Download Formalizing Enterprise IT Project Management

Formalizing Enterprise IT
Project Management
Mary L. Pretz-Lawson, Carnegie Mellon University
ECAR Research Bulletin 5, 2010
4772 Walnut Street, Suite 206
•
Boulder, Colorado 80301
•
educause.edu/ecar
Overview
Don’t undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly impossible.
—Edwin Land (Polaroid camera inventor)
When do you introduce more project management culture into higher education
information technology (IT)? How do you successfully introduce structured project
management into an academic culture that rewards individual creativity and ad hoc
problem solving? What are the risks of over-managing highly competent professional
staff members who are not motivated by “bottom line” requirements? What are the risks
of mismanaging capital resources that are allocated to IT?
In Computing Services at Carnegie Mellon, we introduced project management to
manage large, expensive projects in ways that demonstrated accountability and built
credibility with our business partners. In 2005, we received special funding over three
years for five large infrastructure projects in our data center, network, and classrooms.
The Computing Services Project Management Office (PMO) managed the planning and
tracking for these projects to assure that we successfully completed them on time and
on budget. Today, Computing Services has again received special funding, this time to
implement major changes to Carnegie Mellon’s infrastructure and enterprise
applications. The project teams, with the help of the PMO and campus business
partners, are using a common methodology to frame and plan projects involved in these
application upgrades. By adhering to a common project management methodology, the
vice provost’s office (VPO)—consisting of Vice Provost and Chief Information Officer
(VP/CIO) Joel Smith and Executive Director Carrie Regenstein—can sequence and
execute the university’s mission-critical applications without over-committing staff
resources within central IT and business units.
This research bulletin discusses how formal enterprise IT project management can be
applied to IT projects when the scope, cost, and external controls put them into a
different league from typical internal IT projects. The bulletin describes how the rigor of
the formal project management structure can become a model for planning, approval,
review, and cost control in similar large IT projects.
Highlights
At Carnegie Mellon University, Computing Services provides IT infrastructure and
services to support the research and education missions. The division’s 220 staff report
to the VPO.
The Computing Services PMO was created in 2003 with one staff person. Its goal was to
increase planning and project management within central IT. Before this time,
Computing Services had pockets of project management process, but there was no
accepted project management culture or standard framework. The PMO developed a
planning and project management framework to promote early disclosure and high-level
understanding of the work of the Computing Services division, along with reasonable
review. Executive support from the VPO has been a key to the success of the PMO. In
2
2005, the head of the PMO began reporting to the Computing Services Executive
Director as a member of the division’s senior management team.
A number of project management offices in higher education IT, such as those at
Syracuse University and at the University of California, Davis, are created by central
administration in response to an enterprise resource planning (ERP) project that in some
way did not meet expectations. These PMOs often focus on external customers and
projects first. The early focus of the PMO at Carnegie Mellon was on internal central IT
projects. By initially focusing internally, Computing Services developed and
demonstrated project management accountability before tackling large enterprise
projects.
The Carnegie Mellon Computing Services PMO has developed a project management
methodology, administers a project portfolio management process, and maintains the
division service portfolio. The staff of 11 includes a head, an assistant director, four
project managers, a technical administrator, a survey specialist, an information process
specialist, a research and project analyst, and a (shared) executive assistant.
The university-wide Executive Steering Committee on Computing (ESCC) was formed in
2006 as a forum for executive consideration of enterprise information technology issues.
The ESCC includes the provost, vice presidents, two deans, and one Administrative
Leadership Group representative. It provides advice to the VPO on interconnected
business and IT decisions at Carnegie Mellon. A Technology Commitments calendar
that defines a portfolio of high-level projects, milestones, and schedules for enterprise IT
projects was developed to help ESCC members in their deliberations.
IT Infrastructure Projects
Carnegie Mellon’s Board of Trustees issued a bond in 2005 through which Computing
Services was granted $12.5M over three years for IT infrastructure projects in
classrooms, the data center, and the campus network. The five “bond projects” were
unique to the division in the following ways:
ƒ
Together they represented considerable funding to be spent on five projects
simultaneously within three years.
ƒ
Central IT resources had to be allocated across several sizable projects,
including the three networking projects: a wireless upgrade, a network core
upgrade, and the replacement of communications cabling in two large buildings.
ƒ
The source of the funding required external accountability with specific
requirements about tracking project deliverables and expenditures.
The PMO introduced more rigorous project management for the bond projects, building
from templates borrowed from the Princeton University Project Office
(http://web.princeton.edu/sites/fap/PPO/). The bond projects started with high-level
project plans focusing on tasks, resources, schedule, and risk.
