dedicated Staffing (Internal & External)Team Lead

Integration Team (Standards, Approach, Dedicated Staffing (Internal & External)Team Lead

Process and Operational Review & Design Team (Standards, Approach,Documentation, Dedicated Staffing (Internal & External)Team Lead

Quality Control, Internal Audit (Standards, Approach, Dedicated Staffing (Internal & External)Team Lead

Technical Infrastructure (Standards, Approach, Design, Setup - Dedicated Staffing (Internal & External)Team Lead

Project Documentation and CommunicationsTeam Lead

Security

and R

isk T

eam

Team

Lead

24


Enter the Governance Model…Enter the Governance Model…

Characteristics of the Governance ModelCharacteristics of the Governance Model

• Designed for decisions to made at the Designed for decisions to made at the appropriate project “level”appropriate project “level”

• Issue resolution/escalation process prevents Issue resolution/escalation process prevents items from being “tabled”items from being “tabled”

• Equal representation at all levels for each Equal representation at all levels for each campus/President’s Officecampus/President’s Office

• Clearly defined roles and responsibilitiesClearly defined roles and responsibilities

25


Culture Changes As a Result of the Governance ModelCulture Changes As a Result of the Governance Model

1.1. The old attitude of “that is unacceptable with my campus” became “I’d like to run that by the module team and see what everyone thinks”The old attitude of “that is unacceptable with my campus” became “I’d like to run that by the module team and see what everyone thinks”2.2. Application modifications were seriously questioned as to their necessityApplication modifications were seriously questioned as to their necessity3.3. System wide considerations were placed above campus considerationsSystem wide considerations were placed above campus considerations

26


Trustees/President

Owners' Cabinet

Finance CabinetHR Cabinet

ModuleSteward/

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team

ModuleStevard/

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team

Decision-making Policy Stream

University of MassachusettsApplication Governance Model - Refinements 10/30/02

CampusOwnerStudent CIO Council

CampusOwnerStudent

Integration Cabinet

CampusOwner'sStudent

ApplicationStewardCampusStudent

ApplicationSteward

HR

ApplicationStewardFinance

Shared Service Exec (Chair)Appl. Stewards

Appl. ExecsService Level Manager(s)/PMT(s)

ModuleSteward

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team

Grant MgmtBudgeting Controllers Procurement

A&F CouncilCabinet

The GovernanceModel

27


Issue Resolution/Escalation ProcessIssue Resolution/Escalation ProcessIssue/Decision

Work to

ResolveIssue/Decision

Review and Decide on

Issue/Decision

Document Resolution

Decide on Issue

DevelopConsensus

Decide on Issue/Decision

DevelopConsensus

Issue/DecisionResolved

Issue/DecisionResolved

Review Decision

with Application

Steward

Application Cabinet

Refer to Application

Cabinet

Module Steward

Module Team

Module Team

Application Cabinet

Close

No

Refer to Design

Phase or Integ.

CabinetYes

END

Yes

Module Team

No

Close Issue

Application Steward

No

Yes

No

Yes

28

Project Structure andProject Structure andGovernanceGovernancePutting it all together…The Governance Model Putting it all together…The Governance Model

Trustees/President

Owners' Cabinet


ModuleSteward/

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team

ModuleStevard/

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team




CampusOwnerStudent

Integration Cabinet



ApplicationSteward

HR




ModuleSteward

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team


A&F CouncilCabinet

29

Project Structure andProject Structure andGovernanceGovernanceSuperimposed with the…Project Management Organization Superimposed with the…Project Management Organization

Trustees/President

Owners' Cabinet


ModuleSteward/

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team

ModuleStevard/

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team




CampusOwnerStudent

Integration Cabinet



ApplicationSteward

HR




ModuleSteward

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team


A&F CouncilCabinet

UMass - Administrative & Financials (PeopleSoft) Governance Model

Ow ners CabinetJudge

Integration Cabinet(Full)

Shared Services Exec

Applications CabinetApplications Stew ard

Applications ExecutiveTechnical Exec -TE

Financials

Applications CabinetAplications Stew ard

Applications ExecutiveTechnical Exec -TEHuman Resources

Data Mgmt & ReportingAdvisory Group

DMS TBD

M odule S tewardsM odule Executives

M odule S tewardsM odule Executives Project Modules

Project Manager(s)

ITD AdvisoryTechnical Exec -TE

CampusStudent Administration

Project(s)

