*Report/Proposal Template copy - The Department of ...€¦ · Comparisons made between the current...

PUBLIC SERVICES

Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource Management System (HRMS)

Final Report

For Chief of Review Services Department of National Defence AUGUST 2003

Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource

Management System (HRMS) August 2003

PUBLIC SERVICES

Contents

1.0 Synopsis ........................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Executive Summary .......................................................................................... 3 Review Objectives and Scope .......................................................................... 3 Background....................................................................................................... 3 Methodology ..................................................................................................... 3 Overall Assessment .......................................................................................... 3

3.0 Review Objectives ............................................................................................ 5

4.0 Background....................................................................................................... 5

5.0 Scope................................................................................................................ 7

6.0 Methodology ..................................................................................................... 7

7.0 Lines of Inquiry.................................................................................................. 8

8.0 Review Findings................................................................................................ 9 Change Management ..................................................................................... 10 Expected Benefits ........................................................................................... 10 Data Integrity/Quality ...................................................................................... 11 Interfaces ........................................................................................................ 13 Support Infrastructure ..................................................................................... 13 Project Management....................................................................................... 15

9.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 21

10.0 Recommendations .......................................................................................... 22

11.0 Management Action Plan................................................................................ 23

Annex A – Risk Assessment ..........................................................................................A-1

Annex B – Benchmarking Review..................................................................................B-1

Annex C – Recommendations and Management Action Plans .................................... C-1

Contents — Page (i)

Proprietary and Confidential

© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.



PUBLIC SERVICES

1.0 Synopsis This report presents the results of a review of the implementation of the PeopleSoft Human Resources application within DND and the Canadian Forces. PeopleSoft has been adopted as the departmental integrated Human Resource Management System (HRMS) for end-to-end HR business processing for both military and civilian personnel. The Defence Integrated Human Resource System (DIHRS) Project had a difficult inception. Our review encountered a project that has experienced significant budgetary/cost increases, as well as schedule delays. An excessive number of customizations were initially performed to meet specific DND/CF requirements. Approximately 46 per cent of software code was changed, as compared to usual industry accepted maximum levels of 20-25 per cent. Over the course of the project there was constant pressure to expand functionality processes to meet evolving business practices and needs. As well, the project suffered from user resistance, lack of executive level acceptance and sponsorship, and incomplete integrated business process design. As well, despite increasingly positive views on the part of more regular users, the image of the System has been set back by data integrity problems as well as differing views on intended functionality. Notwithstanding the difficulties to date, the Department has implemented a DND and CF-wide HR system. The initiative has led to greater standardization and automation of business processes, increased functionality in certain areas, and the HRMS has eliminated many older legacy systems. More recently (i.e., since the start of Phase 2), DND has actively begun to address many of the identified problems and have demonstrated better management of the project e.g., decreased customization, improvements to project management disciplines and controls, system access and reporting tools. Like many other large IT projects, given its scale and complexity, the implementation of the HRMS remains a high-risk initiative. Many serious issues still exist and without proper attention, the project is unlikely to achieve the desired level of operational performance, data quality and, in general, level of acceptance by the user community. Key recommendations include the following:

• Develop a formal change management strategy and obtain more visible senior sponsorship to manage expectations, gain buy-in from the user/client communities and facilitate change within the Department;

• Develop appropriate resourcing strategies to promote more effective usage of HRMS; • Follow through on data quality improvement initiatives; • Improve the HRMS user/client experience, through greater system access, ongoing

training and enhanced reporting capabilities; and • Build user confidence and discourage/reduce the use of parallel systems.

Page 1/28

Proprietary and Confidential © 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.



PUBLIC SERVICES

It is encouraging to note that a number of actions have already been taken and others are planned to address the above recommendations – these are identified in the management action plan included at the end of this report and in Annex C.

This review was conducted as part of the approved Branch Work Plan. The review conclusionsdo not have the weight of an audit and must not be regarded as such. While sufficient to enablethe development of recommendations for consideration by management, the assessmentsprovided, and conclusions rendered, are not based on the rigorous inquiry and evidencerequired of an audit. Accordingly, they are not represented as such, and the report reader iscautioned.

Page 2/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

2.0 Executive Summary Review Objectives and Scope In 2001, the Defence Integrated Human Resource System (DIHRS) Project was reviewed by KPMG Consulting, under the guidance of Chief of Review Services. The focus of the review was to assess the success of the Human Resource Management System (HRMS) implementation in relation to its defined objectives, and to identify potential areas for improvement. The review specifically included an evaluation of the DIHRS project management capability, an assessment of user/client satisfaction levels, and the documentation of lessons learned using feedback from project stakeholders and benchmarking information.

The scope of the review included both the military and civilian components of HRMS, and covered the period from the project’s inception in 1996 to the end of Phase 2 Roll-out 1, 2001. The scope specifically excludes the activities of the PeopleSoft cluster group, except to understand the context in which DND/CF operates in relation to the Government of Canada version of PeopleSoft.

Background The DIHRS Project was established in 1996 for the implementation of the PeopleSoft Human Resource Management System to support human resource administrative and analytical requirements for military and civilian staff. The overall objectives of the DIHRS Project were to develop a system which could be used by all levels of management and employees to readily access information, support HR business functions and serve as a catalyst for business process re-engineering. Expected benefits included improvements in functionality, long-term savings in system support and the provision of an HR service with fewer staff.

Methodology Findings from the review were based on a number of information sources, including user/client and project team interviews using a structured interview guide on specific lines of inquiry, documentation review, benchmarking analysis (risk assessment and benchmark review of similar organizations) and KPMG Consulting’s experience of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) projects.

Overall Assessment During this review, we encountered a wide variety of views on each line of inquiry topic, however, there were some key themes which emerged through our discussions and analysis. The themes discussed in this report are common to many organizations implementing software on a similar scale and complexity level as DND/CF’s HRMS solution.

Page 3/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

The DIHRS Project had a difficult inception. An excessive number of customizations were performed to meet specific DND/CF requirements. The project suffered from user resistance, lack of executive level acceptance and sponsorship and incomplete integrated business process design. Inadequate levels of resources were assigned to the project for key activities. As a result of these difficulties, the project has gone over budget and it’s original timeline.

Notwithstanding the difficulties to-date, the Department has implemented a department-wide Human Resource Management System. The system has been operational since April 1998. This in itself is a major achievement. The system has established an integrated HR foundation within DND/CF. Previous legacy systems have been replaced by an integrated standardized system, and functionality increases have been achieved in a number of HR functions, e.g., personnel administration. However, it has been difficult to determine whether expected savings (due to reductions in support costs and the resources to deliver HR services), have materialized in the absence of quantitative data. The original business case did not provide a quantification of the benefits expected to be derived through the implementation of HRMS. The general perception from the interview process is that these savings have not been achieved.

Comparisons made between the current Project Charter assumptions (project plan and budget) and the original Charter reveal significant differences. The budget and timeline estimates for the completion of the system as of Dec 01 were $83,122,000 and April 2004 respectively. The original Project Charter forecasted an implementation costing $27,813,000 to be delivered by March 1999. Explanatory factors have included implementation issues, management practices and broadening of project scope described in the “Findings” section. The implementation of formal Project Delivery Management in Phase 2 of the project has had a positive impact on the management of the project and improved control over the budget and scope. Formal strategies such as the minimization of customizations, use of business cases for the change request process, and introduction of working groups for new modules have contributed to a greater control of scope creep, and the ability to keep the project on track. In addition to project management controls, efforts have been made by the project team and key HR stakeholders over the last 2 years to promote greater user involvement, increase communications and enhance the quality of data, support services, reporting and training.

However, while improvements have been made many serious issues still exist with regards to this project. Without proper attention, the HRMS initiative is unlikely to achieve the level of operational performance, data quality and level of acceptance that would be necessary to achieve the objectives established for this system. If the Department does not address these issues, the system will continue to have credibility problems within the wider user and client community. A number of key areas requiring attention include:

Development of a formal change management strategy and more visible senior sponsorship to manage expectations, gain greater buy-in from the user/client communities and facilitate change within the Department.

Develop appropriate resourcing strategies to promote the more effective usage of the HRMS. Build on current efforts, and develop formal activities to improve the quality of data in the system, with active participation and accountability of all appropriate groups. Department-wide commitment to reducing parallel systems.

Page 4/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

Improvement to the HRMS user/client experience, through the provision of greater access to nominated user/client groups, development of an ongoing training program and continued efforts to enhance the HRMS reporting capability.

3.0 Review Objectives In September 2001, the Chief of Review Services (CRS) engaged KPMG Consulting to undertake a review of the DIHRS Project, which uses the Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) product, PeopleSoft Human Resources software, as the foundation information and management system.

The focus of the review was to assess the success of the HRMS implementation in relation to its defined objectives, and to identify potential areas for improvement. Specific review objectives included the:

Evaluation of the project management capability, in terms of the effectiveness of management processes, benefits realization, and a comparison of results against initial objectives (costs, schedule and deliverables). Assessment of the satisfaction level of users and departmental personnel with the HRMS. Documentation of lessons learned using feedback from project stakeholders and benchmarking information.

4.0 Background The DIHRS Project was established in 1996 to implement the HRMS to support human resources administrative and analytical requirements for both military and civilian staff.

The major driver for this project was to replace a number of existing Human Resource (HR) systems which were becoming increasingly difficult and costly to support, especially in the context of changing business and legislative requirements. As the full impact of Y2K on the legacy systems and the PeopleSoft HRMS Version 5 became apparent in 1998, it was deemed more cost effective to re-direct resources towards the implementation of a new integrated Y2K compliant HRMS system than to continue with the existing HR legacy systems.

From the 1996 Project Charter and Statement of Operational Requirement, the overall objectives of the DIHRS project were to develop a system which could be used by all levels of management and employees to readily access information, support HR business functions, and serve as a catalyst for business process re-engineering. The PeopleSoft Human Resources software module was selected during the development/definition stage of the project as it was found to have a satisfactory fit with the HR requirements of the Civilian, Regular and Reserve Force components of DND/CF. In addition, the implementation of HRMS was deemed to be the most effective means of meeting these requirements by the original project completion date of March 1999. The original documentation indicates that this estimate was based on a detailed cost fit/gap analysis and a pilot project.

