2016-2017 Project Timeline

1

2015 2016 2017

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Recruiting/Admissions Production Support

Financial Aid

Test / Train

Student Financials

Student Records

Enterprise Portal Test

Test / Train

Data Warehouse

MIS/320 Reporting Test

Test

Production Support

Production Support

Enterprise Portal

Data Conversion

Test / Production Support

Production Support

Production Support

AcademicAdvising Test / Train

Production Support

Test / Tra in

Test / Tra in

ORACLE DATA SHEET

PEOPLESOFT CAMPUS SOLUTIONS WAREHOUSE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Increase student recruiting and retention rates.

Shorten time-to-graduation.

Monitor tuition awards and payments.

It is a new era in education today. Nearly everyone in your institution is feeling pressure to measure, analyze, and report on many aspects of your student population. And many are being asked to show the return to your institution on the operational costs of recruiting, course offerings, and financing programs for your students. Fragmented data, rising education costs, increasing global competition for students, faculty, and staff, and heightened regulatory requirements are driving the need for insight and analysis of the core business of education. If you are still responding to these demands with spreadsheets, query tools, or add-on point solutions, your institution is at risk of falling further and further behind as the requirements for information continue to accelerate.

Oracle’s PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Warehouse captures detailed student-related information into a single environment, and combines it with complex analysis of your recruiting, admissions, student records, and student financials data. With this level of insight, you can make the right strategic decisions to maximize your student recruiting efforts, shorten time-to-graduation, improve retention rates, identify successful and unsuccessful courses and programs, analyze faculty workloads, and more tightly manage and track tuition awards and payments. This solution, which is pre-integrated with PeopleSoft Campus Solutions applications enables you to:

• Understand recruiting trends and the success of your programs to attract students to your institution.

• Clarify enrollment trends and the effectiveness of your course and degree program offerings.

• Gain visibility into the financial transactions with your students to better understand the source and application of tuition funds.

• Analyze historical and current data, drill down from summary analyses to detailed reports, and perform trending via time-series analysis.

• Implement closed-loop communication of critical information to your institutional operations.

• Automate, manage and track all student financials and financial aid processes.

A Powerful Foundation for Institutional Decision-making PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Warehouse provides a powerful foundation for making better, more strategic decisions about your recruiting efforts, course offerings, and student population. PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Warehouse is comprised of the following three content-specific data marts which, when deployed together, constitute a comprehensive, integrated analytic platform. These datamarts can also be deployed modularly to accommodate your specific business or budgetary requirements.

1

ORACLE DATA SHEET

PeopleSoft Admissions and Recruiting Mart PeopleSoft Admissions and Recruiting Mart provides information about your recruiting and admissions lifecycle and the entire process from prospect to student. You can compare applicant rates year over year by academic program and know what percentage of applicants become students and in what programs they enroll. Multi-campus institutions are able to evaluate this information by campus. And you can track transfers by institution and degree program to give your advisors the information they need to help students shorten their time-to-graduation.

Determine your conversion rate from applicant to admissions by metrics and categories

you pre-define and customize.

PeopleSoft Student Records Mart PeopleSoft Student Records Mart captures information about student admissions, your course catalog, class scheduling, student career term records, and the enrollment processes to help you assess the effectiveness of your academic programs and student progress. You can determine average GPA by campus, career, and program as well as the average time-to-graduate. You are also able to track and analyze faculty workload, academic programs, and individual classes by metrics that you pre-define based on your institution’s specific objectives.

Understand class enrollment trends and other metrics you pre-define and customize.

2

ORACLE DATA SHEET

PeopleSoft Student Financials Mart PeopleSoft Student Financials Mart gives you the ability to reconcile student financial data with financial aid awards and general financial systems so you can track and analyze the source and real-time status of all student financial transactions with your institution. You can measure average tuition by accounting period, program, and fund as well as individual student awards and the amount. You can also understand the percentage of total tuition revenues that are coming from institutionally funded awards, lending institutions, and other funding sources. Being able to track this information and tie it back to student recruiting, enrollment, and time-to-graduation gives you greater insight into the impact of financial aid on student retention and success.

Achieve visibility and analysis of student transactions by type, amount, and balance due.

Flexible Information Access With EPM 9, PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Warehouse delivers a security bridge to Oracle BI Standard Edition (Discoverer) and Oracle Business Intelligence Enterprise Edition along with role-based templates. These BI offerings greatly enhance PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Warehouse as an end-to-end analytic solution and reduce the total cost of ownership. PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Warehouse also supports third party BI tools, including those from Cognos, Business Objects, and Microstrategy.