App ExecsTechnical ExecApp S tewards

Cam pusProjectM anagers

Cam pus S tudentReps

Internal AuditInst. Research

C am pus C IO 's, ITD irectors

30


Bring in the Project Organization Model…Bring in the Project Organization Model…

Trustees/President

Owners' Cabinet


ModuleSteward/

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team

ModuleStevard/

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team




CampusOwnerStudent

Integration Cabinet



ApplicationSteward

HR




ModuleSteward

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team


A&F CouncilCabinet







Financials




DMS TBD



Project Manager(s)



Project(s)






UMass - Administrative & Financials (PeopleSoft) Project Organization Model

University PS ProjectOffice

Project DirectorProject AdminstrationProject AdvisorProject Implementation PartnerInternal Audit/Quality AssuranceTechnical Administration

Project Admin &Budget


QA

P rocess and O perational Review & Design Team (S tandards, Approach,Docum entation)Lead

Q uality Control, In ternal Audit (S tandards, Approach), External Audits, S tate CertificationLead

TestingLead

TrainingLead

Project Docum entation, End-User, Technical, and O perational/Service Docum entationLead

CM

/Sta

nd

ard

s

Centra l/Cam pus Network End Users: Departm ent and Rem ote S ite RepresentationLiasion Netw ork

Tec

hnic

al

Sup

port

Conversion Team (S tandards, Approach, Dedicated S taffing (Internal & External)Team Lead

Custom izations, Reports and Interface(s) Team (S tandards, Approach, Dedicated S taffing (Internal & External)Team Lead

Integration Team (Design, S tandards, Approach)Team Lead

Technical Infrastructure (S tandards, Approach, Design, Setup - Dedicated S taffing (Internal & External)Team Lead

Security Team (S tandards, Approach)Team Lead

Campus FunctionalMembers

Financial Services/SystemsProject Manager

Internal (APM) / Consultant

Systems LeadsApplication &Technical

Apps Spec / Consultant(s)

Functional SpecialistsSM E's

Functional Resources

ModuleStew ards

Campus Functional Reps

Module Co- LeadsInternal / Consultant

App Stew ard/App Exec

Operations/Application Support

CampusStudent Admin Systems

Project Manager

Campus PM's

FunctionalSpecialists

TechnicalSpecialists


Data Mgmt/ReportingDMS/IE

Internal / Consultant TBD

Project Change MgmtCommunication


Human Resources Services/SystemsProject Manager






ModuleStew ards





31

Project Structure andProject Structure andGovernanceGovernanceNow add some clear decision-making process flows…Now add some clear decision-making process flows…

Trustees/President

Owners' Cabinet


ModuleSteward/

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team

ModuleStevard/

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team




CampusOwnerStudent

Integration Cabinet



ApplicationSteward

HR




ModuleSteward

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team


A&F CouncilCabinet







Financials




DMS TBD



Project Manager(s)



Project(s)











QA



TestingLead

TrainingLead


CM

/Sta

nd

ard

s


Tec

hnic

al

Sup

port













ModuleStew ards






Project Manager

Campus PM's














ModuleStew ards





R recom m endssolutions for

consideration

R docum entsrecom m endation,distributes to C 's

Decision Making and Communication ProcessSample process flowRelease Strategy8/30/00

ApplicationSteward reviewsrecom m endation

AE, TE reviewsrecom m endation

SSE reviewsrecom m endation

Judge reviewsrecom m endation

Feedback?

Yes

SSE review forapproval

AE review forapproval

AS review forapproval

M ove to approvalphase

No

Approval?No

Invoke appealprocess?

Yes

A

R packagesdecision

com m unicationand distributes to

all N 's

Yes

Subm it feedbackback to R forconsideration

No

University of Massachusetts

32

Project Structure andProject Structure andGovernanceGovernanceAnd bring in your implementation partners…viola!And bring in your implementation partners…viola!

Trustees/President

Owners' Cabinet


ModuleSteward/

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team

ModuleStevard/

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team




CampusOwnerStudent

Integration Cabinet



ApplicationSteward

HR




ModuleSteward

Team

ModuleSteward/

Team


A&F CouncilCabinet







Financials




DMS TBD



Project Manager(s)



Project(s)











QA



TestingLead

TrainingLead


CM

/Sta

nd

ard

s


Tec

hnic

al

Sup

port













ModuleStew ards






Project Manager

Campus PM's














ModuleStew ards





R recom m endssolutions for

consideration

R docum entsrecom m endation,distributes to C 's

Decision Making and Communication ProcessSample process flowRelease Strategy8/30/00

ApplicationSteward reviewsrecom m endation

AE, TE reviewsrecom m endation

SSE reviewsrecom m endation

Judge reviewsrecom m endation

Feedback?