Page 5/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

The DIHRS Project was initiated in 1996, under the sponsorship of COS ADM (HR). A project management framework was established to conduct the project, and the specific roles and responsibilities were described in the 1996 Project Charter. In brief, the management framework consisted of the following key elements. The role of the Senior Review Board (SRB) was to provide key project team members with the sufficient authority, guidance and direction for the proper conduct of the project. The SRB monitored project progress, approved any major scope (time, cost or performance) changes and provided the appropriate resolution of significant project management issues. The SRB was composed of senior members of the Department’s stakeholder organizations, including ADM (HR Mil), ADM (HR Civ), DDCEI, DCPS, DISPD and DIRPM. The Project Director, from the Director Human Resources Information Management (DHRIM) organization, reported to the Project Sponsor and was responsible for working with key groups within the Department on the definition, reconciliation and implementation of HR requirements and processes. The Project Director was also assisted by Associate Project Directors from the military and civilian groups who, in addition to the duties listed above, were also responsible for the main liaison with their respective user communities. The project delivery responsibility resided under the Director General Information Management Project Delivery (DGIMPD) organization, formerly Director General Information Resource Management (DGIRM). The Project Leader from DGIMPD was the SRB Chair and responsible for the overall management of the project. Specific individuals and organization names have changed over the course of the project, however, the roles and responsibilities of the management groups have largely remained the same.

The DIHRS project was established as a multi-phased implementation to provide a solid Human Resources foundation upon which the Department could build additional functionality to meet specific military and civilian HR requirements. This phased approach also served to mitigate risk elements in the delivery of requirements that had not been finalized in the original project plan. The focus of phase 1, from the original project charter, was to replace the traditional HR functions/systems, and to provide basic HR functionality for the military and civilian communities. This functionality included Personnel Administration (including interface to military pay), Civilian Classification, Military Occupational Group, Position Management, International Assignments, Staffing and Statistical Analysis. The key objective for Phase 2 was to develop an integrated end-to-end HR process, and to focus on the remaining HR system requirements not met by Phase 1. The initial project charter from 1996 estimated a project cost of $27,813,000 (net of GST) for a two-phased implementation to be completed by March 1999. The original project budget included the estimated cost of customizations to the PeopleSoft HR software. In Phase 1, the PeopleSoft HR software module (Government of Canada version) had been customized to meet specific DND/CF requirements (46 per cent). This DND/CF version was named “Enterprise”. The project budget and timeframe have been significantly revised over the course of the project, and stood at $83,122,000 in Dec 01 for a three phase implementation due to be completed in April 2004. The level of customization has been reduced to 26 per cent. Roll-out 1 of Phase 2 has been completed, with overall completion of this phase due in July 2002. Phase 3 is due to be completed in 2004. The project team, in Dec 01, was defining the scope of Phase 3. It is likely that there will be further revisions to the current estimates of time and budget.

Page 6/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

The business case from the original project Synopsis Sheet contained specific key benefits expected to be derived from the implementation of the HRMS. These benefits have been listed below, and were used as the basis for assessment for this engagement.

Provide HR services with fewer staff.

Significantly increase the functionality that the system would deliver. Likely provision of savings in direct technical support costs in the long term. Use of COTS software to reduce support costs.

5.0 Scope The scope of the review included both the military and civilian components of the HRMS, and covered the period from the project’s inception to the end of Phase 2 Roll-out 1.

The scope specifically excludes the activities of the PeopleSoft cluster group, except to understand the context in which DND/CF operates in relation to the Government of Canada version of PeopleSoft, and how other government departments have implemented the PeopleSoft HRMS and what best practices were used.

6.0 Methodology This section provides an overview of the approach and methodology adopted for the three key activities of this review.

HRMS Implementation Review

This activity provided the main focus of the review. The key tasks included:

User/Client and Project Team Interviews

Specific “lines of inquiry”, described in section 7.0, were incorporated within a structured interview guide, which contained both quantitative and qualitative questions. This standardized guide was used as the primary tool to obtain input from the user and client communities, mainly through face-to-face interviews and workshops. The guide enabled us to probe into critical areas of the review, and to gain feedback in a common format. The interview results were entered into a database for further analysis and summarization. In-depth questions were developed for key HRMS project team personnel in order to gain a more detailed understanding of project activities.

The selected interviewees in the Headquarters and the regions were identified by CRS in conjunction with the relevant personnel from various Level 1 organizations throughout the Department. Specific users/clients were nominated in order to ensure adequate representation of HRMS functions and DND/CF organizations. In total, 129 individuals were interviewed. The major groups represented included DHRIM, DIHRS, DCDS, VCDS, CAS, CMS, CLS, ADM (HR Mil), ADM (HR Civ) and 5 regions. The Regions included input from the Navy, Air Force, Army and the Service Centres.

Page 7/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

Document Review and Best Practice Research

Relevant project documentation was also reviewed in order to gain an understanding of the quality and comprehensiveness of project management activities and deliverables. KPMG Consulting’s experience in conducting Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) implementations and best practice research were used to assess and validate the findings.

Project Risk Assessment

The risk assessment was one of two benchmarking activities conducted in this review. Interviews were held with key DIHRS project team personnel to assess and benchmark the current level of project risk. The specific tool used was an IT project risk assessment questionnaire owned by an associate organization of KPMG Consulting.

Benchmark Analysis

The second element of the benchmark activity consisted of an assessment of similar implementation projects in other public sector organizations within Canada and abroad. A questionnaire was developed and sent, with the assistance of CRS, to key personnel within these external organizations.

The findings from these activities were consolidated and summarized within section 8.0.

7.0 Lines of Inquiry The lines of inquiry, used to assess the success of the HRMS implementation, were developed and agreed upon in conjunction with CRS during the Planning Phase of this review. The lines of inquiry are presented below. Specific questions and statements pertaining to these lines of inquiry were used to gain user/client input during the interview process.

Expected Benefits Support Infrastructure Project Management (including risk management)

Software Implementation Strategy

User/Client Satisfaction Lessons Learned / Sharing of Best Practices Change Management System Performance Data Integrity System Security Interfaces

Each line of enquiry was given an overall rating, between 1 and 5, to assess the maturity of the capability. The ratings were derived from our assessment of the HRMS capability, based on previous experience of other ERP/PeopleSoft implementations and input from the results of the interviews and document reviews. The five ratings were:

1 2 3 4 5

Non-existent / under-developed

Early stage of development

Adequate management practice

Advanced management practice

Industry best practice

Page 8/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

8.0 Review Findings This section presents the key findings of the review. The graphic below shows KPMG Consulting’s assessment of the overall rating for each line of inquiry (with the exception of “User/client Satisfaction”), and identifies key areas of strength and where further improvements are required.

Line of Inquiry Rating Summary

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Expec

ted B

enefi

ts

Proje

ct M

anag

emen

t

User/C

lient

Satisfa

ction

Chang

e Man

agem

ent

Data In

tegrit

y

Interf

aces

Supp

ort In

frastr

uctur

e

Softw

are Im

plemen

tation

Strat

egy

Lesson

s Lea

rned,

Best Pr

actic

es

Syste

m Perfo

rman

ce

Syste

m Secu

rity

Line of Inquiry

Rat

ing

Leve

l

The HRMS project has been ongoing for the last 5 years, and in that time the project team has carried out many different implementation activities, including two software upgrades, numerous interfaces and the implementation of over 10 HR functions to date. Some interviewee (user/client/project team) perceptions have changed over time, as DND/CF has become more experienced in implementing HRMS. The rating level of “3” (adequate management practice) for the “User/Client Satisfaction” line of inquiry reflected the average result from the interview process. This rating revealed the interviewees’ current perception of how well the HRMS meets their expectations, in terms of system access, level of user/client input to requirements, data integrity, business process efficiencies, resource capability, and the adherence to the original requirements. It should be noted however, that specific responses varied significantly among the interviewees.

There was no significant difference in the results between the military and civilian personnel interviewed. However, it was found that those interviewees who used the system on a regular basis were generally more positive about the HRMS. No formal satisfaction survey has been conducted on a regular basis throughout the duration of the project, so this rating reflects current perceptions only.

Page 9/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

During this review, we encountered a wide variety of views on each topic, however, there were some key themes which permeated through our discussions. These themes are common to many organizations implementing software on a similar scale and complexity level as DND/CF’s HRMS solution. Thus we have organized our findings around the key themes only within the most important lines of inquiry.

Change Management The perceived lack of visible, senior level sponsorship for the HRMS was raised repeatedly throughout the interview process. This has meant that the buy-in required from all groups within the Department has not been universally strong, leading to such issues as the establishment of parallel systems, and the lack of formal accountability for data entry and maintenance.

The lack of effective communication was also seen as a key issue within the Department. While it was recognized that effective communication was difficult within DND/CF given the size of the Department and its organization structure, this was perceived to be a weak area which required significant improvement.

A formal change management strategy (and communications plan) was not developed and carried out in the initial stages of the HRMS implementation, which has contributed to the two issues identified above. Its importance in effecting and managing changes within the organization has now been recognized by the Project Director and team, and greater efforts have been made to improve this area. However, a formal change management strategy has not been developed and implemented to date for Phase 2. A number of communication vehicles have been put in place, including the HRMS web site, system broadcast messages, fax fan outs, visits to bases / Orderly Rooms, and the establishment of working groups for new modules. From the interview process, the perceived effectiveness of these vehicles is mixed, however, the usage of working groups, and the continuation of site visits are seen as vital to effectively involve the different communities and help bridge the communication gap. Further work is required to improve this area, although significant efforts have been made by the project team to date.

Expected Benefits In the original project documentation, the benefits of moving towards an ERP, HRMS solution were identified at a high level in the original Statement of Capability Deficiency document, dated June 1996, but no formal approach was developed to quantify the expected benefits of the solution. The performance measures used to assess the success of project performance have mainly focused on standard project management indicators such as “on time / on budget”, rather than measures to determine whether expected benefits have been achieved. During the review, DHRIM stated that they were considering the use of more formal return-on-investment techniques for the implementation of Phase 3. With the absence of quantitative savings figures, it is difficult to substantiate whether expected benefits have been realized. From our review, the general perception is that expected savings in headcount and support costs have not been achieved.