With flexible information access tools and PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Warehouse, your recruiting and admissions officers, CFOs, CBOs, advisors, deans, and other officers of your institution can perform sophisticated analysis with ad-hoc querying and reporting, personalized scorecards and dashboards, multidimensional analysis and exploration, and formatted production-style reports.

Single, Analytics Framework PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Warehouse is built on Oracle’s PeopleSoft EPM Foundation, a single analytics framework that provides IT organizations with one platform and toolset from which to manage and support the warehouse. PeopleSoft EPM Foundation includes leading extract, transform, and load (ETL) tools, powerful metadata management tools, multi-currency and multi-language support, and built-in security features that enable unparalleled flexibility, openness, and modularity.

3

ORACLE DATA SHEET

About PeopleSoft Enterprise Performance Management PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Warehouse is part of Oracle’s PeopleSoft Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) suite, an integrated suite of analytic applications that enables organizations to drive world-class performance by aligning the right information and resources to strategic objectives. PeopleSoft EPM helps managers formulate strategies to meet and align with institutional goals, actively monitor day-to-day operations, and collaborate across the academic enterprise.

Predefined Facts and Dimensions PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Warehouse includes three data marts that deliver the following predefined facts and dimensions.

Admissions and Recruiting Mart

Facts • Recruiting and Admissions • External Test Scores

• Prospect Count • Test Scores Average,

• Applicant Count Numeric, Percentile

• Application Count • External Academic

Summary • Recruiter Count

• Class Percentile • Admitted Count and Percent

• Class Rank • Pending Count

• Class Size • Admitted Enrolled Percent

• GPA Converted, External • Applicants Enrolled Count

and Percent • Units Attempted, Completed

• Administrative withdrawal

• Admission Revocation

• Defer Enrollment

4

ORACLE DATA SHEET

Predefined Facts and Dimensions, cont.

Student Records Mart

Facts • Term Enrollment and • Academic Program Detail

Institution Summary • Student GPA by Course,

• Full-time Student Count Term, Program, Average, Cumulative

• Part-time Student Count • Units by Student Enrolled,

• Total Student Count Passed, In progress, Total

• Retention by Year, Term, Earned, Toward GPA, by Total Grade, Non-GPA,

• Graduation Count by Year, Transferred

Term, Total • Maximum Audit Units • Average Years to Graduate • Maximum Non-credit Units • Allowable Exclusion Count • Wait Units

by Year, Term, Total • Class Instructor

• Students on Leave • Faculty count

• Students Matriculated • Student to Instructor Ratio

• Student Withdrawals • Assignment Percentage by

• Class Enrollment Instructor • Course Count • Instructor Load by Week, • Class Count Hour, Total Term

• Units Earned

• Grade Points

• Units in Progress

• Primary Instructor Count

• Units taken, Grade Count by

Unit (A, B, C, D, F, NP, NC)

• Student Count by Grade by

Class

• Leave/Return of Absence

• Suspension

• Program/Plan Change

5

ORACLE DATA SHEET

Predefined Facts and Dimensions, cont.

Student Financials Mart

Facts Student Financial Services

• Bill summary Snapshot • Student Financials Transactions

• Late Payment count • Encumbered Amount

• Overdue Bill Count • Paid Amount

• Total Bill Amount • Transaction Amount

• Total Paid Amount

• Pending Payments

• Charge Amount

• Payment Amount

Financial Aid • Award Summary • Award Disbursement by

Student by Item Type • Accepted Amount

• Accepted Amount • Authorized Amount

• Authorized Amount • Award Count to Student

(total any status) • Disbursed Amount

• Disbursed Amount • Offered Amount

• Offered Amount

Copyright 2006, Oracle. All Rights Reserved.

This document is provided for information purposes only, and the contents hereof are subject to change without notice. This document is not warranted to be error-free, nor is it subject to any other warranties or conditions, whether expressed orally or implied in law, including implied warranties and conditions of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. We specifically disclaim any liability with respect to this document, and no contractual obligations are formed either directly or indirectly by this document. This document may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, for any purpose, without our prior written permission.

