The University of Texas at Austin

Transcription

1 The University of Texas at Austin Workday Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) Services Project Deliverable #21: Workday Deployment Readiness Verification Report #2 May 18, 2018 (Final Submitted: June 12, 2018)

2 Table of Contents Objectives, Scope, and Approach Executive Summary Assessment Dashboard Interviews Conducted Documentation Reviewed 2

3 Objectives, Scope, and Approach

4 Objectives Deliverable #21: Workday Deployment Readiness Verification Report #2 is the second of three campus readiness-related deliverables that will be created as the Program advances towards the November 1, 2018 go-live date. The primary objectives of this deliverable were to: Assess and document the project s plans and activities as they pertain to preparing the campus for the HCM and Payroll implementation, and subsequent ongoing support; and Assess and document the user community s current operational state and perspective regarding the project, remaining plans and activities leading up to the HCM and Payroll implementation, and operations post implementation. As this deliverable is the second of three campus readiness assessments, the assessment revisited the baseline observations and recommendations that were provided in the initial assessment. Follow-up observations and recommendations were documented in response to that baseline. The subsequent, final campus readiness assessment will also re-visit observations and recommendations from the initial assessment and this assessment. 4

5 Scope In performing the assessment, the scope of our activities included conducting interviews with campus and project team members. The following groups were interviewed: Project Leadership; Office of the Provost, and Academic Deans (input solicited via ); Campus Groups and Organizations; Colleges, Schools, and Units (CSUs); and Central Processing Units (CPUs). The full interview list is presented in the Interviews Conducted section of this document. The assessment results, including observations and recommendation, are presented within this document. The assessment results are presented in the following five areas: Governance and Leadership; Program Planning and Management; Campus Engagement; Campus Readiness; and Requirements and System Solution. 5

6 Approach This deliverable followed the same approach that has been applied to previous project assessments and deliverables, which includes following KPMG s IV&V Methodology, a repeatable process for evaluating in-progress implementation activities to determine effectiveness relative to industry standards. The activities that KPMG performed during the assessment included: Met With Project Leadership: The objectives, content, and format of the deliverable was discussed and confirmed with the project s Managing Executive Sponsor and AVP, Workday Implementation Program. The previous assessment s Deliverable Expectation Document (DED) was reviewed to ensure the necessary assessment content and interviewees were identified. Applied Industry Standards: Our team applied pertinent industry standards to the process and observations, which helped guide our team in developing recommendations. Attended Meetings and Conducted Interviews: During the assessment period, our team attended project meetings and conducted interviews with key project team members and stakeholders in order to understand the status of campus readiness and associated activities. This allowed our team to identify processes that are working well for the project, those that may not be effective, and identify risk areas. Given the time of the academic year and resulting full schedules, input for the assessment from the Provost s Office and the Academic Deans, was solicited via . 6

7 Approach (continued) Assessed Documentation: KPMG reviewed plans, processes and other documentation related to campus readiness. KPMG then reviewed these documents against the identified industry standards and applicable elements of the KPMG IV&V Methodology. Reviewed Previous Observations and Recommendations: During the assessment process, we re-visited the observations and recommendations that were identified within the initial, baseline campus readiness assessment. Compiled Observations: The KPMG team compiled observations from our analyses of the assessed areas. Developed Recommendations: Once the observations were identified and confirmed, our team developed recommended strategies to address the observed strengths, weaknesses, and risks, taking into account project constraints. Our recommendations were developed with the goal of being achievable and impactful for the project and UT. Created Draft Report: Upon completion of documenting the observations and recommendations, our team developed the draft report. The draft report went through the internal-kpmg review process, and was submitted to the Managing Executive Sponsor. Created Final Report: After the report was submitted to the Managing Executive Sponsor, the document was reviewed and discussed, and modifications to the document made based on the review and discussion; the final report was then submitted. 7