Page 10/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

A key benefit of HRMS from the original business case was expected to be the reduction of personnel required to deliver HR services. Resourcing was a key issue repeatedly raised during this review. The lack of resources at appropriate levels (especially in clerk positions and support areas) to enter and maintain HRMS data, and provide an adequate level of service in some areas was a major concern. While the downsizing initiative was outside the scope of the HRMS implementation, it has had a significant impact on processing workloads and the general effectiveness of HRMS throughout the Department. Canadian Forces and civilian workforce reductions starting in 1994, were followed shortly thereafter by the amalgamation of the Admin and Pay Clerk trades into the Resource Management Systems (RMS) Clerk trade. This was further complicated by the amalgamation of the RMS and Admin Officer Branch into the Logistics Branch. These events worked against a smooth implementation of the HRMS Phase 1 and Rollout1 of Phase 2.

Fewer resources may be required in the future if there is an increased emphasis on activities such as further business process re-engineering, reduction of duplicate/triplicate data entry (by decreasing parallel systems), improved access to HRMS information and greater use of new technologies such as self-service. However, to date, the perception is that HRMS has not facilitated the reduction of personnel envisaged. In fact, additional resources are required (especially at the clerk level) to support the proper administration of HR functions in the current environment. Some interviewees stressed the time consuming nature of entering the required data into the HRMS, mainly due to process requirements and design factors.

One of the key areas of disagreement was on the vision for the HRMS and who/what the system was meant to support. Some interviewees believed that the HRMS was a tool geared for transaction processing only; others viewed it as a corporate, strategic system that had limited benefit for lower level users. A general view was that the HRMS did not adequately support the needs of middle management, due to factors such as the lack of sufficient access and data quality problems described below. The perception is that the HRMS is not currently used as an empowerment, advisory tool.

Despite the issues raised in this report, a number of tangible benefits have been achieved through the implementation of the HRMS. These have included the provision of an enterprise-wide/integrated system, greater standardization and automation of business processes, increased functionality in particular areas (e.g., position management and civilian training modules), excellent user tools (e.g., Coach Version 7.5) and the potential as an effective HR management tool for the Department. The HRMS has also fostered closer working relationships between various HR groups in the Department due to its integrated nature; this was more difficult to achieve under the legacy system environment.

Data Integrity/Quality The overall perception from both military and civilian personnel is that the quality of the data in the HRMS is gradually improving, but significant further effort is/will be required to reach an acceptable level. Many interviewees said that they were unable to trust the data in the system, and therefore, maintained parallel records and systems. The major contributing factors raised for the data quality problems included:

Page 11/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

The lack of accountability of units to enter data into the HRMS. From the interview findings, some units were entering data when time permitted, or not at all. This problem is exacerbated in units where data entry clerks are required to enter the same data into multiple systems.

There is a backlog of data entry in the processing units (Orderly Rooms, Service Centres and the Human Resources Information Centre) due mainly to resource shortages and the time-consuming process of making data corrections. Some interviewees mentioned that it can take months for actions such as acting appointments, deleted positions, and existing data corrections to be reflected in the HRMS. The ability to correct data using “correction mode” was a key issue for military HR personnel (Orderly Rooms and units). For the civilian community, the Service Centres have correction mode for specific HR functions such as compensation and classification. However, the majority of data changes are performed and controlled by the Human Resources Information Centre (HRIC), because of the impact of changing historical data. This strict control minimizes some risks, but also contributes to time delays in updating data in the system. Most organizations delegate this responsibility to key individuals in the support organizations and nominated senior personnel. Information that resided in the legacy systems was used to initialize HRMS. The amalgamation of this information into a single system made visible data inconsistencies. Certain data elements are still incorrect from the original data conversion. Dual entry into Online Pay and the HRMS by the Service Centres has caused some issues with the timeliness of data entry into the HRMS. Processes have been put in place to mitigate this problem (comparison reports between the systems, and data entry standards), however, these rely on manual enforcement only. The original interface between these systems (using the middleware, Online Ramp) was decommissioned as the architecture was judged to be too unstable, partly due to the numerous changes made by PWGSC. The HRMS Cluster Group are reviewing this interface, but there are currently no firm dates for when this interface will be re-implemented. There are still a number of mismatches between the HRMS and the Central Computational Pay System (CCPS), although the interface is considered very stable. Some discrepancies are due to data errors existing from previous systems, and the mis-interpretation of business policies/functionality in the HRMS causing downstream impacts on CCPS.

Formal data quality initiatives are already underway within the Department. These include the efforts of the HRIC data quality team (fast response) working with the civilian Service Centres, and to a lesser extent on the military side. A data quality group has been established by the Service Centres, including participation from the PeopleSoft Implementation Support (PSIS) staff and the Human Resource Business Managers (HRBMs) to focus on the accuracy of specific data elements (including Universal Classification Systems data elements). However, from a military data perspective, there have been fewer formal data quality initiatives undertaken.

Page 12/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

Interfaces The key issue under this line of inquiry was the number of parallel systems (both automated and paper-based) currently operating within the Department. One of the impacts is the requirement for dual and triple data entry into these systems, thereby contributing to the data quality issues and resource shortage issues described above. However, of more concern, is the number of systems being built which contain similar functionality to the HRMS. From the interview process, a number of reasons were given for this, including the lack of access of clients to the HRMS, lack of adequate reports and the view that the HRMS does not contain the required detailed data elements to meet operational requirements. For certain systems, such as the Military Civilian Management Information System (MCMIS), there is an understanding that their functionality will be built into the HRMS in the future. However, for other systems, there is a general concern that they are being developed with inadequate communication between the project team and client groups, and will duplicate the HRMS functionality.

When speaking with client groups, it was apparent that there is confusion surrounding the vision/objectives of the HRMS and where its boundaries lie with the Department’s operational systems (data architecture). Best practices suggest that the HRMS should not be customized to include unique data elements/functions that are better maintained in specific operational systems. However, stronger commitment and co-operation by all groups within the Department to use existing HRMS functionality is vital, in order to reduce the occurrence of parallel systems. In addition to data quality and resource issues, organizations typically experience cost increases, in-efficient business processes and “stove-pipe” cultural attitudes.

Support Infrastructure This line of inquiry pertains to the overall support of the implementation, in terms of training, documentation, system support, system access and reporting. From our findings, the key themes were: access to the HRMS, reporting and the provision of ongoing training. It should be noted that in mid 2001, the responsibility for in-service support was transferred from the DIHRS Project team to DHRIM.

One of the key issues raised during the interview process was the lack of access to the HRMS, in terms of both the online system and reports. The focus of Phase 1 was to establish the HR foundation and to provide direct access to HR professionals only. The current implementation of Phase 2 has increased this access to include the HRBMs for the civilian training module. However, there has been a significant increase in the demand for access, both to the online system and the Output Products site (reports) over the course of the project. Many interviewees, mainly in the HRBM and client communities, have been frustrated by their lack of access over the last 3-4 years. In addition to receiving reports, many believe that view only access within the online system to their personal data and to the units’ data (managerial view) would improve their ability to use the HRMS data more effectively. The project team is currently developing the Employee Member Access Information (EMA) application as an extension to the HRMS, which will meet some of this requirement. EMA was piloted in Esquimalt and Winnipeg, and the scope of the first phase was to provide “view-only” access to a staff member’s tombstone data, employment

Page 13/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

record and leave information. It is likely at this stage, that managerial views (unit data) and update access will be implemented post Phase 3 and the self-service functionality will enable managers and members broader access to the HRMS

The second aspect relates to the access and quality of reports available to users/clients. The users/clients who use the services of the Output Products and Ad Hoc Reporting groups are generally satisfied, and our finding was that significant improvements have been made in this area, e.g., the availability of data extracts has allowed users/clients to develop their own reports and manipulate the data. Currently 120 staff members have access (account and password) to data extracts. However, a number of interviewees stated that the overall reporting capability required further improvement. The major issues raised and requiring attention included:

There is still a general lack of understanding of what reports/information are available from the Output Products site.

Many clients requesting reports have not had training on the HRMS, and require assistance to interpret report results, understanding data structures and define report requests. This situation appears to have improved over the last two years, as the experience level of the Business Analysts responding to the report requests has increased. However, there still are a number of clients who would like basic training in order to increase their understanding of what data can be provided by the HRMS. The Output Products site is currently refreshed weekly. A number of users/clients commented that more up to date information is required. The project team is currently reviewing this area and are considering the provision of nightly refreshes of data. The length of time required to obtain information for a “quick and dirty” query from the Ad Hoc Reporting Group/Help Desk was considered too long by some client staff.

The third key theme under the Support Infrastructure line of inquiry dealt with training. As an overall finding, staff who attended formal training as part of a module roll-out were generally satisfied with the quality of training provided. This was specifically true for hands-on classroom training, much less so for presentation style training. Coach Version 7.5 was universally acknowledged to be an excellent tool. In addition, the Canadian Forces School of Administration and Logistics (CFSAL) began teaching a course on the HRMS last year. However, the real issue was the absence of a formal ongoing training program (in addition to Coach), to build upon the initial training delivered as part of the implementation roll-out. Ongoing training would be used to train new staff (especially relevant for the frequent rotations of staff in the support organizations), offer basic HRMS concepts training for the users of reports, and provide refresher courses for existing staff. The refresher courses could include advanced courses and broader level training on business process and roles/responsibilities of different groups within the Department. It is interesting to note that the implementation of an enterprise-wide ERP, with standardized business processes should facilitate a greater retention and transfer of knowledge within the Department. However, these benefits have not been fully realized to date. Improvements to training, access and reporting should help to achieve these benefits.

Page 14/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

Project Management The focus of this section is to provide an assessment of how well the project has been managed since 1996. We have included the results of the risk assessment and benchmarking activity to provide an external comparison of performance.

Project Management Review

Comparison of Project Plan Budgets, Timelines and Scope

The table below provides a comparison of budget, timeframe and scope between the original estimates in the 1996 Project Charter (15 November) and the revised project plan prepared in 1999. Major differences are noted in the “Comments” column.

Budgeted Project Cost and Timeline

Initial Project Plan (1996)

Revised Project Plan (1999) Comments

Budgeted project cost - system development (net of GST)

$27,813,000 (Project Charter 15 November 1996)

$83,122,000 (Synopsis Sheet 9 December 1999)

The project budget has increased by a factor of 3.

Budgeted maintenance cost (average cost p.a.)