Oracle, JD Edwards, PeopleSoft, and Siebel are registered trademarks of Oracle Corporation and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

6

Email Subject: Request for Contact Information for a doctoral research study

Survey: Organizational Change using Project Management (U.S. Community Colleges)

Dear __________,

To what extent are project management techniques used to manage change within your institution? Do you think PM helps or hinders the ability of higher education to execute its strategic projects?

Let us know by participating in the Survey: Organizational Change using Project Management! This 15-minute survey will gauge the attitudes and experiences of America's project managers working in U.S. community colleges, specifically at large, urban/suburban U.S. community colleges (87 institutions).

As a doctoral candidate in the Education Administration Department at the University of Texas at Austin, I am conducting this PhD research survey to explore how widespread and mature the adoption of project management (PM) is at large, complex U.S. community colleges. Using a Project Management Maturity Model customized for the higher education sector, I will benchmark community colleges’ PM process against a standard set of attributes of mature PM organizations in other industries. I am happy to answer any questions you have about the study.

As the study is interested in self-assessment made by employees performing project management work at the 87 institutions, PLEASE SUBMIT THE CONTACT INFORMATION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES (PME) to me by [Link to Goggle document form] or via email to des2642@utexas.edu so that an invitation to the study can be sent to the PME. Employees managing projects often have various position titles and often exist in information technology, facilities, and strategic initiative areas. Many of these employees are certified by the Project Management Institute for their skills and expertise in the practice of project management.

>> Click here to submit Project Management Employee Contact Info. <<

If your project management employees volunteer to participate, they will be asked to complete an online survey about Project Management Process Maturity at large community colleges that should take about 15 minutes to complete. Responses are confidential and survey is open until [DATE]. The results of this survey will be published in a report available to participants. The institution and employees’ identities will not be revealed. Although the participants probably will not benefit directly from participating in this study, I hope that others in the higher education community will benefit by the first empirical study that benchmarks community colleges with other industries for identification of areas for process improvement.

Diane E. Snyder

Doctoral Candidate – University of Texas at Austin 534 Mesa Rdg., San Antonio, TX 78258

210-215-8822 mobile des2642@utexas.edu For questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Institutional Review Board by phone at (512) 471-8871 or email at orsc@uts.cc.utexas.edu. (STUDY NUMBER 2016-04-0030).

IRB Research Proposal

72

1. Title Accomplishing Organizational Change: Project Management Process Maturity at U.S. Community Colleges

2. Principal Investigator (PI) Diane E. Snyder, des2642, Education Administration

3. Purpose

Research thus far has not focused on project management (PM) maturity in the higher education context. Only 21 of 783 (< 3%) peer-reviewed articles published since 1990 were related to higher education institutional maturity, capability or performance. What studies exist of higher education are anecdotal case studies at a few institutions or limited to (a) department use (information technology) or (b) focused on one aspect such as human factors. This study is positioned to address this gap in the literature. PM process maturity is framed within six general factors identified in the Bryde and Leighton (2009) higher education institution project management maturity model (HEI PMMM survey instrument). These six factors are culture of project management within organization; project management-driven organizational leadership; project management capability/staffing; project management structure methods and systems; existence of/facilities offered by a project management office; and project partnerships. This study will also test key variables predictive of higher PM process maturity including risk management, knowledge management, and leadership structures such as a Project Management Office. Research Question: What is the maturity of the project management process at large, multi-campus, community college systems in the U.S. as compared with private sector industries? Researchers in the field of management will be interested in this empirical study that will examine whether generalizations can be made on large, multi-campus, U.S. community colleges’ level of maturity in adoption of project management methodologies; a first such empirical study on PM process maturity in higher education. Data may be retained for future research studies for up to 5 years.

4. Procedures

The methodology selected was a survey using pre-determined, instrument-based questions. The survey will be self-administered over the internet using the Qualtrics online survey. I anticipate based on other similar program research of non-faculty employees that this study may or may not trigger IRB at each institution. Participant Selection: Initial contact to the selected institutions will be by sending an email and letter to the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of the population of interest (87 institutions), announcing the study, and providing the website for PM employees (PMEs) to submit contact information to volunteer for the study. The human resources department will also be emailed to collect contact information for employees in project manager titles so that additional emails can be sent soliciting volunteers. Institutional research departments will be consulted to gain institutional approval for the study. Method: The Qualtrics Mailer functionality will be used to distribute the survey with customized email invitations to the PME participants including a unique survey link to track their progress, and prevent fraud, duplicate responses, and abuse of the survey. By email, two weeks in advance, the

