Investing in Relationships

The Alchemy of Strong Working Relationships in Enterprise

Projects

Copyright

• Copyright Scott Swann 2004. 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.

Historical Working Relationship

• Historical relationship was a Service Bureau Model inhibited by different divisional cultures

ITD IA

Disadvantages of Service Bureau Model

• Silo structure created an “us / them” mentality

• Encouraged piecemeal response versus collaborative strategic planning

• Arms length relationship diminished – Full participation– Feeling of ownership– Feeling of accomplishment

Why Change?

• How and why did Emory change this paradigm?– Work was being accomplished– The model was firmly in place– No one specifically requested a change in the

working relationship– There was no business driver forcing a review

of the situation

The Challenge

• An aging home grown Advancement legacy system written in a language no longer supported by IBM

• Institutional Advancement customers had grown more sophisticated technically and functionally, and were demanding more from the system

• The central I.T. division had made a strategic decision to move from DB2 to Oracle

• An up-coming “Comprehensive Campaign” was being discussed – THE BUSINESS DRIVER!

Catalyst for New Relationship• We knew we needed to forge a new

partnership that would add greater value than the sum of the parts

• Enterprise projects historically placed enormous demands on people and resources

• The decision to implement a new Advancement application created the opportunity for a new working relationship between IA and ITD

First Concrete Actions….• IA and ITD worked together to define the functional and

technical criteria to use as a standard to judge each vendor • We invited the top three candidates to present their systems • After each presentation IA and ITD members scored the vendors

based on the jointly developed criteria • After vendor selection, the management team developed a

project budget • A physical work space was created where all primary project

team members could be in close proximity• A functional project manager (Ginger Kane) was selected to

have overall authority to supervise the project and a technical manager (Scott Swann) was selected from ITD to oversee the technical infrastructure

What Approach Did We Take?• Most critical: Senior management in both divisions

provided strong executive sponsorship• Replaced the service bureau model with a

collaborative decision-making approach• Removed the silo mentality from both divisions• Created a joint implementation team with shared

accountability – where success was measured for the group, versus individuals

• Properly chartered the team and the project so that expectations would be known and understood

• Selected team leaders with the proper maturity to “focus on the goal and not the glory”

Improving Communications

• ITD personnel stepped out of traditional technical roles to participate in functional “work groups” to drive policy and client usage guidelines

• IA division included technical team in all IA-wide functions to ensure that the team felt it was “part of IA” and aware of the current business environment

• Project status was communicated to entire IA division on a monthly basis, via a newsletter to build broad user support for the new system

How Did ITD Help?

• By adapting technical resources to assist with changing project requirements– Data Warehouse implementation– Citrix infrastructure addition

• By going above and beyond with resources – Additional unfunded Business Analyst Support– Assistance with recruiting contract help– Good communications with project team about

initiatives that might impact project success

How did IA help?

• Provided functional representatives to participate in work groups for each module– Involved functionals in technical discussion

and planning, improving understanding and expectations

• Supported broad changes to policy and procedure within offices, in support of use of the new system

Additional Alliances

• Enterprise systems involve the whole enterprise!• We ended up having “mini-projects” with several

additional administrative systems:– PeopleSoft Student System– General Ledger System– Bursar’s Office– Financial Aid– Technical Services (ITD) expanded scope and

infrastructure• Citrix installation• Windows web support

Did It Work?

• It depends on how you measure it!– Finished phases on time– Finished phases within budget– Client surveys indicated high level of

satisfaction with rollout and new system– Structures are in place to continue gathering

user feedback and new requirements– Team is still speaking to each other!

Where Do We Go From Here?

• System Oversight Committee

• Vital Input from Professionals (VIP User Group)

• IA-Assigned representatives within ITD for ongoing relationship-building

• Regular ITD / IA meetings

• Ongoing joint outings to maintain “team” mentality

Investing in Relationships

QUESTIONS?

Contact Information

• Ginger Kane – gkane2@emory.edu 404.712.8016

• Scott Swann – scott.swann@emory.edu 404.727.0771

• Jane DiFolco Parker – jane.parker@emory.edu

404.727.0786