The initial plans were vetted with subject-matter experts, IT architects, and the VPO,
followed by six-month project reviews. Bimonthly checkpoint sessions were held with
3
each project sponsor, the VPO, the IT finance director, the head IT architect, and the
PMO. Project expenditures were tracked to deliverables in regular reports to the
university’s chief financial officer (CFO). The PMO held monthly coaching sessions with
each project lead to control project scope and mitigate risks.
In December 2008, Computing Services successfully completed the five bond projects
on time and on budget. During the lessons learned sessions at project closure, the
project leads and sponsors acknowledged that the division did not have much project
management structure in advance of the bond projects. They noted that the planning
template forced them to think about questions that they might not have otherwise
considered. The rigor of the technical project reviews scrutinized project substance,
aided by a simple one-page pre-read focused on schedule, progress, and open issues.
The financial reviews kept the IT finance director, VPO, and CFO aware of the spending
streams.
Today, the project methodology used with the bond projects is a division model for how
to run complex projects. Computing Services earned credibility with the central
administration executives in managing large projects and being accountable for results.
Enterprise Applications Projects
Carnegie Mellon faces challenges in upgrading or replacing its legacy enterprise
applications. Historically, the institution has taken a stovepipe approach campus-wide
with the student information system (SIS) and human resources information system
(HRIS). The existing applications are difficult to modify in the current regulatory
environment. The increased focus on information security and higher functional service
expectations are difficult to accommodate.
The Board of Trustees provided funding for upgrading infrastructure and enterprise
applications via additional Computing Services budget increments for 2007–2012. The
current funding carries requirements similar to the bond issue funding: significant dollars,
time-bound to three- to five-year periods, simultaneous projects, competition for human
resources, and external accountability. Unlike the IT-internal bond projects, the
enterprise application upgrades require much closer collaboration between IT and
campus business partners. The ESCC business partners acknowledged that all of the
projects needed to be done.
Once initial work began among the simultaneous projects, resource constraints within
central IT and the business units began to impact progress. For example, the HRIS
project required resources from the finance group, while the SIS project depended upon
deliverables from the central IT identity management team. The ESCC reaffirmed that all
of the projects needed to be done and that a framework was needed to inform
recommendations about sequencing.
The VPO proposed to the ESCC that a portfolio management framework be used. In
spring 2009 the VPO and PMO formed an ESCC Working Group with Computing
Services project leads, the VPO, the PMO, and the IT staff from each primary business
unit. Initially, the Working Group applied resource estimates to the Technology
4
Commitments calendar. The group found there was insufficient task and milestone
structure within the projects to support the resource estimates.
In summer 2009, the business unit representatives on the Working Group developed
urgency statements about each project. What drivers were requiring the immediate
upgrade or replacement of the system? What was the risk of not doing each project at
this time? What parts of each project might be postponed? The ESCC still didn’t have
the data it needed to recommend feasible sequencing of the enterprise applications
projects.
Joel Smith articulated the challenge to the ESCC in a memo on October 16, 2009: “Our
objective is to present to the ESCC a viable schedule for these projects so the
leadership of the university can understand what to expect by way of progress on the
projects, what staff resource commitments are being made in order to make this
progress, and what assumptions we are making in setting the sequence of work to be
done.” The ESCC agreed that the Working Group should develop high-level project
plans including resource estimates for eight projects. While the focus was on resource
estimation, the Working Group noted other constraints such as technology
dependencies and urgency in addressing regulatory compliance requirements.
The PMO facilitated project planning sessions with the eight project teams and
represented the results in TeamDynamix, Computing Services’ online project
management tool (http://www.teamdynamixhe.com). After the Working Group submitted
the project plans and resource estimates, the PMO ran multiple scenarios for
sequencing the projects with the goal of minimizing choke points that would over-commit
resources.
The fifth scenario won the agreement of the Working Group and the ESCC in October
2009. Computing Services and its key business partners had a framework to proceed
with upgrading or replacing business-critical enterprise applications systems. By working
with the ESCC, the PMO has established relationships with key business partners in
finance, student information, human resources, sponsored research, advancement, and
the student health center.
Carnegie Mellon shares some parallels with Georgia State University. Randall Alberts,
Senior Project Manager in the Information Systems and Technology PMO at Georgia
State, explains that initially central IT developed its own project portfolio priorities.
Today, the campus partners, including the provost and vice presidents, determine the
priorities for central IT by ranking the projects on a monthly basis based on status
reports on meeting project milestones. Project management and portfolio management
frameworks are key to IT’s success in working with campus partners. As a result of
these conversations, the IT steering committee concluded that about 12–15% of staff
resources in IT are available for project work. This translates into capacity to execute
two very large projects simultaneously, as long as the resources are devoted exclusively
to these projects.
5
Establishing Accountability and Gaining Credibility
In their 2009 EDUCAUSE Review article, Lisa Trubitt and Jeff Overholtzer advised that
when IT leaders devote more time to understanding the work of other divisions, they
move from the role of commodity services provider to that of strategic partner. They
suggested, “When IT organizations have good relationships with other campus divisions
and frame discussions appropriately, they are more likely to be invited to the table
earlier, where they can fully explore all available solutions.”1 Communication around
project management is identified as one of those discussion frames.