IRB Research Proposal

73

PME will be pre-notified that the survey is coming and announce the incentive program. Incentives will include sharing the results with participants (non-monetary reward) and it is anticipated that some monetary gift will be offered such as a drawing for a $250 Amazon or Visa gift card. A field test of the survey will be conducted with one college to verify operability of the Qualtric tool and collect feedback on the understandability of question language for U.S. audience. Unit of analysis. The unit of analysis will be maturity of the group of all community colleges surveyed in total and by the six domains as it compares to other industries. Subgroup comparisons will be performed at the college level (average institutions’ maturity level, grouped by regions of country and size of institution) and individual employee level (grouped by type of projects managed, departments, and demographic attributes). Inferential statistics. Inferential statistics will be run to assess research questions and practical implications of the results. A combination of parametric and non-parametric statistical tests will applied to the data using SPSS computer program to test major inferential hypotheses of the study. The data analysis will duplicate the quantitative regression and radar plot analysis methodologies utilized by Bryde and Leighton (2009); except analyze if any differences in results exist based on respondent community college institutions’ area of country, student enrollment size, or participant demographic information. Privacy and Confidentiality. The links between answers and identifiers will be minimized. Names, e-mail or postal addresses and telephone numbers will be maintained securely and separate from the completed survey instrument that is coded with the Qualtric system identification number. Data is encrypted on secure Qualtric servers. Data will be reported in aggregate. a. Location Forty-two (42) of the 87 institutions selected for study are individually accredited colleges within seven (7) regionally based community college districts. It is anticipated that the IRB will be managed at the district level for those seven institutions listed below. Thus, the number of IRB offices to gain approval for the study total 52 (7 individually accredited college districts + 45 other multi-campus community colleges). I anticipate based on other similar program research of non-faculty employees that this study may or may not trigger IRB at each institution. See Exhibit A for list of 87 institutions. Regionally based districts with individually accredited colleges # CollegesAlamo Colleges 4City Colleges of Chicago 7City University of New York 5Dallas County Community College District 7Los Angeles Community College District 7Maricopa Community College District 9San Mateo County Community College District 3

42

b. Resources Personal funds will be used for the study. Estimated total cost of postage, paper, survey tool, and incentive expected to be $250 to $1000.

c. Study Timeline

IRB Research Proposal

74

The project timeline from data collection to dissemination of results is expected to be 6 months to 1 year.

5. Measures

Permission was obtained to employ the Leighton (2006) HEI project management maturity model staff (service) survey instrument to benchmark community colleges’ project management processes and program maturity with other industries. The results of this unpublished master’s thesis study were later published (Bryde & Leighton, 2009).

6. Participants a. Target Population/Participants

The sampling methodology chosen is Saturation Sampling, collecting data from project management staff/employees at every institution in the population of interest (87 large, urban/suburban, multi-campus, U.S. community colleges as determined by the Department of Education’s 2013-14 IPEDs database). The study will survey project management staff (maximum of 500 participants), and not include faculty or students.

b. Inclusion/Exclusion The study was limited in scope to large (> 19,999 student headcount for the fall term), urban/suburban, multi-campus, community college systems in the United States. As the study is interested in self-assessment of those in the practice of PM at the population institutions, the sampling process will select specific individuals working at those institutions having the necessary skills, knowledge, and experience to self-report their personal assessment of PM maturity at their institution. Therefore, the sample frame will include project manager employees at those institutions. This methodology will exclude institutions that have no PM employees (coding them as “immature, no PME”), which is appropriate as a mature organization as defined by most PMMM frameworks include a skilled PM organizational component as an indicator of mature PM organizations.

c. Benefits Participants will have access to study results that may assist the institution in project management process improvements.

d. Risks

Institutions could have negative reputational risk if confidentiality not adequately maintained. Project manager employees completing the survey could have risk of negative employment action if confidentiality not adequately maintained. The impacted institution IRB and University of Texas at Austin IRB will be notified immediately of any breach of privacy and confidentiality.

e. Recruitment

Initial contact to the selected institutions will be by sending an email and letter to the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of the population of interest, announcing the study, and providing the website for project management staff employees to submit contact information to volunteer for the study. The human resources department will also be emailed to collect contact information for employees in project manager titles. Recruitment materials are attached.