8 Executive Summary

9 Executive Summary: Overall State of Readiness Overall, significant effort continues related to campus readiness and change management. In the initial campus readiness report, it was stated that much of the campus anxiety around the system was based on not having system-related information. At that time it was also pointed out that was due in large part to the phase of the project, and it was anticipated that that would improve in the months ahead. During this assessment we have found that is the case, as more information is available to the campus user community, along with significant outreach and support being provided to the campus by the Program. After performing this assessment, we observed that that there has been substantial progress in all five of the assessed areas. The one area that continues to be a significant concern and risk is Campus Readiness. All associated areas are presented in the following pages. These areas should continue to be addressed in order to successfully achieve the Program s objectives. The primary cause of the concern comes from the campus stating that they cannot truly plan for the future until they have more visibility into the system functionality, including reporting. End-to- End Testing is in-progress, and Training and End User Testing will commence this summer. These events will give the campus much of the additional information that they are requesting. In the interim, increased communications, outreach, and support is being provided by the Program, which is having a positive impact. The campus also needs to continue to take ownership of the system implementation within their areas, and manage competing priorities. Similar to the statement in the previous assessment, we anticipate seeing a marked increase in readiness after the testing and training activities begin. 9

10 Executive Summary: Governance and Leadership Since the last report, Executive Leadership messages were issued first by the President, and then followed by a joint message from the Provost and Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Both messages were critical to be provided, and were received well campus-wide. As a result, a unified position on the Program was demonstrated, providing the campus with a common understanding of the priority of the Program and its commitment to succeed. The dialogue initiated with the Academic Deans will continue further, and on a regular basis through attendance at the Deans Council meeting. The Program will have a standing agenda item at those meetings, to provide updates on the Program as a whole, and address whatever related questions, issues, or concerns that the Dean s have. The same level of anxiety was not observed with the user community this period. User anxiety remains around the work remaining, and that they feel that they still do not have enough knowledge of the new system to determine specifically how they will conduct their business, however there is no longer questions around the priority and urgency of the project. For Governance and Leadership, it is recommended that the Program: Issue additional unified messages to re-enforce the points made in the initial messaging, and continue the sense of urgency. Maintain the ongoing dialogue with the Academic Deans to further understand and address the needs and concerns of the Academic community. Update the communications strategy to include Executive Leadership messaging that coincides with the remaining phases and milestones of the project. 10

11 Executive Summary: Program Planning and Management The Program s management and processes remains strong. Since the last assessment, a significant amount of Program outreach, support, and communication has occurred with the campus, and will continue through the implementation. The Change Management Team is meeting regularly with all areas and leadership groups. The Program s AVP is also meeting individually with each campus area to understand outstanding needs; actions are being taken to address whatever need is required. The formal training strategy and plan have been created and distributed. End users are getting more acclimated to the system through various communication channels and involvement with End-to-End Testing. Super Users have also been identified for all areas; they will have access to the system to get further acclimated. User involvement will also increase as the formal training and End User Testing activities commence this summer. The ERP IT Leaders communicated that there is still some staffing concerns, including concern around being able to accomplish the scope of work in a tight timeline. This is compounded by their inability to hire resources with the right skill set, especially under existing budget constraints. For Program Planning and Management, it is recommended that the Program: Continue as planned with the integral outreach and touch point activities with the campus community. Execute the current training and testing plans. The user community should continue to provide their input as they get further involved and gain more exposure to the system functionality. Leverage the newly formed Steering Committee ERP IT Leaders sub-committee to address all campus technical needs and issues. 11

12 Executive Summary: Campus Engagement During this assessment, it was reported that campus engagement has increased significantly. Areas including outreach, communications, and general knowledge gains, were reported as improved. The level of involvement still varies by area, however everyone interviewed stated that they were aware of the outreach activities, and who to contact with questions and issues. Additional support is being provided by the Program to specific groups as needed. While there are competing priorities across campus, stakeholders have expressed that the Program is working with them to engage their embedded resources in an effective manner, and address their issues. The majority of those interviewed indicated that they are optimistic that this positive trend will continue. Concerns were raised regarding the timing of testing and training activities, and that it will be difficult to get staff involved as the associated timelines interfere with their respective day-to-day peak times of the year. Further, campus units reported that the Program continues to consume more of their embedded resources time than was anticipated, resulting in additional stress. For Campus Engagement, it is recommended that the Program: Continue to conduct outreach initiatives as planned. It is again emphasized that all campus stakeholders continue to take ownership of the implementation within their respective areas. Manage competing priorities at the campus level, and address them accordingly. Continue to work with the campus units to plan and monitor resource s time; communicate as far in advance as possible where additional resource time will be required; where feasible, provide assistance and support to the units to supplement their efforts. 12