$4,100,000

($20,500,000 over a 5 year lifecycle – Synopsis Sheet 15 November 1996)

$10,847,000 budget for 2001/2002 (Synopsis Sheet 9 December 1999)

The estimated cost of maintaining the application has more than doubled.

Projected Completion Date

2 phases due to be completed by March 1999. Key dates were: Jan 97 – Phase 1 start Apr 98 – Phase 1 complete Mar 99 – Phase 2 complete

3 phases due to be completed by April 2004. Key dates were: Jan 97 – Phase 1 start Oct 99 – Phase 1 complete Apr 00 – Phase 2 approval Jul 02 – Phase 2 complete Apr 01 – Phase 3 approval Apr 04 – Phase 3 complete

This shows a change in delivery approach (increasing the number of phases to deliver functionality) and significant time extensions.

Deliverables (Project Charter and the Statement of Operational Requirement).

15 HR Requirements to be implemented in Phases 1 and 2: Position

management Personnel

Administration Military

Occupation Structure

Assignments Appraisal Cost Moves

Forecasting

Revision of 15 initial HR Requirements due to re-planning and some scope changes. Phase report cards show the following status: Phase 1: Delivered (SRB July 1999) Position management Personnel administration Military Occupational

Structure Staffing Assignments Interface to CCPS

The original 15 HR requirements were due to be implemented by March 1999.

The 15 requirements, with some scope changes as shown, has been rephased over 3 Phases. Unplanned for scope changes and costs with respect to the original Project Charter include: Y2K upgrade to HRMS

GC Version 7.1 and GC Business Process Re-engineering upgrade to HRMS GC Version 7.5

Page 15/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

Budgeted Project Cost

and Timeline Initial Project Plan

(1996) Revised Project Plan (1999) Comments

Training Grievance

Tracking Recruiting/

Staffing Health and Safety Workflow Time and Labour Establishment

Modeling Statistical

Analysis HR Planning

Short-term strategy to provide an interface between HRMS and Reserve Integrated Information Project (RIIP)

Some interfaces were included, but were not specified in the Project Charter

Interface to CCPS Re Upgrade to Version 7 (Y2K

compliance) Phase 1 went live initially

without reports

Phase 2: Delivered/Will be Delivered (SRB Jan 2001)

Upgrade to Version 7.5 Recruiting (CFRIMS) Civilian Training Staff Relations Reserves Health & Safety Establishment Modeling

(Operational Personnel Management System)

UCS (on hold) Military Training

Phase 3: Potential Delivery Scope (SRB Jan 2001 and interviews)

Reserve pay interface Employee access via web

enablement Appraisal and grievance –

dependent on Protected B environment being in place

Cost Moves Forecasting Time and Labour Workflow

(Total of $21.4M additional cost)

Inclusion of Reserve Forces within HRMS (1997 scope change) instead of interface to Reserve Integrated Information Project (RIIP). ($5.5M additional cost)

Interface to CCPS Re

Discussions with the Project Team have indicated that additional functionality has been provided above that originally envisaged in some modules, e.g., Canadian Forces Recruitment Information Management System (CFRIMS)($3.1M) and HRMS to the Reserves.

The specific scope of Phase 3 is still to be determined. Once this has been confirmed, there will potentially be an impact on current estimates of timeframe and budget.

The modules to be provided have remained largely the same over the course of the project. However, as BPOs and users saw the potential of the HRMS, there was constant pressure to expand functionality and processes within the modules which resulted in significant scope growth; however these changes were necessary to meet evolving business practices and needs.

Key Progress to Date (against the Revised Project Plan 1999)

Actual costs to date, provided by the project team in January 2002, were $40,714,000. Actual project costing data was retrieved based on an analysis of information in the FIS, FMAS Version 1, FMAS Version II and the approved SS (PPA) December 1999 (for FY 1997/98 and 1998/99). This cost figure incorporates the following: Phase 1 definition and implementation, Phase 2 definition and implementation to date, and the definition costs to date for Phase 3. Total

Page 16/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

cost from the 1999 revised project plan was budgeted at $64,646,000 for the same phases (i.e., not including Phase 3 implementation costs). Note: If Phase 3 implementation costs are included, the total becomes $83,122,000 as shown above.

Current project status in terms of the delivery of project phases is as follows:

Phase 1 (Roll-outs 1 and 2) was completed in October 1999. From the original estimates both Phases 1 and 2 should have been completed by March 1999. Key reasons for the project slippage were documented in the July 1999 Senior Review Board (SRB) meeting. These included: incomplete integrated business process design, client resistance, technical platform issues, data quality and Version 5 performance problems. In addition, we believe that the initial project plan did not adequately reflect the level of customisation undertaken in terms of cost and timeframe.

From the Phase 2, Roll-Out 1 Reconciliation report, the Version 7.5 upgrade was delivered on time by May 2001. Some delays were experienced for the Civilian Training (5 months), Staff Relations (5 months) and CFRIMS (2 months with reduced functionality) modules. The Phase 2 Roll-out 1 Reconciliation report listed a number of reasons for a 5 per cent budget overrun (which was within the approved project contingency of 8 per cent of the total project budget). Reasons included a greater use of contractors, poor resource planning of the Version 7.5 upgrade, delays in completing the CRFIMS Configuration Control Board process, and the deferral in the Civilian Training and Staff Relations modules.

Leveraging Project Management Experience for the Future

Improved project management disciplines and controls have had a positive effect on the implementation of Phase 2, in terms of the better management of scope creep and budget/time impacts. These formal strategies have included:

Project Management – The Information Management Group had introduced formal Project Delivery Management by the start of DIHRS Phase 2. This enforced monthly reporting of project health in the areas of business reengineering, cost, schedule, risk, quality control, communications, issues, human resources, interdependencies (with other projects and systems), contracting to senior managers in IM Group. The use of these indicators, and their associated metrics, introduced a rigor and visibility into DIHRS project management that was consistent with current industry best practices. Also, increased experience with the ERP PeopleSoft, led to more realistic estimates for Phase 2. As a result, Phase 2 has avoided many of the problems encountered in Phase 1 including poor estimates and lack of scope control. Customization strategy – The customization level of the initial HRMS application was 46 per cent. The implementation of Version 7.5 reduced this level down to 26 per cent through a change management approach which involved the project team working directly with BPOs to first determine current business processes then identify opportunities to utilize existing HRMS applications more effectively and with less customization. Continued use of this technique and DND/CF commitment are required to reduce this percentage down further in the future, and take advantage of best practices embedded within the HRMS application.

Page 17/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

Configuration Control Boards (CCBs) – Two types of CCBs have been created. The DIHRS Project CCB provides greater control over changes to business requirements through the use of a business case approval process. The Project Manager and Project Director and/or Associated PDs (Mil and Civ) are co-chairs, and the BPOs are present to defend the business justification for the changes requested. The DHRIM In-Service CCB ensures that proposed changes to in-service delivery of the HRMS are coordinated with concurrent DIHRS project work.

Working Groups – The introduction of working groups for new modules reflects a positive management approach, to ensure that the appropriate users/clients are involved in the definition and implementation of HR functions. Risk Management – A formal risk management strategy was developed in 2001. Function Point Analysis – This analysis method is used to measure the size of the application delivered by the project, both for the core modules and for customizations. This provides project management with the tools to understand, monitor and communicate the ultimate functionality (and supporting effort and timeframe) provided by the HRMS. Separation of Development from the In-Service Organization – Up until the end of Phase 1, the development team ran both the development and production support activities. A separate In-Service Organization – DHRIM, was not established until 2000 to act as the first line of the HRMS support for the Department. Since then, greater emphasis has been placed on improving the level of service of the Help Desk, by re-organizing/increasing the number of staff and developing formal procedures (e.g., change request process). However, as of Dec 01, there were no formal service standards currently in use, and only basic analysis of call/enquiry types. The Help Desk wished to put these in place in 2002.

It is extremely important that DND/CF continue to maintain and build on the project management controls established in Phase 2 for the future. Although the scope of Phase 3 has not yet been agreed, our view is that increased risks will be involved, due to the complexity and greater user/client reach of the new self-service (web) applications in Version 8. This complexity must be adequately built into the Phase 3 project plan and budget estimates. The scope of Phase 3 has only been defined at a high level to date. Once confirmed, the impacts to current estimates of timeframe and cost must be reviewed.

Risk Assessment

The diagram below shows the results of the Risk Assessment questionnaire interviews with the Business and Information Technology Project Managers that were validated against the overall results of all interviews held during the review. The primary focus of this analysis is on Phase 2, although some questions were answered based on Phase 1 experience. The level of risk is measured by the responses given to the specific questions grouped by the risk categories shown below. Please refer to Annex A for a more detailed discussion on the specific approach, risk category definitions and the results of the risk assessment review.

The overall risk level was identified at 60 per cent, which, similar to most large IM projects, reflects the profile of a high risk project. If we look at each of the specific risk categories, we can see that the majority is in the “caution” zone, where the risk levels are relatively high.

Page 18/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

1993-2001 THE WILLBERN GROUP, INC.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

47

74

43

50 50 51

46

56

33

60

BUSINESS O

BJECTIVES

PROJ. COMPLEXITY

PROJ. ORGANIZATIO

N

RESOURCE MGN'T

STDS. & DOCUMENTATIO

N

PROJECT PLANNING

TASK MGN'T.

CHANGE CONTROL

REPTING. & COMM.

OVERALL RISK

RISK CATEGORIES EVALUATED

0

20

40

60

80

100PE

RC

ENTA

GE

OF

RIS

K

LEGENDRISK LEVEL

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HRMS IMPLEMENTATION AT DND/CF

RISK CRITICALITY

DANGER

CAUTION

BEST


47

74

43

47

74

43

50 50 51

46

56

33

60

BUSINESS O

BJECTIVES

PROJ. COMPLEXITY

PROJ. ORGANIZATIO

N

RESOURCE MGN'T


N

PROJECT PLANNING

TASK MGN'T.

CHANGE CONTROL

REPTING. & COMM.