IRB Research Proposal

75

f. Obtaining Informed Consent The survey instrument will inform respondents of the following items and by submitting the survey online that the respondent is giving informed consent:

• The party who is carrying out the research; • The purpose of study and research questions; • The extent to which answers are protected with respect to confidentiality; • That cooperation is voluntary and that no negative consequences will result to those who

decide not to participate in the survey study; • That respondents can skip any questions that they do not want to answer; • That there is no cost to the respondent; • The process to be considered for an incentive payment; and • That the respondent is giving informed consent by clicking “I Agree” to launch the

survey instrument.

7. Privacy and Confidentiality Data will be collected by use of the Qualtrics online survey system. The Qualtrics Mailer functionality will be used to distribute the survey with customized email invitations to the PME participants including a unique survey link to track their progress, and prevent fraud, duplicate responses, and abuse of the survey. The links between answers and identifiers will be minimized. Names, e-mail or postal addresses and telephone numbers will be maintained securely (locked firesafe at PI’s home) and separate from the completed survey instrument that is coded with the Qualtric system identification number. A master key that links names to Qualtric IDs will be kept in locked firesafe. System access to Qualtric hosted system is password-protected. Data will be exported to SPSS on the PI’s computer which is password protected and backed ups stored within the PI’s home firesafe. Qualtrics survey data collected will be deleted within 1 year after the dissertation results are published. Downloaded Qualtric Data may be retained for up to 5 years for future research or publications. It is anticipated that the electronic data will be destroyed/deleted after that time and all printed information with the institution name or participant name data shredded. Aggregate data will be available to the participating institutions at their request and contain the average of the responses from their institution as compared with the average of all institutions thus protecting the confidentiality of the other institutions.

8. Compensation By email, two weeks in advance, the PME will be pre-notified that the survey is coming and announce the incentive program. Incentives will include sharing the results with participants (non-monetary reward) and it is anticipated that some monetary gift will be offered such as a drawing for a $250 Amazon or Visa gift card.

IRB Research Proposal

76

Exhibit A

Regionally based districts with individually accredited colleges (District Enrollment > 19,999 Enrollment) # CollegesAlamo Colleges 4City Colleges of Chicago 7City University of New York 5Dallas County Community College District 7Los Angeles Community College District 7Maricopa Community College District 9San Mateo County Community College District 3

42Institutions > 19,999 enrollment within State SystemAmerican River College 1College of Southern Nevada 1De Anza College 1Diablo Valley College 1Fresno City College 1Fullerton College 1Georgia Perimeter College 1Long Beach City College 1Los Angeles Pierce College 1Northern Virginia Community College 1Orange Coast College 1Sacramento City College 1Saddleback College 1Saint Louis Community College 1San Diego Mesa College 1Santa Ana College 1Suffolk County Community College 1Wake Technical Community College 1

Accredited at District Level (> 19,999 Enrollment)Austin Community College District 1Broward College 1Central New Mexico Community College 1City College of San Francisco 1Collin County Community College District 1Cuyahoga Community College District 1El Paso Community College 1Florida State College at Jacksonville 1Harrisburg Area Community College-Harrisburg 1Hillsborough Community College 1Houston Community College 1Lone Star College System 1Macomb Community College 1Miami Dade College 1Montgomery College 1Oakland Community College 1Palm Beach State College 1Palomar College 1Pima Community College 1Portland Community College 1Salt Lake Community College 1San Jacinto Community College 1Santa Monica College 1South Texas College 1Tarrant County College District 1The Community College of Baltimore County 1Valencia College 1

Grand Total 87

Multi-Campus Urban/Suburban U.S. Community Colleges > 19,999 Enrollment

Email Subject: We want your opinion! | Win a $250 Amazon Gift Card

Survey: Organizational Change using Project Management (U.S. Community Colleges)

Take our survey for a chance to win a $250 Amazon gift card!

To what extent are project management techniques used to manage change within your institution? Do you think PM helps or hinders the ability of higher education to execute its strategic projects? Do you get the support you need?

Let us know by participating in the Survey: Organizational Change using Project Management! This 15 minute survey will gauge the attitudes and experiences of America's project managers working in U.S. community colleges.

As a doctoral candidate in the Education Administration Department at the University of Texas at Austin, I am conducting this PhD research survey to explore how widespread and mature the adoption of project management (PM) is at large, complex U.S. community colleges. Using a Project Management Maturity Model customized for the higher education sector, we will benchmark community colleges’ PM process against a standard set of attributes of mature PM organizations in other industries. Let your voice be heard!