13 Executive Summary: Campus Readiness While there has been much progress since the last assessment, the campus sentiments remain that they are not ready. While previous interactions with the campus have revealed resistance to Workday, the Project has proactively addressed most of these instances as they have arisen. Campus representatives interviewed stated that not having access to the system, and therefore not fully understanding how the system will operate, is a key contributor to them not being ready. Even though they may not understand all the issues, and have answers to all their questions, the user community remains optimistic. Several areas stated that they will figure things out, and are confident that everything will work out in the end. They are hopeful that End-to-End Testing, End User Testing, and Training will give them the better understanding of the upcoming changes that they need and are expecting. Units believe that their dedicated staff members (specifically those that are embedded in the Program) will have the capability of transitioning to Workday, however concerns still exist with other employees. Units with a large volume of student employees are concerned that those employees will have a difficult time adapting to the system, given the lack of audit guardrails. For Campus Readiness, it is recommended that the Program: Continue to work closely with the campus and Human Resources to reach the readiness levels that the individual areas determine is needed. Continue to manage expectations, reiterating that not every need will be met as desired. Continue to pursue and offer opportunities for the campus to access and interact with the system. If possible, provide a sandbox environment where they can safely test their business processes, and create a forum to answer questions that come up. 13

14 Executive Summary: Requirements and System Solution The most significant concern and risk regarding the requirements and system solution surrounds Reporting. Uncertainty and concern over reports, especially those used to support audits and compliance, are still surfacing, and have been aired by all those interviewed as a major issue. Although inventories of reporting needs have been submitted, there has not been confirmation that complete and accurate reports will be available at go-live. There is still concern that Workday will not do everything the legacy system does. Some transactions will now require multiple steps, resulting in more processing, and potentially more people to get it all done, given the volume of transactions processed. Since the last assessment, the Steering Committee ERP IT Leaders sub-committee has been created. The group has created their charter and has started meeting on a periodic basis to address the campus technical activities, issues, and concerns. This is a key group moving forward. For Requirements and System Solution, it is recommended that the Program: Review the reports inventory for accuracy and completeness, and assign available dates to each. The units should be enlisted in validating the reports to increase their confidence. Continue to assist the campus in identifying areas where Workday will behave differently than the legacy system, and document workarounds to overcome potential limitations. The Steering Committee (rather than the Program) should ensure that the ERP IT subcommittee is representing all campus-wide technical risks and needed decisions. 14

15 Assessment Dashboard

16 Assessment Dashboard The Assessment Dashboard presented on the following page provides an at a glance view of the status for each of the areas assessed. Our team used KPMG standard IV&V methodologies and the rating scale below when assessing each of the those areas. The content presented within the Executive Summary and Detailed Observations and Recommendations sections of this document provided the basis for the status of each area. As three readiness assessments are being performed, the dashboard is updated for the current assessment. A summary dashboard for all assessments is also presented for comparative and trending purposes. 16

17 Assessment Dashboard (continued) Assessment Area Status Key Recommendations Governance and Leadership Program Planning and Management Campus Engagement Campus Readiness Requirements and System Solution Yellow/Trending Green Yellow/Trending Green Yellow Amber/Trending Yellow Yellow Issue additional unified messages to re-enforce the points made in the initial Executive messaging, and continue the sense of urgency. Maintain the ongoing dialogue with the Academic Deans to further understand and address the needs and concerns of the Academic community. Update the communications strategy to include Executive Leadership messaging that coincides with the remaining phases and milestones of the project. Continue as planned with the integral outreach and touch point activities with the campus community. Execute the current training and testing plans. Users should continue to provide their input as they get further involved and gain more exposure to the system functionality. Leverage the newly formed Steering Committee ERP IT Leaders sub-committee to address all campus technical needs and issues. Continue to conduct outreach initiatives as planned. Campus stakeholders should continue to take ownership of the implementation within their respective areas. Manage competing priorities at the campus level, and address them accordingly. Continue to work with the campus units to plan and monitor resource s time; communicate as far in advance as possible where additional resource time will be required; provide assistance and support to the units to supplement their efforts. Continue to work closely with the campus to reach the readiness levels that the individual areas determine is needed. Continue to manage expectations, and that not every need will be met as desired. Continue to pursue and offer opportunities for the campus to access and interact with the system. If possible, provide a sandbox environment where they can safely test their business processes, and create a forum to answer questions that come up. Review the reports inventory for accuracy and completeness, and assign available dates to each. Units should be enlisted in validating the reports. Continue to assist the campus in identifying areas where Workday will behave differently than the legacy; document workarounds to overcome potential limitations. The Steering Committee should ensure that the ERP IT sub-committee is representing all campus-wide technical risks and needed decisions. 17