OVERALL RISK


0

20

40

60

80

100PE

RC

ENTA

GE

OF

RIS

K

LEGENDRISK LEVEL


RISK CRITICALITY

DANGER

CAUTION

BEST

Key factors or reasons contributing to the overall level of risk were identified as follows:

Project complexity – The HRMS implementation maintains a high degree of complexity due to factors such as the length and scope of the project, the number/complexity of interfaces ……………………………………………. level of customization, level of difficulty of data conversion, specific security requirements (Protected B), technical/ architecture requirements and dependencies (e.g., network capacity, multiple platforms) and the need to manage the

Section 16 (2)c) of the AIA

differing requirements of the several end user groups. The degree of project complexity will increase with the implementation of self-service applications, distributed to a wider user group.

Change Control – Throughout the duration of the project, there have been a significant number of changes made to the application (500 – 1000), changes have been requested frequently (now starting to diminish) and the sources of change requests are from a number of different end user groups. Stronger controls have been put into place in Phase 2, through the Configuration Control Board (CCB) to better manage scope creep. Project Planning – This risk category was high mainly due to the fact that the original project dates have significantly shifted, and the Project Organization structure, while largely stable, is still evolving. However, the project team’s status and tracking reports are produced on a timely basis, and are effectively used for project management. Resource Management – The key reasons for the high score included the large number of project resources (over 85) to be managed, 60 per cent turnover over the entire project’s duration, resource shortages at various stages, and a high proportion of contractors thereby requiring a greater emphasis on knowledge transfer to DND/CF staff.

Page 19/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

Standards and Documentation – The project team uses formal methodologies and standards (business and IS) to manage the project. The interviewees stated that they were currently working on making further improvements to technical documentation currency and standards adherence. Although many quality assurance and monitoring activities exist at key project points, there is no independent formal quality assurance function overseeing the quality of deliverables. Given the specific risks identified above, a number of strategies can be undertaken in conjunction with the specific recommendations outlined in section 10, to help mitigate and better manage the project’s risk profile. Key strategies include:

Continue with current efforts to better manage and reduce potential scope creep, e.g., directly involve the Associate Project Directors and Business Process Owners within the CCB, and continue strategic policy of decustomization of the HRMS application. Continue with the Working Group approach to build consensus across the end user group to define common business requirements. Ensure the Business Process Owners and other key user representatives are actively involved in all stages of the project. Ensure proper resource management for the project – dedicated project and user/client resources are available, and DND/CF resources are identified for knowledge transfer. HRMS Version 8 will involve new functionality and technology (web), therefore, appropriate and timely training must be given to project team resources. Develop a formal quality assurance program. This is a best practice from other organizations especially for projects of this size and complexity.

Benchmarking

This section provides a summary of the results of the Benchmarking activity. Questionnaire responses were received from six public sector organizations in Canada, the United States and Australia. All respondents have implemented PeopleSoft HR software. Please refer to Annex B for further detail on the survey results and conclusions.

Given the small sample size and limited knowledge of these organizations, we need to be careful about the inferences to be made from the questionnaire results. From the responses received, the following conclusions were drawn.

Some organizations have either already implemented Version 8 or are currently in the process of upgrading to the new version of PeopleSoft HRMS. DND/CF is slightly behind in their upgrade to Version 8 as the project team decided to focus their resources on providing additional functionality in the HRMS to meet identified business priorities such as support to the Reserves and the recruiting and operational communities. The provision of self-service functionality to employees has improved data quality. Most participants came to the conclusion that customization should be minimal or moderate. Some had planned accordingly from the outset, others came to that conclusion after trying to implement PeopleSoft with significant customization. The organization which implemented HRMS with substantial customization reported that functionality complexity was a significant issue in the early and medium stages of their implementation project. DND/CF has reduced its initial customization levels from 46 per cent in the initial HRMS implementation down to 26 per cent.

Page 20/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

An effective risk management strategy is one of the factors mentioned to better control project scope and cost.

The expected benefits which have been the most difficult to achieve in the implementation of PeopleSoft HR included: the reduction of workload, interface development and the provision of reports. The sixth participant identified the data quality of legacy systems and system security requirements as additional issues requiring attention.

9.0 Conclusion Overall, the implementation of the HRMS has been generally successful in terms of establishing an integrated HR foundation within DND/CF, and providing information to the HR community. Improvements to project management disciplines and controls in Phase 2 have had a positive impact on the management of the project. Formal strategies such as the minimization of customizations, use of business cases for the change request process, and introduction of working groups for new modules have contributed to a greater control of scope creep, and the ability to keep the project on track. The project team and key HR stakeholders have made considerable efforts in improving the HRMS solution, however, there are a number of key areas which both the DIHRS project team and DND senior managers must address to improve the effectiveness and user/client acceptance of the system. These include:

Adoption of return-on-investment techniques to assess and monitor program success and benefits realization. Development of a formal change management strategy and more visible senior sponsorship to manage expectations, gain greater buy-in from the user/client communities and facilitate change within the Department. Develop appropriate resourcing strategies to promote the more effective usage of the HRMS. Formal activities to improve the quality of data in the system, with active participation and accountability of all appropriate groups. Department-wide commitment to reducing parallel systems. Improvement to the HRMS user/client experience, through greater access, ongoing training and better reporting.

Page 21/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

10.0 Recommendations The major recommendations from our review of the HRMS project are the following:

Recommendation 1 – The Project Director to lead the development of a formal change management strategy, including a communications plan and a workforce transition strategy. Direct involvement is required by the respective sponsors, SRB members and other key representatives to agree roles and responsibilities of the project team and key HR stakeholders for the HRMS change management activities. SRB members should be responsible for ensuring that the HRMS vision, key objectives and communications are effectively driven down through their organizations.

To date, the effectiveness of the change management and communications activities have been seen by most interviewees as the responsibility of the project team. However, from our experience of complex, multi-stakeholder projects, this is not only a project team responsibility. Greater input and responsibility is required from key staff within the business community (e.g., CAS, CLS and CMS) to extend the current sponsorship/communications reach and effectiveness. Further improvements are largely dependent on the chain of command (e.g., better use of the HRBMs and HR management at the base and wing levels). Recommendation 2 – ADM(HR-Mil) and ADM(HR-Civ) to review resourcing shortage issues/impacts (especially at the clerk level, and in the support organizations) and develop appropriate strategies. These strategies should include an assessment of further business process re-engineering opportunities (including policy simplification where appropriate), and a reduction of unnecessary multiple data entry activities. Recommendation 3 – The Project Director and Project Leader to develop a formal return-on-investment approach/performance measures for the remainder of Phase 2 and Phase 3, and develop appropriate monitoring mechanisms. Recommendation 4 – Active sponsorship is required by DHRIM to build on current data quality efforts, and establish short-term and ongoing program solutions for the HRMS data clean-up. An appropriate level of resources must be available to undertake this activity. The establishment of formal accountabilities down to the unit level, data quality working group (military), and the appropriate devolvement of correction mode are recommended solutions. Recommendation 5 – COS ADM(HR Mil and COS ADM(HR Civ), supported by ADM(IM) to sponsor a review of those major systems which potentially duplicate the HRMS functionality, in order to minimize the number of parallel systems currently operating within the Department. A fit/gap analysis should be completed to both inform user/client groups on the functionality available within the HRMS, and to determine a formal solution to handle requirements not currently met by the system. Strong sponsorship and flexibility on all sides will be crucial to this review’s success. Active participation from ADM IM will be important to ensure consistency with the conclusions of the Department’s IM/IT strategic review. Recommendation 6 – The DHRIM to determine appropriate access levels to nominated user/client groups (especially view-only access to the online application).

Page 22/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

Recommendation 7 – The DHRIM to develop an ongoing HRMS training program within the Department, in conjunction with the key HR stakeholders. The program must identify what training would be provided, how it would be provided, roles and responsibilities of the project team and HR organizations, and the funding mechanism to be used.

Recommendation 8 – The DHRIM to improve and communicate the reporting capabilities available to users/clients. Recommendation 9 – The DHRIM to continue strategy of decustomization of the HRMS application for the Version 8 implementation. Best practices suggest no more than 20 per cent customization is advisable, however, our experience has shown that the implementation of a vanilla system/minimum customization provides benefits in terms of a reduction in system complexity, and implementation and maintenance costs. This strategy also provides the organization with the ability to take advantage of best practices in the software, potentially leading to business process improvements.

11.0 Management Action Plan The following provides a summary of the recommendations made in this report and the related consolidated comments from ADM(IM), ADM(HR-Mil) and ADM(HR-Civ) which identify:

• Management Response: to provide additional clarification of issues raised; and

• Actions Taken or to be Taken: to identify actions taken since the review was conducted, to address the recommendations, as well as further actions to be taken in the future.

Recommendation 1 – The Project Director to lead the development of a formal change management strategy, including a communications plan and workforce transition strategies.

Management Response: To ensure the appropriate level of success and the participation of senior management it will be the respective Sponsors who lead these activities. It is acknowledged that it will be the PD Team who will capture and develop them, on behalf of the HR Groups, for submission and approval by the SRB Core Members. It will involve all ECS representatives and other key L1 representatives who are otherwise SRB Associate Members. The PDM oversight that will govern the delivery of Phase 3, requires a Project Management Plan that includes both a change management plan and a communication plan to be in place and actively managed.

Actions Taken or to be Taken: For the latter part of Phase 2, a full-time project communications officer was assigned to meet the requirement for increased communications including communication plans and an improved web site. For Phase 3 of the DIHRS, a formal Change Management Strategy and Plan is being produced. Also, a comprehensive Communications Strategy has been and will continue to be developed. These items will be rigorously applied and monitored for the final phase of the project. The Project Team will work with DHRIM to include the processes for the In-Service support portion of the HRMS. In addition, the following committees have been formed to address these concerns:

Page 23/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

• Business Process Owner(BPO) Steering Committee (military and civilian focus); • Civilian Process Review Committee (civilian focus); and • HR Management Oversight (military focus).

Recommendation 2 – ADM(HR-Mil) and ADM(HR-Civ) to review resourcing shortage issues/impacts (especially at the clerk level, and in the support organizations) and develop appropriate strategies. These strategies should include an assessment of further business process re-engineering opportunities (including policy simplification where appropriate), and a reduction of unnecessary multiple data entry activities.

Actions Taken or to be Taken: This is an ongoing activity of the respective HR Groups and the subject of occupation reviews and other studies. The results of these will be used as reference in the development of the Change Management Plan.