Please click on the link below to take the survey (project management staff and administrators only!). Responses are confidential and survey is open until [DATE]. Survey participants may also enter to win a $250 Amazon gift card! 1

>> Click here to submit your feedback! <<

The results of this survey will be published in a report available to participants. The institution and employees’ identities will not be revealed. Your participation will not be disclosed to your employer and your answers/ participation will not affect your relationship with your employer. Your participation is not only greatly appreciated, but provides data for the first empirical study that benchmarks community colleges with other industries for identification of areas for project management process improvement.

1 Participants will be eligible for one entry for a drawing for a $250 Amazon gift card (chances in winning will be between 1 in 100 and 1 in 500 depending on number of participants). At end of the survey, click "Submit Survey" by [DATE] for your entry into the gift card drawing. Should you choose not to complete the survey, send email to des2642@utexas.edu to be eligible for the gift card drawing. Within 30 days after the end of survey [DATE], the winner will be notified by email and the gift card will be delivered electronically or by mail.

Diane E. Snyder

Doctoral Candidate – University of Texas at Austin 534 Mesa Rdg., San Antonio, TX 78258

210-215-8822 mobile des2642@utexas.edu For questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Institutional Review Board by phone at (512) 471-8871 or email at orsc@uts.cc.utexas.edu. (STUDY NUMBER 2016-04-0030).

Roll-out of IT systemsRelocation/refurbishment/construction of premisesImplementing new processes/changeOther projectsNo involvement in projects

If answering "No involvement in projects", do not complete the remainder of this survey

Usually (> 90%)

Frequently (70%)

Sometimes (50%)

Occasionally (30%)

Rarely (< 10%)

Don't Know

2.1 Projects I am involved in provide a return on investment2.2 Projects I am involved with contribute to business strategy2.3 Projects I am involved with deliver benefits2.4 Projects I am involved with are completed within the specified budget2.5 Projects I am involved with are completed on time/to schedule2.6 Projects I am involved with are completed according to specified objectives

2.7 Projects I am involved with result in high levels of customer satisfaction2.8 Projects team members express high levels of satisfaction about projects they

are involved in

Usually (> 90%)

Frequently (70%)

Sometimes (50%)

Occasionally (30%)

Rarely (< 10%)

Don't Know

3.1 Project management techniques are used to manage change within my institution

3.2 The benefits of project management are being promoted by senior management

Usually (> 90%)

Frequently (70%)

Sometimes (50%)

Occasionally (30%)

Rarely (< 10%)

Don't Know

4.1 Project management techniques are used to manage change4.2 Project management processes are routinely applied to projects (including

bids)4.3 There is structured application of Project Management methodologies4.4 A Project Manager co-ordinates work across different teams with shared

responsibility for delivery4.5 Projects are usually completed by staff from within my department only

S. Agree Agree M. Agree Disagree S. Disagree Don't Know5.1 Formal project management processes help to better manage projects5.2 The benefits of project management are not being promoted by department

management5.3 Department management is committed to the development of formal project

management practices to improve project delivery5.4 Department management is not committed to the importance of developing

project management capability/staff development in project management

5.5 I use a model of the stages of the project life-cycle when managing projects (e.g. initiation stage, definition & implementation stage)

5.6 Open, two-way partnerships with stakeholders/project sponsors exist throughout the life cycle of projects

Q3. Please indicate the extent YOUR INSTITUTION applies the listed characteristic.

Q4. Please indicate the extent YOUR DEPARTMENT applies the listed characteristic.

Q5. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Section 2. The Application of Project Management

A PROJECT CAN BE BROADLY DEFINED AS A TEMPORARY ENDEAVOR UNDERTAKEN TO CREATE A UNIQUE PRODUCT, SERVICE OR RESULT

Q2. The following statements relate to YOUR INVOLVEMENT with projects; please indicate the extent your projects demonstrate the listed characteristic.