18 Assessment Dashboard (continued) Assessment Area Assessment 1 (February 2018) Assessment 2 (May 2018) Assessment 3 (August 2018) Governance and Leadership Amber/Trending Yellow Yellow/Trending Green Program Planning and Management Amber/Trending Yellow Yellow/Trending Green Campus Engagement Yellow Yellow Campus Readiness Requirements and System Solution Amber/Trending Yellow Amber/Trending Yellow Amber/Trending Yellow Yellow 18

19 Detailed Observations and Recommendations

20 Governance and Leadership February Baseline Observation: Executive engagement and support of the Program continues to be strong from the Managing Executive Sponsor. Efforts continue to be taken to provide the Program s leadership with whatever support is needed. The Program s leadership also has ongoing interactions with campus leadership through committees including CUBO and TxAdmin. We have not observed the same engagement from the Office of the President and Office of the Provost. To our knowledge, there has not been a formal, unified Executive communication to the campus regarding the Program. May Observation: Since the last report, Executive Leadership messages were issued first by the President, and then followed by a joint message from the Provost and Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Both messages were critical to be provided, and were received well campus-wide. As a result, Executive Leadership is demonstrating a unified position on the Program, providing the campus user community with a common understanding of the priority of the Program and its commitment to succeed. February Baseline Recommendation: As stated in previous reports, having a unified message from the Executive Leadership of the University is critical for the Program to succeed. This will help to ensure that the priority and urgency of the Program is consistently understood campus-wide. As part of the formal communications strategy and plan that is currently being finalized, UT should consider including this unified messaging both now, and at least twice more as the project progresses, and the November 1, 2018 go-live approaches. May Recommendation: These messages were a very positive event for the Program as a whole. Additional unified messaging should continue to reenforce the points made in the initial messaging, and continue the sense of urgency. If frequent and consistent communication from the Executive Leadership does not continue, there is a risk that other campus activities, projects, and programs may be prioritized over Workday, and thus potentially have a negative impact on the go-live plan and implementation. 20

21 Governance and Leadership February Baseline Observation: Academic Deans were interviewed during this assessment process. While their knowledge of, and involvement with, the Program varies, they all stated that they were aware of the November 1, 2018 go-live date. They also stated their desire to see the Program succeed, and do not resist it. Each Dean has a strong support structure in place to address administrative functions, including the system implementation. Those staff members are responsible for engaging with the Program and to see the implementation through. While the Deans interviewed provided positive thoughts, they did, however, report that there are other Deans that have a negative perspective of the Program, and are not prepared for the system implementation. May Observation: During this assessment period, the questions raised by the Academic Dean s were quickly addressed by the Program Leadership. The dialogue initiated with the Academic Deans will continue further, and on a regular basis through attendance at the Deans Council meeting. The Program will have a standing agenda item at those meetings, to provide updates on the Program as a whole, and address whatever related questions, issues, or concerns that the Dean s have. February Baseline Recommendation: While only a subset of Dean s were interviewed, hearing their positive sentiments is encouraging, as their perspective and support is important for their staff, and is also critical to the Program s success. Ongoing dialogue with them should continue, possibly as a group through the Dean s Council meetings. For those Deans that have negative perspectives of the Program, additional outreach should be performed to understand their issues and concerns, and address those accordingly. May Recommendation: Attending the Deans Council meeting is another positive activity that the Program has initiated. Topics pertinent to the Dean s should be provided,. More importantly, maintaining the ongoing dialogue to further understand and address the needs and concerns of the Academic community, should further help enable the success and adoption of the new system. In addition to the group meetings, individual outreach should be continued as needed, as is the current practice and plan. 21