Recommendation 3 – The Project Director and Project Leader to develop a formal return-on-investment approach/performance measures for the remainder of Phase 2 and Phase 3, and develop appropriate monitoring mechanisms. Management Response: Since Phase 2 is now effectively complete, an ROI approach will be of no value now. Given the difficulty in determining quantifiable cost benefits for HR systems, it would be inefficient at this time to revisit history to try and determine the baseline costs to maintain the legacy systems; these costs would be required to form the basis of the ROI. Actions Taken or to be Taken: Phase 3 of the Project is a technical, version upgrade with no functional extension over what is currently there. A traditional approach to ROI for this phase would be of no significant value. Under the PDM oversight, performance measures were put in place for Phase 2 and will continue in Phase 3. Performance is now quantified and measured against pre-defined standards in the areas of requirements, scope, time, cost, procurement, business transformation, project risks, dependency risks, contribution risks, human resources, quality, communications, and senior management commitment. This information is recorded in the Project Performance Management Plan that forms the basis of the monthly Project Status Reports to the Deputy Project Leader.

Page 24/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

Recommendation 4 – Active sponsorship is required by DHRIM to build on current data quality efforts, and establish short-term and ongoing program solutions for the HRMS data clean-up. An appropriate level of resources must be available to undertake this activity. The establishment of formal accountabilities down to the unit level, data quality working group (military), and the appropriate devolvement of correction mode are recommended solutions. Management Response: DHRIM and the business process owners have had an ongoing program to improve data quality. Originally, the HRMS system was populated by data from legacy systems. The data in these systems was often erroneous but this was difficult to identify at the time due to the lack of employee/member access to the data in these systems. These data quality shortfalls became apparent with the increased access and visibility to data that the HRMS provided. Actions Taken or to be Taken: A Civilian Data Quality Working Group was established in late 2001, concurrent with the completion of this CRS study. It reports regularly and has had good success. A similar Military Data Quality WG is being established by DHRIM and will be in place in late 2003. As directed by COS HR Mil, it will work intimately with the three ECS to yield measurable improvements by end 2003 and to report its progress regularly. Efforts are being made to identify key fields and their interrelationships in a series of business processes so that confidence levels in those business processes can be assessed, including impacts to accurately measure business process performance metrics. In order to prevent bad data from entering the system, as new legacy systems are subsumed and their data is brought into the HRMS, formal user acceptance testing of the data conversion is performed and sign-off is obtained. This ensures data is converted correctly and has the additional benefit of identifying erroneous data in the legacy systems that is then marked for correction by the business community. This process will remain in place for Phase 3. Recommendation 5 – COS ADM(HR Mil) and COS ADM (HR Civ), supported by ADM(IM), to sponsor a review of those major systems which potentially duplicate the HRMS functionality, in order to minimize the number of parallel systems currently operating within the Department. A fit/gap analysis should be completed to both inform user/client groups on the functionality available within the HRMS, and to determine a formal solution to handle requirements not currently met by the system. Strong sponsorship and flexibility on all sides will be crucial to this review’s success. Active participation from ADM IM will be important to ensure consistency with the conclusions of the Department’s IM/IT strategic review. Management Response: The recommendation echoes a finding of the IM Strategy Review. The problem stems from the situation the Department found itself in, in the period between the start-up of the DIHRS project and the time of the CRS review. The IM Strategic Review found that the overall Departmental authorities and accountabilities for IM, during the timeframe this

Page 25/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

CRS review covers, was a contributor to the creation of parallel systems. A specific HR systems review will be addressed in context with other IM enterprise integration efforts underway within the Department. Actions Taken or to be Taken: Since the review was conducted, a task has been added to the Defence Plan for all Level Ones by way of Horizontal Initiative H13-1-1664, to state that “Senior Managers are responsible for directing and promoting the use of PeopleSoft HRMS as their primary human resources tool.” Many systems that duplicate HRMS functionality are mainly a military concern. COS HR Mil has formally directed the establishment of a Steering Committee of representatives from each ECS chaired by DHRIM. One of their key objectives is to resolve this very issue. IM Review Implementation actions within the IM Group are also complementary and support the evolution to an enterprise approach to IM and the reduction in duplicate and parallel HR systems. Recommendation 6 – The DHRIM to determine appropriate access levels to nominated user/client groups (especially view-only access to the online application). Management Response - In the period covered by the CRS review (1998-2001), system access was indeed a problem. Due to the demise of a plan to procure a corporate license for Oracle, there was a shortage of Oracle licenses, and that required careful control of access to the application. The Project team and DHRIM rectified this problem in early 2001, however, knowledge of this improvement was not effectively communicated. The HRMS was to a degree a victim of its own success. In Phase 1, the intention was to provide an HR transactional application to support the HR professionals in the organization. Phase 2 was to upgrade the transactional system and begin its evolution into a management tool. Additionally, Phase 2 provided new functionality that expanded the user base beyond the community of HR professionals. The HR stakeholders drive determining appropriate levels of access. DHRIM has responded to these needs by implementing the appropriate access levels, accounting for security and Privacy Act requirements. Actions Taken or to be Taken: DHRIM has a comprehensive system to provide appropriate access levels. Access to the application has been expanded through a more robust set of reports and data extract tools on the output products web site. This is supported by the deployment of the Employee Member Access Application (EMAA) that currently provides view access to approximately 30,000 employees/members of their personnel records in the HRMS. EMAA is in the process being expanded by DHRIM, to provide access to the Reserves. Access to the HRMS will be further expanded post Phase 3 that will enable manager and member self serve, within the context of broader access to HRMS. However, privacy and security requirements will continue to cause frustration due to the constraints they impose on access to data.

Page 26/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

Recommendation 7 – The DHRIM to develop an ongoing HRMS training program within the Department, in conjunction with the key HR stakeholders. The program must identify what training would be provided, how it would be provided, roles and responsibilities of the project team and HR organizations, and the funding mechanism to be used. Actions Taken or to be Taken: DHRIM has been reorganized to more effectively address sustainment training. As well, a variety of training techniques are being offered: distance learning, web-based training, video conferencing, train-the-trainer programs, and national training database. Recommendation 8 – The DHRIM to improve and communicate the reporting capabilities available to users/clients. Actions Taken or to be Taken: This is a DHRIM responsibility that is being acted upon. User guides and appropriate training are being developed and in some cases are available now. There is considerably more that must be done to accomplish the optimum level of reporting. A formal Output Products Reporting communications plan is being considered and it will need considerable concerted effort by DHRIM. This is part of the directive that the COS HR Mil has given to DHRIM, and it is being acted upon now, for delivery by end 2003. Recommendation 9 – The DHRIM to continue strategy of decustomization of the HRMS application for the Version 8 implementation. Best practices suggest no more than 20 per cent customization is advisable, however, our experience has shown that the implementation of a vanilla system/minimum customization provides benefits in terms of a reduction in system complexity, and implementation and maintenance costs. This strategy also provides the organization with the ability to take advantage of best practices in the software, potentially leading to business process improvements. Management Response: The recommendation to minimize customization is supported. However, there must also be recognition that the degree to which this can be achieved is driven by the size and complexity of the organization and its client base. DND is supporting three user communities – Regular Force, Reserves and Civilian; each of which is governed by different regulations legislation. This situation necessitates a degree of customization. DoD is in a comparable situation, the US Military project, established to bring the PeopleSoft HRM Version 8.8. into use across the five components of their armed services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Joint Command), has the objective of a minimum of 70 per cent out-of-the-box). The efforts to minimize the implementation of new customizations will continue. It also must be recognized that further de-customization will require significant effort and time to achieve. However, the result would be to produce long term cost savings for the Department when future upgrades become necessary, to add enhancements, and for linking to other departmental enterprise systems.

Page 27/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

Actions Taken or to be Taken: A main objective of Phase 3 of the DIHRS Project is to upgrade our DND GC version, most likely Version 8.8. As part of this effort, there may be instances whereby the new version conflicts with DND customizations. Every effort will be made to resolve these conflicts through decustomization, while continuing to meet the requirements of the HR stakeholders. DHRIM continues to identify opportunities for decustomization. These items are assessed, impacted, prioritized and actioned.

Page 28/28




PUBLIC SERVICES

Annex A – Risk Assessment The IT Project Risk Assessment Benchmarking Tool is an automated tool designed to quantify and graphically illustrate the risks of incurring significant budget overruns and schedule delays for an information technology project. This tool greatly improves an organization’s ability to identify, manage, and minimize areas of risk inherent within information technology projects, regardless of the system development methodology or technologies being employed.

Used proactively, the tool provides management the capability to readily identify corrective actions necessary to successfully complete a project. The tool is often used by organizations as a “readiness check” prior to project inception, and to periodically measure project risks throughout the project life cycle.

Over 600 projects, ranging in size from $1 million to over $800 million, have been analyzed during the past 15 years. A database of past results is maintained in order to provide trends and profile past project characteristics.

Methodology The tool evaluates 65 factors affecting risk. The results are quantified into ten major categories of risks; thereby providing management with the capability to focus where corrective actions are warranted. The ten major risk categories addressed in the tool are briefly described in the following paragraphs:

Business Objectives - The extent to which the business strategy, business models, and business objectives of the system have been communicated, understood, and deployed are reviewed. Additionally, based on the implementation time-frame, how well the business model and associated benefits will be realized, as well as, how effectively the business objectives are guiding the development and implementation of the system, are evaluated.

Project Complexity - The complexity of the overall project in terms of the key attributes are evaluated, including the use of new technologies, design architecture and complexity, networks, data conversion, extent of “bridges”, implementation strategy, and the extent of multiple platforms. Project Organization - The areas evaluated include the stability of the organization, the extent of accountability, responsibility, and authority, the level of empowerment of the various staff groups, the effectiveness of sponsorship, and the effectiveness of co-builder teams. Additionally, the project organization structure is reviewed for lines of authority and levels of management. Project Planning - All areas of planning are assessed including the approach, techniques, and consistency of practices and standards employed. Project planning also includes the determination of how effectively the project plan can serve as a benchmark against which progress can be measured.

Page A-1/5




PUBLIC SERVICES

Resource Management - This area is evaluated to determine how efficiently technical and non-technical resources are balanced, and determine the experience level of the resources compared with similar applications, size of projects, subject matter expertise, techniques, types of training provided, staffing levels, and quality assurance practices.

