Effective Shareholder Engagement in Key Activities at the University of Virginia

1. Effective Involvement of Shareholders in Key Activities SACRAO 2009 February 10, 2009 Session T1.10

2. The University of Virginia • Founded in 1819 by Thomas Jefferson • Enrollment: 13,762 undergraduate, 6,629 graduate & professional • 2008 Budget: $2.2 billion total; $1.2 billion academic division • Endowment: 4.0 billion (last time we checked) • 21,511 applications for 3,170 UG slots • 6 year graduation rate: 93.1%

4. Background • Implemented Oracle 11.0.3 Finance in July 2001 • Implemented Oracle 11.0.3 Payroll and HR in October 2002 • In March 2006, selected Oracle (former PeopleSoft) Campus Solutions 9.0 for Student Information System

5. Student System Project (SSP) • Project Team: 46 team members plus 7 additional UVa personnel allocated to the project at varying levels of involvement • Consulting Team: 16 full-time and additional consultants • Timeline: Deployment activities began 1/2007; phased go-live of modules concludes in fall 2009

6. Silo Spotting Early involvement

7. Workshops • Goal • Develop broad models for global business processes that help define requirements in advance of selecting a system vendor • Objectives • Review processes and operational issues at a high level • Develop high-level understanding of key issues that: • Support the vision set for by UVa leadership • Address key current operational issues • Identify strategic issues for consideration by UVa leadership

8. Workshops: Process Flows

9. Workshops: Process Flows

10. Workshops: Strategic Issues

11. Workshops: Academic Issues

12. How Unique is Unique, Really? Requirements gathering

13. Requirements Gathering • Objective: Streamline and automate the system planning and selection process • Decision Director, from Advantiv, a web-based collaboration and decisions support tool • ~75 HE projects; 200+ institutions; over 45,000 participants

14. Requirements Gathering • Did not want to reinvent the requirements wheel • Started with a comprehensive set of best-practice requirements • Review, reorganize, and modify as necessary • Wanted to involve stakeholders • Stakeholder buy-in and support is critical • Must be easy for stakeholders to participate • Goals: completeness, quality, speed

15. Decision Director

16. Timeline and Results • Requirements Gathering Timeline • Preparation: 6/25-9/24 • Stakeholder Input: 9/25-10/19 • Validation: 10/20-10/29 • Requirements Gathering Results • Input from 155 people • 2,523 functional/technical requirements • Foundation for RFI and vendor evaluation

17. Continued Review • Process Mapping • Created Visio diagrams of all business processes • Tollgating • Reviewed diagrams, contingency plans, etc., with stakeholders and governance groups. • Requirements Review • Constantly review Decision Director requirements list to update how critical and important needs are being met

18. Learning from Others Strategic Site visits

19. Why Travel? • Learn • Various vendors—strengths and shortcomings • Evolution of project structures and timelines at other institutions • Gather primary lessons learned • Create resource network to use during the implementation • Involve key stakeholders

20. Who Should Travel?

21. Lessons Learned • Executive commitment and visible support is of paramount importance for project success. • Strategic policy and system-based decision making is required for project success. • Regular communication with appropriate administrators regarding policy and system issues is an effective risk mitigation strategy.

22. Stakeholder Structure and Organizational Tools Managing Involvement

23. Stakeholder Structures • Governance Groups • Executive Sponsorship – President’s Cabinet • Institutional Policy Makers – Vice Presidents’ Designees • Academic Policy Makers – Deans’ Designees • Advisory Groups • System Advisors • Faculty Advisors • Student Advisors • Other • Local Project Groups • Issues of Common Interest (involving IT organization, etc.) • UREG/SSP, SCPS, Financial Issues, etc. • Student Lifecycle

24. Tools

25. Structure for Going Forward Continuing to Communicate

26. Communicate Wisely • Choose Wisely! • Key offices must be represented • Size groups wisely – too many people at once doesn’t work • Need people who know how things work, but also people thinking of how things might work • Beware the toxic participants – oftentimes, you’re stuck with them

27. Communicate Wisely • Be Patient • Everyone wants (needs) to be heard • Groups need time to coalesce and compromise • Communicate, Communicate, Communicate • Policy and procedure changes can’t be communicated too much • Training, advertising, e-mail, etc.—all can help • People are inclined to trust you; build on past relationships with your office

28. Policy Support • Deans’ Designees • Policy decisions • School-level communication • New programs and degrees • Student Lifecycle • Procedural changes • Information sharing • Common communication

29. Infrastructure Support • Draw down consultants • End date of 12/2009 • Expect to join with Integrated System Deployment & Support • Support upgrades and future modifications • Help Desk

30. Conclusions • Involve stakeholders early and often • Encourage search for commonalities • Let stakeholders learn along with you • Set up structures and tools to facilitate continued stakeholder input and ownership • Share info on new programs and policy

31. Robert LeHeupTeam Lead, Student Records and Academic AdvisementUVa Student System Projectrdl9e@virginia.edu Questions?