22 Governance and Leadership February Baseline Observation: The consensus with the individuals we interviewed is that the lack of messaging from the President and Provost, and the negative sentiments from some of the Dean s, adds another level of concern and anxiety, above the fear of change and work which already exists from the system implementation. The recent budget reductions were also reported as being a distraction as the campus perspective is that it is unknown at this point if there will be additional reductions, and if they will have adequate staffing levels to carry out their day-to-day work activities following the system implementation. February Baseline Recommendation: Reassurances from Executive Leadership surrounding the overall long-term investment for the betterment of the University, as well as eliminating any negative messaging, will help ease the campus anxiety. This will reduce distractions, and go a long way to reestablishing campus confidence in the future direction, thus allowing staff to focus on the important activities they have ahead of them. The above stated, ongoing unified messaging is needed by the campus community. Following the messaging, UT should consider establishing campus area champions that will further promote support and the successful implementation. It is critical that campus staff hear from other campus staff the positive messaging, rather than that be communicated only from the Program team members. May Observation: During this assessment period, the same level of anxiety was not observed with the user community. Anxiety remains around the fact that there is significant work remaining, and (continued on next page) Specific examples of how the Workday solution will streamline forthcoming daily operational processes should be identified and communicated, to demonstrate that the campus has made a wise investment. As a result, the Program will garner more supporters. May Recommendation: From a Governance and Leadership perspective, as previously stated, the Program should continue to work with the President, Provost, and CFO on further messaging. (continued on next page) 22

23 (continued from previous page) (continued from previous page) Governance and Leadership that they feel that they still do not have enough knowledge of the new system to determine specifically how they will conduct their business, however there is no longer questions around the priority and urgency of the project. As a component of the Communications Plan, the team should formulate a new periodic Executive Leadership messaging strategy that coincides with the remaining phases and milestones of the implementation. There are still multiple key competing priorities across campus, and others are likely to arise. It is crucial that the high levels of priority, urgency, and focus continue across campus over the next five months, and that the Executive Leadership continue to publically support the initiative. 23

24 Program Planning and Management February Baseline Observation: The Program s management structure and associated planning and management activities remains strong. A formal readiness outreach program to the campus is underway, with each campus unit having been identified. Meetings with each unit has either occurred, been scheduled, or will be scheduled. It was reported during the interview process that the campus has confidence with the current Program leadership and team, as opposed to the lack of confidence in the previous leadership. May Observation: As stated in the above observation, the Program s management and processes remains strong. Since the last assessment, a significant amount of Program outreach and communication has occurred with the campus, and will continue through the implementation. The Change Management Team is meeting regularly with all areas and leadership groups. The Program s AVP is also meeting individually with each campus area to understand outstanding needs (including resourcing). Actions are being taken to address whatever need is required. February Baseline Recommendation: Along with the Program s testing activities, the readiness activities are very critical moving forward. The overall objective of the campus meetings should be around determining the current state of readiness for each unit individually, and the unit s concerns and needs moving forward. A formal plan to address those concerns and needs should be created collectively by the team and unit, following each meeting. The Readiness Summary component of the Steering Committee s Program Status Report Dashboard should also be collectively updated. The resourcing of the readiness team should be monitored closely to ensure there is adequate staff to address the activities that the team is undertaking, and their ability to address campus needs. May Recommendation: This is an area that remains strong since the previous assessment, and shows every indication that they will be well positioned to drive the project to go-live. The integral touch points with the campus community remains critical, and the Program s plans should continue as designed. The Program is also making key personnel changes as needed, and this should also continue. The Program s Sponsors and Steering Committee should ensure that the Program s Leaders and managers continue to be supported as needed. Such support is often overlooked on project s of this type and magnitude. 24

25 Program Planning and Management February Baseline Observation: The timeline published by the Program may be too high level and generic to be useful to departments in planning organizational changes that may be needed within the units to support the system's implementation. Some departments have expressed a need to understand the specific tasks that must be completed before go-live (e.g., business routings, roles and responsibilities, deadlines to scrub data or clean up processes), so they can make time to complete them before implementation, while still meeting their day-to-day operational responsibilities. There exists some anxiety at the campus level as there is a lot to accomplish by November 1, and they do not yet know the specifics. February Baseline Recommendation: As part of the readiness meetings, and creation of a plan stated above, the team should also consider creating an organizational alignment checklist of specific tasks and activities that must be completed within the units to support the implementation of the system. May Observation: The Program s work plans and status reporting activities remain strong. A detailed presentation has been created and socialized to the Steering Committee and Business Process Owners. It depicts a cutover calendar, as well as details surrounding blackout dates for critical transactions. Input was solicited and adjustments made to accommodate concerns. It is unclear whether members of the governance groups are charged with communicating cutover planning information to campus units. May Recommendation: If it is currently not the plan, moving forward, the team should develop a plan to communicate cutover planning to campus units beyond the governance groups. If there is an expectation that the information will funnel to the campus stakeholders through members of the various governance groups, a process and related documentation should be created to facilitate the communication to ensure that the information remains accurate. 25