The Computing Services PMO found common ground with the business partners
through a project management framework. By facilitating the development of high-level
project plans with schedules and resource estimates, the PMO earned a reputation as
being a neutral party during the ESCC Working Group collaboration.
Based on the success of the earlier bond projects, Computing Services proved itself to
be accountable for managing the institution’s financial resources responsibly. The
PMO’s efforts on the project planning framework helped the division gain credibility
concerning the allocation of the institution’s staff resources, as well.
Carnegie Mellon is one of several institutions that make use of frameworks for project
management. At Syracuse University, for example, a process improvement framework
was established 10 years ago following a challenging ERP implementation. As the
Enterprise Process Support Team at Syracuse gained credibility with their campus
partners, it added a project management component to its approach. Syracuse
Associate CIO/Chief Process Architect Andrew Clark is an advocate of using
frameworks to support campus conversations on IT. He appreciates the value of
neutrality, a common process, and templates that frameworks bring to campus problem
solving. At the University of California, Davis, Director of Application Development
Deborah Lauriano reports that the PMO was established about 15 years ago while
installing an ERP system. As they built the project management framework, the
administrative systems team became more successful at rolling out projects. UCDavis
has implemented a governance structure using an overarching framework for the
following domain areas: academic personnel administration, alumni and university
relations, enterprise asset management and planning, finance, information technology,
payroll/human resources, research administration, and student and curriculum. Lauriano
suggests that as UCDavis implemented project management process and training,
central IT had more successful, on-time rollouts. These successes are at least partially
the result of having a cadre of people with project management skills within IT.
Using Frameworks to Facilitate Conversations
with Business Partners
The Carnegie Mellon Computing Services PMO estimated that applying the project
management framework to develop project plans and resource estimates represented
more than 300 hours of time for the Working Group. Over half of those hours were within
6
the PMO itself. The VP/CIO and executive director deemed the project management
framework to be worth the effort because it led to increased understanding and
agreement on project sequencing.
Comments received from ESCC members via e-mail and in personal conversations
included this: “While I’m not the best one to opine on the particular projects mapped out
in your chart, the framework you set forth seems a very good one.” Another member
stated, “Thanks for the details. It seems to me that your judgment and that of your
colleagues cannot be argued with as you are all close to the issue (and I for sure am
not). So, I have no argument with the projects.”
The proof of the pudding will be in whether the project planning and sequencing
framework will support successful project implementations. We identified three factors
that could change the schedule, scope, or resources for these projects.
ƒ
Computing Services and our business partners are fairly new to the resourceestimating process. While everyone on the Working Group participated in good
faith, we must remind ourselves that resource projections change as we get
closer to implementation. In the resource-estimating exercise, we used the
concept of estimating accuracy to illustrate that there is a wide plus-or-minus
range of accuracy when the project is in the early planning stages. As the
project moves into implementation, the range narrows and the estimates
become more accurate.
ƒ
Even if the original estimates for the ESCC projects were fairly accurate, we
know that inevitable, unexpected surprises can continue to crop up. Regulatory
compliance requirements may require urgent attention or a change in priorities.
Staffing changes may result in fewer cycles being available or a different skill set
in the new personnel. Market changes in products or vendors may change the
assumptions around problem solutions.
ƒ
From the start of the planning work with the ESCC, we collectively agreed that
not all IT-related projects would be represented in this effort. The overhead in
developing collaborative, high-level plans was not deemed worth the effort for
every initiative, especially for some projects deemed “necessary,” internal, and
non-negotiable. ESCC Working Group participants were charged with factoring
in their other projects and ongoing operational work into the resource availability.
Our expectation is that the high-level project planning and resource-estimating work will
continue to provide a framework for these discussions, even when the original estimates
are no longer applicable. As new initiatives arise, we have a project management
process that we can elect to implement to better understand the schedule and resource
requirements. We have established working relationships with our business partners that
enable us to have the difficult conversations about resources, priority, schedule, and
urgency. As needed, the PMO can be called upon to facilitate project planning sessions.
Consistent with many higher education IT PMO methodologies, the Computing Services’
project methodology is adapted from the Project Management Institute Body of Knowledge
7
(PMBOK) process groups. Wikipedia describes PMBOK as an international standard that
provides the fundamentals of project management as they apply to a wide range of
projects, including construction, software, engineering, automotive, and so forth. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Guide_to_the_Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge.)
As illustrated in Figure 1, the Carnegie Mellon project life cycle is composed of four
major phases: initiation, planning, execution and controlling, and closing. Each phase
has several primary activities occurring within it and distinct roles for the project team
members.