Yes

SSE review forapproval

AE review forapproval

AS review forapproval

M ove to approvalphase

No

Approval?No

Invoke appealprocess?

Yes

A

R packagesdecision

com m unicationand distributes to

all N 's

Yes

Subm it feedbackback to R forconsideration

No

University of Massachusetts

$$

33

What worked…

• Cross campus collaboration and sharing of ideas was invaluable (and continues to be so)

• Decision making at the project and executive level effective

• Effective tracking of issues throughout

34

What didn't…

• Tendency for everyone to want to be involved with everything

• At time practice of governance not true to model

• Reliance on the strongest resources created unbalanced workloads for some

35

Chapter 5 – Project ExecutionChapter 5 – Project Execution

36

Project ExecutionProject Execution

• Phases spanning 2+ years of work– Application and infrastructure

• Configuration• Design• Build and Test• Deploy

37

Project ExecutionProject Execution

6/00 1/01 5/01 9/01 1/02 5/02 9/02 1/036/00 1/01 5/01 9/01 1/02 5/02 9/02 1/036/00 1/01 5/01 9/01 1/02 5/02 9/02 1/03

Human Resources

Financials

Human Resources

Financials

Strategic and General Design




Design and ImplementDesign and Implement




Post-Production Support

Post-Production Support

Go live!

Broadly, the e*mpac Project timeline is depicted below:

Stabilization& Bridging

Stabilization

=KEY

38

What worked…

• Communication– List serves established (different e-mail

systems)

– Status reporting for key audiences

• Strong testing effort and documentation• Effective modification approval process• Solid change control tracking

39

What didn't…

• Communication– Sometimes not timely

– Better tailoring of focus needed for the audience

• Meetings– Perception of too many meetings

– Many meetings too long in duration

• Not enough time spent understanding each phase prior to starting that phase

40

What didn't…

• Better/more end to end testing• Need to focus on performance testing MUCH

earlier• Map out database instance definitions earlier

41

Chapter 6 – Go-Live andChapter 6 – Go-Live andPreparing for OperationsPreparing for Operations

42

Go-LiveGo-Live

• Go live readiness– Developed a detailed go live readiness criteria list with

go/no go decision scoring for each criteria

– Held readiness meetings with 5 different key constituency groups at 3 different intervals prior to go-live

• Project office• Project management team• Core project teams• Campus leadership teams• Applications Cabinet teams

43

Preparing for Operations

• Developed operations processes concurrent with go live planning and execution

• Utilized Sr. Project Manager to organize required operations processes (‘run book’)

• Established teams of cross IT groups to develop and test required processes

44

What worked…

• Go live preparation and execution• Campus readiness, preparation and

participation• Post go live support structure and

commitment – ‘Command Central’• Tiered support structure

– Tier I – Campus help desk– Tier II – Campus application experts– Tier III – Central IT group

45

What didn't…

• Definition of end user applications expectations not done early

• Applications operations and support processes developed far too late (should have started prior to go live prep and rollout)

• Remember transition/collaboration 2nd bullet: Not nearly enough time developing the work

plan / project framework for the upcoming project

46

End ProductEnd Product

A consolidated HRMS/Financials Application and shared technology A consolidated HRMS/Financials Application and shared technology infrastructureinfrastructure

A path to a competitive futureA path to a competitive future

Worcester


OfficeLowell

Dartmouth

Boston

47

Key takeaways fromKey takeaways fromthis sessionthis session

• Spend time up front:– Building your team– Building a governance model– Developing project methodologies– Developing an issues management process

• Keep an operational focus (early on)• Define communication protocols, formal and informal• Focus early on expectations management• Get buy in from as many levels of constituencies as

possible

48

Questions:Questions:

Robert Solis, Director, Information Technology ServicesRobert Solis, Director, Information Technology ServicesUniversity of MassachusettsUniversity of Massachusetts

[email protected]

Documents

1 The University of Massachusetts A Multi-campus ERP Implementation Case Study: What Worked and What didn't Robert Solis Director, Information Technology