Standards and Documentation - This category focuses on the project team’s adherence to development methodologies and formal standards. Particular attention is given to completeness and adequacy of documentation, policies and procedures relative to quality assurance, and coverage of sound development practices. Relative to sound development practices, consideration is given to the strategy being employed, such as, traditional, Information Engineering, Rapid Application Development or Object Oriented Design. Task Management - The effectiveness with which project teams are executing their plans is examined. The promptness and consistency of time reporting, use of realistic estimates to complete tasks, and the completion of tasks and deliverables are reviewed. The effectiveness of team leaders and utilization of resources are also evaluated and quantified. Change Control and Issues Management - Changes to original scope, business objectives, and specifications are reviewed including the determination of the “root” source of change, the procedures and techniques utilized to evaluate the costs and benefits of change, the effectiveness of incorporating change, and the extent to which undocumented changes exist. Issues management and the related processes are also evaluated and reported in this category. Reporting and Communications - Frequency and effectiveness of team meetings, project meetings, technical workshops, walk-throughs, and steering committees are evaluated. Additionally, management reporting and variance trend analyses are reviewed for candor, structure, timeliness, realistic progress reporting and effectiveness. Overall Risk - The overall risk is determined based on a quantification of the nine areas discussed in previous paragraphs. The resulting risk factor is a weighted calculation, and not an average.

Risk Assessment Results Results for the risk assessment were obtained by completing the pre-defined and standard risk management questionnaires with the Business and Information Technology Project Managers. In this manner, the business and technical perspectives of the project could be adequately covered. The assessment focuses primarily on current practices used for Phase 2 of the project, although some questions were also answered based on Phase 1 experience.

The results of the quantitative risk assessment are graphically illustrated on the following page. The overall risk level was identified at 60 per cent, which reflects the profile of a high risk project. If we look at each of the specific risk category, we can see that the majority are in the “caution” zone, where the risk levels are relatively high.

Page A-2/5




PUBLIC SERVICES


47

74

43

50 50 51

46

56

33

60

BUSINESS OBJE

CTIVES

PROJ. COMPLEXITY

PROJ. ORGANIZATIO

N

RESOURCE MGN'T


N

PROJECT PLANNIN

G

TASK MGN'T.

CHANGE CONTROL

REPTING. & COMM.

OVERALL RISK


0

20

40

60

80

100

PER

CEN

TAG

E O

F R

ISK

LEGENDRISK LEVEL


RISK CRITICALITY

DANGER

CAUTION

BEST


47

74

43

47

74

43

50 50 51

46

56

33

60

BUSINESS OBJE

CTIVES

PROJ. COMPLEXITY

PROJ. ORGANIZATIO

N

RESOURCE MGN'T


N

PROJECT PLANNIN

G

TASK MGN'T.

CHANGE CONTROL

REPTING. & COMM.

OVERALL RISK


0

20

40

60

80

100

PER

CEN

TAG

E O

F R

ISK

LEGENDRISK LEVEL


RISK CRITICALITY

DANGER

CAUTION

BEST

Key factors or reasons contributing to the overall level of risk were identified as follows:

Project complexity – The HRMS implementation maintains a high degree of complexity due to factors such as the length and scope of the project, the number/complexity of interfaces ……………………………………………. level of customization, level of difficulty of data conversion, specific security requirements (Protected B), technical/ architecture requirements

Section 16 (2)c) of the AIA

and dependencies (e.g., network capacity, and the need to manage the differing requirements of the major end user groups. The degree of project complexity will increase with the implementation of self-service applications, distributed to a wider user group.

Change Control – Throughout the duration of the project, there have been a significant number of changes made to the application (500 – 1000), changes have been requested frequently (now starting to diminish) and the sources of change requests are from a number of different end user groups. Stronger controls have been put into place in Phase 2, through the Configuration Control Board (CCB) to better manage scope creep. Project Planning – This risk category was high mainly due to the fact that the original project dates have significantly shifted, and the Project Organization structure, while largely stable, is still evolving. However, the project team’s status and tracking reports are produced on a timely basis, and are effectively used for project management.

Page A-3/5




PUBLIC SERVICES

Resource Management – The key reasons for the high score included the large number of project resources (over 85) to be managed, 60 per cent turnover over the entire project’s duration, resource shortages at various stages, and a high proportion of contractors thereby requiring a greater emphasis on knowledge transfer to DND/CF staff. The 60 per cent staff turnover was partially the result of the length of time required to complete the DSP approval process. In order to save costs of keeping staff on without work, the PMO staff was reduced to essential positions between the last deliverable of Phase 1 in Oct 99 and the TB approval of Phase 2 in Apr 00.

Standards and Documentation – The project team uses formal methodologies and standards (business and IS) to manage the project. The interviewees stated that they were currently working on making further improvements to technical documentation currency and standards adherence. There is no independent formal quality assurance function overseeing the quality of deliverables. Quality assurance is currently performed by the project’s testing team. Business Objectives – The interviewees’ view is that the project’s scope is defined and generally understood, however, further improvements were required to more effectively communicate the scope and business objectives to all affected users/clients. Task Management – The interviewees believe that the project plans for Phase 2 are based on a realistic assessment of the work required and the timeframes involved. It was perceived that Phase 1 project plans did not have the same level of rigour and acceptance. Project Organization – The reasons why this category scored relatively highly in terms of risk against best practices included: the Project Director is not dedicated full-time to the project, and some differences in the level of involvement of end user groups and sponsors (senior management and business process owners) in the development of the modules. Reporting and Communications – This category refers to the reporting efforts and internal communications of the project team. We did not perceive any major issues with current practices.

Risk Mitigation Strategies Based on our review of the DND/CF HRMS project with the best practices included in the risk assessment tool, the following series of actions are presented for consideration by the DIHRS project team and senior management. These actions typically contribute to reducing project risks and assist in the completion of the project on-time and on schedule.

Continue with current efforts to better manage and reduce potential scope creep, e.g., directly involve the Associate Project Directors and Business Process Owners within the CCB, and continue strategic policy of decustomization of the HRMS application. Continue with the Working Group approach to build consensus across the end user group to define common business requirements. Ensure the Business Process Owners and other key user representatives are actively involved in all stages of the project. Ensure that all design documents are as complete as possible, with appropriate sign-off obtained.

Page A-4/5




PUBLIC SERVICES

Ensure proper resource management for the project – dedicated project and user/client resources are available, and DND/CF resources are identified for knowledge transfer. HRMS Version 8 will involve new functionality and technology (web), therefore, appropriate and timely training must be given to project team resources.

Provide for a Project Director who is assigned full-time to the DIHRS Project. Develop a formal quality assurance program. This is a best practice from other organizations especially for projects of this size and complexity. Support DND/CF initiatives outside the project that simplify the departmental information technology infrastructure including the security infrastructure. Continue the current project management approach of frequent reporting and communication of project status and key issues. However, DND/CF needs to ensure that project sponsors and other senior level representatives are actively involved in setting the business strategy, managing project progress and resolving issues across the Department. The SRB meets on a periodic basis currently. We believe that the meeting frequency should be reviewed and potentially increased.

Page A-5/5




PUBLIC SERVICES

Annex B – Benchmarking Review This annex presents the results from the benchmarking surveys obtained from six public sector organizations in Canada, the United States and Australia. From the 20 questionnaires sent, six responses were received. These responses were summarized, and are presented after the “Benchmarking Results Highlights” section. All respondents have implemented PeopleSoft HR software. Some have also implemented the PeopleSoft payroll module.

Benchmarking Results Highlights Highlights from the benchmarking are presented below, however, please note that the sample size was small and thus, some of the conclusions might have been different if we had more respondents:

Some organizations have either already implemented Version 8 or are currently in the process of upgrading to the new version of PeopleSoft HRMS. DND/CF is slightly behind in their upgrade to Version 8 as the project team decided to focus their resources on providing additional functionality in the HRMS to meet identified business priorities such as support to the Reserves and the recruiting and operational communities.

The shorter duration projects, with minimum software customization, were generally more successful in controlling and managing their project schedules and budgets (i.e., timeframe of 18 months to 30 months compared with 5 to 7.5 years). Most participants came to the conclusion that customization should be minimal or moderate. Some had planned accordingly from the outset, others came to that conclusion after trying to implement PeopleSoft with significant customization. The organization which implemented HRMS with substantial customization reported that functionality was a significant issue in the early and medium stages of their implementation project. DND/CF has reduced its initial customization levels from 46 per cent in the initial HRMS implementation down to 26 per cent. The percentage of project team members who are contractors varied significantly between 8 per cent and 60 per cent. This likely reflects the ability of the organization to dedicate their resources to the project team. Factors may include resource availability and skill sets. Classroom and On-line help training methods were used by all participants. DND/CF extensively uses these training methods for the HRMS module roll-outs and reference material. An effective risk management strategy is one of the factors mentioned to better control project scope and cost. The expected benefits which have been the most difficult to achieve in the implementation of PeopleSoft HR included: the reduction of workload, interface development and the provision of reports. The sixth participant identified the data quality of legacy systems and system security requirements as additional issues requiring attention.

Page B-1/3




PUBLIC SERVICES

Lessons learned from other federal government departments, which are applicable to DND/CF include:

The provision of self-service functionality to employees has improved data quality.

The ease of self-service implementation was linked to the robustness of the wide area network. A fit/gap analysis approach was useful to re-scope the project. Greater involvement of key sponsors was key to re-focusing the project, and bringing it back on track.

Benchmarking Results Summary an

adia

n Fe

dera

l ov

ernm

ent -

ar

ticip

ant #

1

anad

ian

Fede

ral

over

nmen

t -

artic

ipan

t #2

anad

ian

Fede

ral

over

nmen

t -

artic

ipan

t #3

S Pu

blic

Sec

tor -

ar

ticip

ant #

4

S Pu

blic

Sec

tor -

ar

ticip

ant #

5

ustr

alia

n ov

ernm

ent -

ar

ticip

ant #

6

.

.…

.

.…

.