The Discipline of PROJECT MANAGEMENT - Exploring the extent of its application at U.S. COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Section 1. Your involvement in Projects

Q1. What type of projects have you been involved with at your CURRENT COLLEGE/INSTITUTION over the last 3 years? Please indicate all that apply.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT IS THE APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES TO PROJECT ACTIVITIES TO MEET THE PROJECT

REQUIREMENTS

S. Agree Agree M. Agree Disagree S. Disagree Don't Know6.1 ...the development/submission of project proposals6.2 …the prioritization of projects6.3 ...project definition (goals, objectives)6.4 ...planning the cost/price of projects6.5 ...the management of risk within projects6.6 …the monitoring of progress in projects 6.7 ...the development of written project deliverables (e.g. reports)6.8 ...the hand-over of project deliverables to project sponsors6.9 ...communication/transfer of learning from projects (e.g. evaluation)

S. Agree Agree M. Agree Disagree S. Disagree Don't Know7.1 Staff involved with projects have no understanding of the underlying

principles of project management7.2 Staff involved with projects demonstrate effective use of project management

techniques at work7.3 Experience of project management is developed in staff through formal

training in PM7.4 Experience of project management is developed in staff through informal

learning/experience working on projects7.5 I have a sufficient pool of staff with the project management capability to

deliver sponsored projects7.6 I frequently rely on new staff or external consultants to deliver elements of

projects7.7 Evaluation of staff performance on projects is built into the project

management process7.8 Formal processes exist to reward staff performance in project management

Yes No Don't know8.1 …to implement project management processes?8.2 ...that stores project files & archives centrally?8.3 ...that provides project administrative support e.g. financial monitoring,

contract development?8.4 ...that provides assistance on human resources/staffing (other than Human

Resources)?8.5 ...that provides advice on areas of risk management?8.6 ...that provides or arranges project management training?

Very Important Important

Moderately Important Unimportant

Very Unimportant

Don't Know

9.1 Your stakeholder/sponsor's perception of project performance9.2 Your stakeholder/sponsor's perception of project outcome9.3 Clearly defining project scope at the start of the project9.4 Smoothness of hand-over of deliverables to sponsor9.5 The project team/manager being responsive to change9.6 Improvement in organizational capability in project management9.7 Early cancellation of a project to avoid non-benefit9.8 Adherence to defined project management procedures9.9 College-wide (staff) education on concepts of risk management

Very Important Important

Moderately Important Unimportant

Very Unimportant

Don't Know

10.1 …evidence of clear project leadership10.2 …that I have a good track record of successful project delivery10.3 …quality management on projects10.4 …established procurement management/practices within the institution10.5 …cost management10.6 …their involvment in defining project scope

Q9. Please indicate your opinion of the IMPORTANCE of the following project management performance indicators

Q10. How important are the following to your stakeholders/project sponsors?

Section 4. Stakeholders and Project Management Performance

Q7. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements

Q8. Does your Institution have a section/group of staff within it specifically …

Q6. Formal procedures exist in my Department regarding …

Section 3. Staffing

Q11.

LEVEL

5

4

3

2

1

Q12. What is your gender? Male Female

Q13. What is the highest degree you have earned?First professional degree (e.g., M.D., D.D.S., J.D., D.V.M.)

Doctoral degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.)Master's degree

Bachelor's degreeAssociate degree

Other

Q14. What is your age group?22 to 2425 to 2930 to 3940 to 4950 to 59

65 or more

Q15. Please indicate if you have any of the below certifications (select all that apply).

PMPPgMPPfMP

CAPMPMI-PBAPMI-ACPPMI-RMP

PMI-SP

Q16.Yes No

Q17.20 years or more

15 to 19 years10 to 14 years

5 to 9 years2 to 4 years

First year

* SEI (software Engineering Institute), CMMI (Capatility Maturity Model-Integrated) for development, V,1.2, Carnegie Mellon University, August 2006

In your opinion, the overall project management process maturity at YOUR INSTITUTION is best described as Level ___ of the SEI Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)*:

Section 6. About You (Demographic Information)

How long have you worked in project management AT THIS INSTITUTION?

Do you have prior project management work experience outside of Higher Education (e.g. business sector)?

Section 5. Overall Assessment

Q18.20 years or more

15 to 19 years10 to 14 years

5 to 9 years2 to 4 years

First year

Q19.

Q20.Project Management Office (Institution level)

Project Management Office (Decentralized)Facilities and Construction

Information Technology (IT)Strategic Planning

Other

For "Other", Please specify:

Q21.

Thank you for your participation

SUBMIT SURVEY

How long have you worked in project management DURING YOUR ENTIRE CAREER?

What department do you currently work in at your institution?

What is your current job title?

Please provide any other comments about the management of projects at YOUR INSTITUTION.