26 Program Planning and Management February Baseline Observation: Per the Program timeline, it appears that End-to-End Testing and End User Testing may be scheduled to occur before the Training is delivered. Without proper training, End User Testing may be less effective or may take longer, as users struggle to learn the system as they execute test scenarios. May Observation: The formal training strategy and plan have been created and distributed. End users are getting more acclimated to the system through various communication channels and involvement with End-to-End Testing. Super Users have also been identified for all areas; they will have access to the system to get further acclimated, and also then provide additional information to their areas. User involvement will also increase as the formal training and End-User Testing activities commence this summer. February Baseline Recommendation: As part of the current training planning activities, the team should consider providing accelerated training before the start of End-to-End Testing and End User Testing. May Recommendation: The team should execute the current training and testing plans as designed. The user community should also continue to provide their input as they get further involved and gain more exposure to the system functionality. 26

27 Program Planning and Management February Baseline Observation: Workday training has been expressed as a concern by most campus stakeholders. It has been expressed that a formal training strategy and plan has not been communicated to them, and the campus does not know how they will train their business units and transfer knowledge from their embedded subject matter experts (SMEs). It was further expressed that there are concerns regarding using SMEs rather than experienced trainers to deliver the training. May Observation: As previously stated, the formal training strategy and plan have now been created and distributed to the user community. Campus-wide training is scheduled to start in July. The campus has stated that this is a time when they are overwhelmed with competing priorities. Many units expressed concern that training is happening at their busiest time, when their staff is already working hour weeks to meet their operational commitments. February Baseline Recommendation: While such a communication may already be planned, the Program should present the training strategy and plan as soon as possible. It should limit the campus burden of ramping up staff and mitigate their labor hours. Training materials along with training videos should be made available on-line. Instructor ledcourses should be conducted both in-person and virtually to accommodate campus staff availability. The use of SMEs vs. experienced trainers should also be determined. May Recommendation: As also stated, as training progresses, the user community should actively engage and provide feedback during the process. Given the November 1 go-live date, there is not much that can be done to address the timing of training. If there is any opportunity for tweaking the training plan, unit schedules could be further considered, as well as offering and staggering multiple sessions of the same modules. While it is not the plan nor optimal, the team should also consider recording the training sessions, so staff could watch those if they are unable to attend inperson. These actions will minimize the impact on the units. The campus units should also be scheduling the training participant s schedules as soon as possible considering their other work and vacation schedules. 27

28 Program Planning and Management February Baseline Observation: It has been reported by multiple groups (specifically the ERP IT Leaders) that there is a campus-wide shortage of technical resources due to various projects competing for the same resources. This is problematic given remaining work that needs to be completed, especially around integrations. There is also an industry shortage of the resources, which compounds the issue. May Observation: During this assessment, it was communicated by ERP IT Leaders that there is still some staffing concerns, including concern around being able to accomplish the scope of work in a tight timeline. This is compounded by their inability to hire resources with the right skill set, especially under existing budget constraints. Junior resources, even those with relevant skill sets, may not have the depth of knowledge required for the complexity of the development tasks at hand. It was reported that some resources continue to get poached from other areas, causing concerns given the amount of work remaining prior to go-live. As a result, this remains a risk to the project. February Baseline Recommendation: The Program should work with other Programs across campus to establish a policy where key technical resources currently engaged by the respective Program are not poached by another, but rather any necessary changes be coordinated in order to limit the overall impact. If needed, Human Resources should also be engaged to facilitate any staff moves between Programs. Development of a formal staffing model would also alleviate some of the burden that currently managers have in predicting which technical resource are needed when. May Recommendation: If this is not taking place as part of the current outreach efforts, the Program should also meet regularly with the ERP IT Leaders, and determine if it is feasible to provide assistance to units that are understaffed and have significant work remaining. It is unclear if the programming levels within the Program would allow for such a solution in the short-term, however it should be investigated. The use of outside consultants, should also be explored. The newly formed Steering Committee ERP IT Leaders sub-committee, should also call attention to these areas if they exist. Regarding the poaching, this is another area that should be discussed at the sub-committee meetings. A standing agenda item around resource needs/issues should be added and discussed at each meeting. Human Resources should be engaged if needed to assist in resolving the issues. 28