Figure 1. Carnegie Mellon Computing Services PMO Project Life Cycle
The ESCC Working Group efforts focused on the project planning phase. The planning
phase addresses the questions: “How will the work be accomplished?” “Who will perform
the work?” and “What, exactly, is the work to be done, and when?”
What It Means to Higher Education
Higher education must make difficult choices about how its resources are spent. Once
those choices are made, projects to implement new technologies must be responsibly
managed and assessed. There is a range of project management structures and
solutions. Some institutions have formal PMOs with years of experience in defining
project management methodology, project portfolio selection processes, governance
structures, process workflows, and project templates. Others are just beginning the
project management effort or have very limited resources to put into project
management.2
8
The Carnegie Mellon, Georgia State, Syracuse, and UCDavis project management
offices have demonstrated that simply introducing common templates can bring great
results. The act of writing down requests encourages business units to define their
requirements more specifically. Disclosing the IT requests to all parties opens the
discussion on institutional urgency and priorities. Members of the governance body
reviewing the requests know where to look for the information they need for decision
making.
In a very real sense, the stakes for effective, efficient, and collaborative management of
enterprise projects have never been higher. In financially difficult times, competition for
resources of all kinds is heightened, and the requirement to demonstrate accountability
is persistent. Institutions cannot afford expensive missteps in project management.
Key Questions to Ask
ƒ
Among your institution’s executives, who is the greatest champion of
coordinated, formal project management?
ƒ
What frameworks might help your IT organization have conversations about
collaborative project management with campus business partners? Could
common frameworks help?
ƒ
What opportunities does your IT organization have today to take on a new role
or introduce a new framework within your institution and prove your
competency?
ƒ
What governance models would work in your institution to facilitate the best
decisions about strategically important enterprise and discipline-specific
applications?
ƒ
What would it take to create a cross-functional working team to flesh out the
high-level plans and resources and bring back recommendations to your IT
governance body?
Where to Learn More
ƒ
Alberts, Randall. “Managing the IT Project Portfolio: A Project Ranking
Methodology” (Research Bulletin 3, 2009). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for
Applied Research, 2009, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
ƒ
Carnegie Mellon University Computing Services Project Management Office,
https://www.cmu.edu/computing/ppmo/.
ƒ
Clark, Andrew J. “Nurturing Project Management in Higher Education IT”
(Research Bulletin 16, 2008). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied
Research, 2008, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
9
ƒ
EDUCAUSE Project Management Constitutent Group,
http://www.educause.edu/groups/project.
ƒ
Georgia State University IS&T Project Management Office,
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwpmo/.
ƒ
Hasen, Sharjil M., “Prioritizing Top ‘X’ Technology Projects: Are We Focusing on
the Right Projects?” (Paper presented at the EDUCAUSE Mid-Atlantic Regional
Conference, Philadelphia, PA, January, 2009).
ƒ
Lewis, Bob. Bare Bones Project Management: What You Can’t Not Do. IS
Survivor Publishing, 2006.
ƒ
Princeton University OIT Project Office, http://web.princeton.edu/sites/fap/PPO/.
ƒ
Project Management Institute, Inc. A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge: Third Edition, 2004.
ƒ
Syracuse University ITS Enterprise Process Support, http://its.syr.edu/eps/.
ƒ
University of California, Davis, Information Educational Technology Project
Management, http://projectmanagement.ucdavis.edu/.
ƒ
Whitten, Neal. No-Nonsense Advice for Successful Projects. Vienna, VA:
Management Concepts, Inc., 2005.
Acknowledgments
Mary L. Pretz-Lawson wishes to thank Deborah Lauriano from UCDavis, Andrew Clark
from Syracuse University, and Randall Alberts from Georgia State for sharing their time
and insights in the preparation of this research bulletin.
Endnotes
1.
Lisa Trubitt and Jeff Overholtzer, “Good Communication: The Other Social Network for Successful IT
Organizations” EDUCAUSE Review 44, no. 6, November/December 2009, 100.
2.
See Andrew J. Clark, “Nurturing Project Management in Higher Education IT” (Research Bulletin 16,
2008) (Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2008), available from
http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
10
About the Author
Mary L. Pretz-Lawson ([email protected]) is Head, Planning and Project
Management Office, Computing Services, at Carnegie Mellon University.
Citation for This Work
Pretz-Lawson, Mary L. “Formalizing Enterprise IT Project Management” (Research Bulletin 5, 2010). Boulder,
CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2010, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
Copyright
Copyright 2010 EDUCAUSE and Mary L. Pretz-Lawson. All rights reserved. This ECAR research bulletin is
proprietary and intended for use only by subscribers. Reproduction, or distribution of ECAR research bulletins
to those not formally affiliated with the subscribing organization, is strictly prohibited unless prior permission is
granted by EDUCAUSE and the author.
11