.…

Section 13 (1)a) of the AIA

Quantitative Questions C G P C G P C G P U P U P A G P

Percentage of employees using HRMS Application 62% 3% 8% 88% 80% 7%

Categories of employee using HR - HR professionals

- Line managers - Employees outside HR

Version Implemented8 (Plan for Jan

2002) 77 (Started to upgrade to 8) 8 8.3

7.5 (Looking to implement 8)

Number of Modules Implemented 10 5 11 8 4 7

Initial Expected Project Duration 14 months 18 months 15 months 2 years 3 years 28 monthsRevised Project Duration 5 years 18 months 7.5 years 2.5 years 6 years 5 years

Project Budget - Software Development : - Over Budget (Negative Value) - Under Budget (Positive Value) - On Budget (Zero) -17% 29% Not provided -8% -59% -172%Project Budget - Software Maintenance : - Over Budget (Negative Value) - Under Budget (Positive Value) - On Budget (Zero) 0% 0% Not provided 0% 0% Not provided

Percentage of Project Staff Being Contractors 8% 60% 17% 53% 22% 60%

Software Implementation Strategy Minimum customization

much less than expected

Minimum customization as expected

Moderate customization as expected

Minimum customization

much less than expected

Moderate customization

less than expected

Substantial customization

Training methods used:

- Train-the-trainer - Classroom - On-line help - CD-Rom

Page B-2/3




PUBLIC SERVICES

Aus

tral

ian

Gov

ernm

ent -

.

.…

Qualitative Questions Can

adia

n Fe

dera

l G

over

nmen

t -

Part

icip

ant #

1

Can

adia

n Fe

dera

l G

over

nmen

t -

Part

icip

ant #

2

Can

adia

n Fe

dera

l G

over

nmen

t -

Part

icip

ant #

3

US

Publ

ic

Sect

or -

Part

icip

ant #

4

US

Publ

ic

Sect

or -

Part

icip

ant #

5

Part

icip

ant #

6

Risk Management Strategy None.

Develop and effective. Risk management strategy allow for the implementation of risk mitigation.

Initially, no risk management strategy. Currently, in the process of developing one.

Implement software in increments and use two contractors in case one does not perform.

Standard. Most of the Risk Factors which delayed theproject were system changes and policy decisions. Yes.

Change Management

Initially limited to demos. For Version 8 sessions will be organized with users.

Part of the training strategy.

Change control: Focusing on tracking of application changes and training. As expected

Change control: Use custom MS Access

Change control: Yes. It has been effective in seeing appropriate approval for system changes and controlled update of system documentation and controlled releases.

Vision to Improve HR ManagementY2K compliance.

Primarly Y2K compliance. Secondarly, more effective means of meeting future HR requirements.

Replace legacy system when department was re-organized.

Allow greater flexibility in assigning staff and to reuse skills of our people.

Part of Reengineering Strategy

Yes. The vision was to use technology to drive common processes, achieve efficiencies and improve personnel management information availability in the organization.

Most Difficult Aspect(s) of the Project Not mentioned

- Reduced workload - Interfaces - Senior Mgmt Review

- Reduced workload - Reporting capabilities Not mentioned

Reduced workload

- Reduced workload - System security - Reporting capabilities - Data quality of legacy systems - System performance issues

Other Comments Relevant to DND/CF Implementation

Provision of self-service functionality to employees has improved data quality.

Use initial Fit/Gap analysis to rescope project. Only replace existing functionality.

Ease of sefl-service implementation linked to robustness of the WAN Not mentioned. None.

The level of success for the project was "medium" for user satisfaction, information integrity and ease of use. Project entailed major cultural change, in an environment of Departmental re-organization which contributed to user hostility. The original project plan grossly underestimated the timescale and budget required. Improvements have been achieved through restructuring, continuing investment in computing infrastructure, new people, and contract management improvements.

.

.…

.

.…

Section 13 (1)a) of the AIA

Page B-3/3




PUBLIC SERVICES

Annex C – Recommendations and Management Action Plans

Page C-1/4


Ser CRS Recommendation OPI Management Action

1. Change Management Strategy. The development of a formal change management strategy, including a communications plan and workforce transition strategy.

DIHRS (to be approved by SRB Members)

A full-time project communications officer was assigned in later part of Phase 2 to improve communications and the web site.

A comprehensive communications strategy has been developed and will continue to evolve.

The following committees have been formed to address these concerns:

• Business Process Owner Steering Committee;

• Civilian Process Review Committee; and

• HR Management Oversight.

A formal Change Management Strategy and Plan will be produced for Phase 3.

2. Resources. To review recurring resource shortage issues/impacts (especially at the clerical level, and in the support organizations) and develop appropriate strategies. These strategies should include an assessment of further business process re-engineering opportunities (including policy simplification where appropriate), and a reduction of unnecessary multiple data entry activities.

ADM(HR-Mil) and ADM(HR Civ)

This is an ongoing activity of the respective HR Groups and subject of occupation reviews and other studies. The results of these will be used as reference in the development of the Change Management Plan.

3. Project Management Performance. To develop a formal return-on-investment approach/performance measures for the remainder of Phase 2 and Phase 3, and develop appropriate monitoring mechanisms.

DIHRS Phase 3 of the Project is a technical version upgrade with no functional extension over what is currently there. A traditional approach to ROI for this phase would be of no significant value. Under the PDM oversight, performance measures were put in place for Phase 2 and will continue in Phase 3. Performance is now quantified and measured against pre-defined



PUBLIC SERVICES


standards in the areas of requirements, scope, time, cost, procurement, business transformation, project risks, dependency risks, contribution risks, human resources, quality, communications and senior management commitment. This information is recorded in the Project Performance Management Plan that forms the basis of the monthly Project Status Reports to the Deputy Project Leader.

4. Data Quality. Active sponsorship is required to build on current data quality efforts, and to establish short-term and ongoing program solutions for the HRMS data clean-up. An appropriate level of resources must be available to undertake this activity. The establishment of formal accountabilities down to the unit level, data quality working group(military), and the appropriate devolvement of correction mode are recommended solutions.

DHRIM • A Civilian Data Quality Working Group was established in late 2001, concurrent with the completion of this CRS study. It reports regularly and has had good success. A similar Military Data Quality WG is being established by DHRIM and will be in place in late 2003. As directed by COS HR Mil, it will work intimately with the three ECS to yield measurable improvements by end 2003 and to report its progress regularly.

• Efforts are being made to identify key fields and their interrelation-ships in a series of business processes so that confidence levels in those business processes can be assessed, including impacts to accurately measure business process performance metrics.

• In order to prevent bad data from entering the system, as new legacy systems are subsumed and their data is brought into the HRMS, formal user acceptance testing of the data conversion is performed and sign-off is obtained. This ensures data is converted correctly and has the additional benefit of identifying erroneous data in the legacy systems that is then marked for correction by the business community. This process will remain in place for Phase 3.

Page C-2/4




PUBLIC SERVICES


Since the review was conducted, a task has been added to the Defence Plan for all Level Ones by way of Horizontal Initiative H13-1-1664, to state that “Senior Managers are responsible for directing and promoting the use of PeopleSoft HRMS as their primary human resources tool”.

Many systems that duplicate HRMS functionality are mainly a military concern. COS HR Mil has formally directed the establishment of a Steering Committee of representatives from each ECS chaired by DHRIM. One of their key objectives is to resolve this very issue.

5. Eliminating Parallel Systems. To sponsor a review of those major systems which potentially duplicate the HRMS functionality, in order to minimize the number of parallel systems currently operating within the Department. A fit/gap analysis should be completed to both inform user/client groups on the functionality available within the HRMS, and to determine a formal solution to handle requirements not currently met by the system. Strong sponsorship and flexibility on all sides will be crucial to this review’s success. Active participation from ADM IM will be important to ensure consistency with the conclusions of the Department’s IM/IT strategic review.

COS ADM(HR Mil) and COS(HR Civ) - supported by ADM(IM)

IM Review Implementation actions within the IM Group are also complementary and support the evolution to an enterprise approach to IM and the reduction in duplicate and parallel HR systems.

6. System Access Rights. To determine appropriate access levels to nominated user/client groups (especially view-only access to the online application).

DHRIM DHRIM has a comprehensive system to provide appropriate access levels. Access to the application has been expanded through a more robust set of reports and data extract tools on the output products web site. This is supported by the deployment of the Employee Member Access Application (EMAA) which currently provides view access to approximately 30,000 employees/members of their personnel records in the HRMS. EMAA is in the process of being expanded by DHRIM, to provide access to the Reserves. Access to the HRMS will be further expanded post Phase 3 which will enable manager and member self serve, within the context of broader access to HRMS. However, privacy and security requirements will continue to cause frustration due to the constraints they impose on access to data.

Page C-3/4




PUBLIC SERVICES


7. Training. To develop an ongoing HRMS training program within the Department, in conjunction with the key HR stakeholders. The program must identify what training would be provided, how it would be provided, roles and responsibilities of the project team and HR organizations, and the funding mechanism to be used.

DHRIM DHRIM has been reorganized to more effectively address sustainment training. As well, a variety of training techniques are being offered: distance learning, web-based training, video conferencing, train-the-trainer programs, and national training database.

8. Exploiting Reporting. To improve and communicate the reporting capabilities available to users/clients.

DHRIM This is a DHRIM responsibility that is being acted upon. User guides and appropriate training are being developed and in some cases are available now. There is considerably more that must be done to accomplish the optimum level of reporting. A formal Output Products Reporting communications plan is being considered and it will need considerable concerted effort by DHRIM. This is part of the directive that the COS HR Mil has given to DHRIM, and it is being acted upon now, for delivery by end 2003.

9. Controlling Customization. To continue strategy of decustomization of the HRMS application for the Version 8 implementation. Best practices suggest no more than 20 per cent customization is advisable, however, our experience has shown that the implementation of a vanilla system/minimum customization provides benefits in terms of a reduction in system complexity, and implementation and maintenance costs. This strategy also provides the organization with the ability to take advantage of best practices in the software, potentially leading to business process improvements.

DHRIM A main objective of Phase 3 of the DIHRS Project is to upgrade our DND GC version, most likely Version 8.8. As part of this effort, there may be instances whereby the new version conflicts with DND customizations. Every effort will be made to resolve these conflicts through decustomization, while continuing to meet the requirements of the HR stakeholders. DHRIM continues to identify opportunities for decustomization. These items are assessed, impacted, prioritized and actioned.

Page C-4/4


*Report/Proposal Template copy - The Department of ...€¦ · Comparisons made between the current...

Documents

Transcript of *Report/Proposal Template copy - The Department of ...€¦ · Comparisons made between the current...