29 Campus Engagement February Baseline Observation: The campus engagement varies significantly from unit to unit. Some individuals are positive as they have been engaged through Unit Testing activities, engaging in the previously held Design Confirmation Sessions, and attend ongoing Program meetings these activities are providing them with a broad view of the implementation, and more detail information in specific areas. Other units have negative perspectives, have not been involved, nor have plans to do so. Others also possess negative sentiments, although they have been involved these individuals appear to be adverse to any change. Some are still holding over negative sentiments from experiences from several years back, and are falling back on those. Some of these varying perspectives are due to the phase of the project, with readiness activities now underway, End-to-End Testing and User Testing not yet started, and training being developed and planned. Some units, however, did not indicate that they had plans for engagement, regardless of the phase. May Observation: As of this period, it was reported that campus engagement has increased significantly. Areas including outreach, communications, and general knowledge gains, were reported as improved. The level of (continued on next page) February Baseline Recommendation: The Program has, and continues to perform, significant outreach, and this should continue. At the same time, it is important for members of the campus units to also be proactive, own the implementation for their units, and reach out to the Program if they have concerns or needs that they feel are not being addressed. It is very important that the campus community understand that the Workday implementation is a campus business initiative, and not a technology project; everyone has a role and responsibility in ensuring the implementation is successful. May Recommendation: The Program should continue to conduct outreach initiatives as planned. It is again emphasized that all campus stakeholders should continue to take ownership of the implementation within their respective areas, and (continued on next page) 29

30 Campus Engagement (continued from previous page) involvement still varies by area, however everyone interviewed stated that they were aware of the outreach activities, and who to contact with questions and issues. Additional support is being provided by the Program to specific groups as needed. While there are competing priorities across campus, stakeholders have expressed that the Program is working with them to engage their embedded resources in an effective manner, and address their issues. The majority of those interviewed indicated that they are optimistic that this positive trend will continue. Concerns were raised regarding the timing of testing and training activities, and that it will be difficult to get staff involved as the associated timelines interfere with their respective day-to-day peak times of the year. (continued from previous page) reach out to the Program with all related questions, concerns, and issues. Competing priorities should be addressed promptly and managed closely at the campus level. If resource conflicts result, these need to be communicated and resolved accordingly. 30

31 Campus Engagement February Baseline Observation: There is some confusion in the units as the Program begins to meet with them. Multiple activities are taking place simultaneously, and some units are being asked to participate in multiple meetings organized by different areas of the Program. Some campus users are having difficulty understanding how all of the activities fit together. May Observation: This above observation was an example of concerns that was based on the phase of the project during the initial assessment. As stated previously, since that time, there has been significant communications and outreach to the campus community. Some confusion still exists, which is not unexpected, and those items are being addressed by the Program (if they are aware of them). February Baseline Recommendation: It is recommended that the Program create a roadmap that depicts the campus involvement. It should be ensured that the purpose and scope of the campus involvement clearly fits into the published roadmap. May Recommendation: The Program should continue with the further engagement of the campus community. The Program is making significant efforts to engage the campus community as much as possible, and they can only address questions and concerns that they are aware of. The Campus should continue to communicate all of the concerns to the Program representatives so that they can be resolved. 31

32 Campus Engagement February Baseline Observation: It has been reported by various campus groups that awareness regarding key milestones are unbeknownst to them at this juncture. They stated that pivotal business processes that were once being discussed with them (given their knowledge), no longer appear to be a priority, leaving them unaware of what will be the forthcoming ultimate solution. This has caused an issue on their part of feeling the Program is not being transparent. May Observation: During this assessment, it was discussed that concerns still exist about the status of business decisions that will have significant impact on units. Some units still feel uninformed, or that they have been left out of the decision-making process. If changes to the current employment model require cultural or procedural shifts, time to accommodate these changes should be built into the decision-making process (e.g., sporadic employment, mass transactions and student hiring). February Baseline Recommendation: As the communications strategy is completed, it is important that the Program milestones be clearly communicated. In addition, all open business decisions, along with their disposition, should also be communicated. This will help restore confidence in those that have more of a negative outlook, currently due to their perceived lack of communication and transparency. Overall, the communications strategy should be concise and to the point, with visual dashboards and key communication timelines, rather than go into too much granular detail. The detail is still important, however it can be included as an appendix to the strategy, and thus not be overwhelming to the reader. May Recommendation: As outstanding business decisions are finalized, the team should continue to communicate the outcomes to affected business units so that they will have sufficient time to align their business processes accordingly. This is especially true regarding those units that have the highest populations subject to the issue. 32

33 Campus Engagement February Baseline Observation: There is still consensus amongst some at the campus level that their voice is still not being heard. They stated that they have staff embedded in various groups and committees, created to steer key decisions for the Program, and are sharing concerns regarding specific business requirements that are seen as gaps in Workday. They do not feel, however, that the Program is considering their concerns or recommendations. May Observation: The above sentiments were not aired during this assessment. While there are still some on campus that have concerns about communication, and improvement may still be needed, it was frequently stated and acknowledged that the Program is doing its best to anticipate and address their concerns. February Baseline Recommendations: Whether or not the campus concerns and recommendations are being considered, the perception amongst some is that they are not. To address these sentiments, as concerns and recommendations are being aired, they should be logged, along with a decision and/or disposition. This will help ensure that the campus feels they are heard, and further assist in eliminating any negative perceptions. The Program should further communicate its open door policy and encourage campus participants to air its concerns. As previously stated, it is also the campus responsibility to ensure their issues and concerns are being addressed if they do not feel they are. May Recommendations: The Program should continue to create opportunities for communication, including listening to campus needs and concerns, and addressing their issues promptly. 33

34 Campus Engagement February Baseline Observation: Related to the previous observation and recommendation, some units with high volumes of flat rate paid employees may not have been involved in the sporadic employment discussions, or may not have a clear understanding of the proposed solution. If the solution is not effective, there is a risk that some of these departments may lose valuable resources, as their participation in their programs must be planned months in advance. February Baseline Recommendation: It is recommended that the Program ensure that departments with high volumes of flat rate paid employees participate and/or understand the proposed solutions for sporadic employment. May Observation: It was reported during the assessment that departments with a high-volume of flat rate paid sporadic employment are still not aware of the proposed solution, and their overall understanding remains unclear. May Recommendation: As previously recommended above, the Program should ensure that those departments with high volumes of flat rate paid employees participate and/or understand the proposed solutions for sporadic employment. 34

35 Campus Engagement February Baseline Observation: Some units have invested significant resources in the Program, with participation of some appearing to more than the anticipated 50% of their full time hours. Although these units can realize the value in their participation, the Program continues to consume more and more of their resources' time, which often has had an adverse effect on their day-to-day responsibilities in the departments. May Observation: Across the board, campus units report that the Program continues to consume more and more of their embedded resources time, far beyond the anticipated agreement. While the spirit of collaboration prevails, the impact continues to create stress in the units, as other resources must absorb day-to-day responsibilities of embedded resources. There is also stress on the embedded resources, who report that they must deal with too many meetings, too many tasks, too much testing, and do not have time to commit to their regular jobs, as anticipated. February Baseline Recommendation: The Program should continue to monitor the embedded resource s time, and be mindful of their time and other responsibilities. Activities where additional time may be required of embedded resources should be communicated as far in advance as possible. Where feasible, the Program should provide assistance and support to the units to supplement their efforts. May Recommendation: The Program should continue to monitor the embedded resource s time, and be mindful of their time and other responsibilities. Activities where additional time may be required of embedded resources should be communicated as far in advance as possible. Where feasible, the Program should provide assistance and support to the units to supplement their efforts. 35

36 Campus Engagement February Baseline Observation: Some campus units have been struggling to adequately plan for embedded resources completing Unit Testing and planning for End-to-End Testing. May Observation: As previously stated, the training strategy and plan have been created and distributed to the campus community. As mentioned throughout this report, there appears to be many expectations associated with End-to- End Testing. For instance, the campus may expect to get a better understanding of the full process, how long it will take to process a transaction from start to finish, the level of expertise that their staff needs, etc. While some of these may be achievable, unknown expectations may create disappointment if not well managed. Further, regarding planning, the Program continues to regularly reassess the need for meetings, the meeting durations, and required attendees. Such efforts are intended to more effectively manage team member s time, and keep them focused on the critical tasks at hand. February Baseline Recommendation: The Program should continue to flesh out the resource plan,discuss that with the units, keep it updated, and made available to the units so that they can plan accordingly. May Recommendation: Overall the Program should continue to communicate the campus resource needs as soon as possible, to enable them to plan accordingly. As the project activities continue and progress, the team should also gather feedback from the units regarding what they expect to get from the activities with which they are involved (e.g., End-to-End Testing, End User Testing, etc.). These expectations should be fully understood, and any expectation determined to be unachievable, should be reset and communicated accordingly. 36