1

Agenda

Time

Mins Topic

11.00 10 Introductions - Derek and Agenda - Daniel

  20 Gap analysis report – Margaret Park

11.30 20 Benefits – Claire Doherty for the SER Operations Group

  15 Q & A on Gaps and Benefits

12.05 35 Tribal observations/delivery plan – Steve Bott / John Gledhill

12.40 15 Q & A on Tribal observations and delivery plan

12.55 5 Summing up - Derek

2

University of St AndrewsSER

Universities Scotland Circularon the provision of

online PGT information

The Proctor

14 August 2014College Gate, St Andrews

Requirement for online PGT information

By spring 2015, we need to have a functional and rich online environment to provide information about our Postgraduate Taught courses.

The audience is both UK and international potential students as well as our statutory customers.

In some ways this is a similar requirement to the statutory Undergraduate Key Information Set (KIS) but without the requirement to collect raw assessment or teaching and learning data.

Proposal for development

There was no ITS investment in 2013 during SER for PGT students although it was recognised that the current online Course Search facility was sub-standard for this cohort. In addition, a decision was taken not to develop further over the summer of 2014.

Now that the work on the summer 2014 “burning platforms” is drawing to a close, we suggest that the Advisory Board look at the requirements in the USS Circular and plan how best to satisfy them in the short- and long-term.

Development work should be finished by 31 December 2014.

5

University of St AndrewsSER

Highlights fromGap analysis report

Margaret Park (Tribal)

14 August 2014College Gate, St Andrews

6

The purpose of the gap analysis

Tribal was asked by the SER Programme Board in May 2014 to conduct a gap analysis of the capability of SITS software to deliver the requirements collected in 2013.

7

The gap analysis was conducted on site at St Andrews in June and July 2014. Lean Central was the venue throughout the summer.

The analysis was done in partnership with St Andrews operational staff working alongside Margaret Park (Tribal).

The SER project documentation collected in 2013 was compared to present requirements as discussed with workshop attendees from Schools and Units.

When and where

8

The gap analysis did not examine the skills capability of St Andrews to deliver user interface design (ie, “look and feel”).

Requirements for tailoring or re-skinning using Java, for example, would need to be analysed separately by other means.

Not in scope of the gap analysis

9

A gap analysis was conducted looking at the SITS configuration at St Andrews compared to what is needed for SITS product functionality as required by the individual projects.

SITS upgrades have been maintained at St Andrews and the current version of the software (8.7.0) with plans to upgrade in November 2014 is sufficient to deliver the proposed SITS solutions.

Gaps that were analysed – SITS local configuration

10

A gap analysis was conducted looking at the SITS skills currently available at St Andrews to develop and maintain the proposed SITS solutions.

The analysis found that there is an insufficient volume and, in some instances, expertise in the use of local SITS skills to deliver the proposed SITS solution in-house.

Gaps that were analysed – Local SITS skills

11

Training of St Andrews operational staff and ITS developers would be required so that the legacy of SER is sustainable in-house.

Tribal could provide on-site training as part of the continuous improvement exercise envisioned at St Andrews.

Training requirements

12

A gap analysis was conducted looking at the previously approved SER projects in terms of the requirements gathered in 2013 (reconfirmed in summer of 2014) and comparing those to SITS product functionality.

The analysis found that in all but a few known instances the current SITS software can deliver the approved project requirements in terms of functionality.

Gaps that were analysed – Project requirements vs SITS software functionality

13

The projects that were analysed

Only previously approved SER projects were truly analysed for gaps between requirements and SITS product functionality.

• Advising• Paperless Admissions• Curriculum Approvals• Changes of Circumstance• Collaborations & Study Abroad database• Student Funding Administration

14

The projects that were analysed

For each project, the gap analysis identified where St Andrews already has SITS software under licence to provide for the project requirements or where additional software components would need to be licenced in order to deliver the proposed solutions.

In some cases it was found that St Andrews has had a SITS component for some time but has not implemented it fully or in sufficient detail to satisfy the project requirements.

15

The Tribal proposed solutions – SITS component gaps

The following table of SITS software components summarises the gaps that would need bridging in order to implement the Tribal proposed solutions:

16

Additional projects that were considered

In addition to the approved projects, additional requirements that were directly related and shared by projects were discussed although not analysed.

These included:

• Document Management• Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) for case

management and enquiry management• Interactive Workspaces (called Portals in e-

Vision)

17

Almost all of the projects has the requirement for collecting, storing and displaying documentation.

The University already has and uses the SITS software component that enables these processes; however, not all users follow the same business model and there is no enterprise solution.

The SITS Document Manager solution is suitable for all of the approved project requirements.

Document Manager

18

ESD has a fully integrated interface with SITS and an API that allows integration with other systems but it is a separate software component currently used by 35 HE customers.

The software is component built which means it is as customisable as required by local needs.

Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) –For individual student enquiry resolution

19

Student Services is considering a case management system and staff have recently had an onsite demonstration by Ken Barrett (Tribal product expert) of Tribal’s solution – Enterprise Service Desk (ESD).

Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) – for case management

20

End of part one

21

University of St AndrewsSER

Programme benefits and why a continued Tribal partnership is beneficial

Claire Doherty

Prepared by the SER Operations Group (Mohammad Asadullah, Claire Doherty, Daniel Farrell, Nadege

Minois and Kevin Thomson)

Rationale for a benefits model for SEREarly on in the SER programme, the Ops Group realised that we did not have sufficient or robust information to make educated guesses at the cost-saving benefits of all the SER projects.

So, instead of using the more conventional approach of benefits categorisation such as finance/risk and compliance/time saving, the SER Operations Group decided to classify the benefits of the SER projects using the four SER principles.

Our first task was to evaluate the importance of each principle to apply a weighting factor if necessary. We chose 1 to mean least important and 4 to mean most important.

SER Programme principles prioritised as benefits

Principle Claire Daniel Kevin Nadege Total

Simplification 2 1 4 4 11

Visibility & Transparency 3 3 2 1 9

e-Enablement 4 2 1 3 10

Adaptability & Flexibility 1 4 3 2 10

Conclusion of straw poll

Although each attendee perceived the importance of each of the four principles differently, the overall importance of each principle is similar if the total scores are compared.

25

What each SER principle means to us in terms of benefits

Simplification• Cyclical process review / continuous improvement• Process-led technology (do not strap/bolt in ITS)• Eliminate hoops• Increase service delivery / pace• Clarify cross-unit communications• Promote institutional change• Decrease cost / increase revenue• Improve customer service• Improve data quality• Expose problems• Increase creative capacity• Better management of resources

Visibility & Transparency

• Hold fast to golden sources: minimise or eliminate local copies• Provide re-usable data for management information• Improve decision making and quality of decision• Provide more information for analysis• Clarify inter-departmental communications• Give better control for less fragmentation• Improve audit preparation / self-monitoring• Write better documentation including semantics and meta-data• Less shooting down of each other’s ideas• Encourage self-improvement• Improve data quality through aeration• Expose gaps / problems in systems and business processes

• Reduce or minimise sutures between systems (ie, keep the bonnet closed to end users)

• Encourage a move towards standards and structured data• Paper-lite delivery to encourage the Green Agenda• Mobile device and web promoted developments• Easy and ready (24/7) access• Commonality in design and features• Sex up the image (do away with the clunky)• Promote innovation and modernisation• Permit customisation so the system caters for the user• Be ahead of the game by listening to users/feedback• Make staff feel part of the developments (eg, workspace designs)

e-Enablement

Adaptability & Flexibility

• Design for the repeatable / prototypical• Decrease cost of repair / maintenance• Ensure that process flows are delegable • Upgradable / maintainable while in circulation• Insist on reliability• Design for friendly interactions to encourage use• Responsive to external changes• Infrastructure needs to be recoverable and not staff dependent• Work towards individual customisation at surface• Always be scalable

30

Do the SER projects bring the identified benefits? And are the SER principles

applicable to non-SER projects?

Case study 1: Paperless Admissions

Current characteristics to improve Benefit achieved

Like-for-like replacement of un-reviewed process e-Enablement

Written on complex platform (MMS) Simplification

ITS developers and/or external contractors need to have knowledge of local development platforms Simplification

Not self-reporting or maintainable at non-ITS level Transparency

Complex workflow with many variables Simplification

Not a closed ecosystem so high maintenance Simplification

Not easily adaptable to changes in requirements Adaptability

Involves a lot of staff Simplification

Work-around heavy Transparency

Case study 2: Online Matriculation

Current characteristics to improve Benefit achieved

E-enabled only to an extent e-Enablement

Work-around intrusion (SITS fields used for other purposes) Flexibility

Complex workflows Simplification

Not maintainable at local non-ITS level Flexibility

Slow Simplification

Replacement of paper-based process E-enablement

Not self-explanatory at times Transparency

Permits errors because of manual intervention Adaptability

No up-to-date documentation Transparency

“Time spent on…” – some bad institutional habits

• …resolving individual student cases (going “round-the-houses”)• …researching full information on different systems• …answering enquiries without monitoring response rates• …manually correcting data between systems and in local files• …uploading / scanning documents that become invisible to most users• …maintaining system interfaces since we hold data in different places• …diagnosing system-to-system problems• …developing and testing but never going live in time• …finding / creating work-arounds (creative space to get the right answer

vs. quick fixes from lack of time/permission to be creative at work) • …reporting (lack of e-enablement)• …waiting on responses because of bottlenecks created by too few experts

Time saving benefits for staff

• Staff know that they can work quicker (save time), more accurately (increase quality) and more creatively (be ahead of the game).

• Staff know that if systems permitted, we can achieve greater improvement without continually expanding staff complement.

• Staff want to benefit from the correlation, ie, by freeing up a percentage of staff time and saving money, the University will be in a position to re-invest. Re-investment needs to be in the areas of professional development, self-improvement and the continuous improvement of processes and services.

35

Why would a SITS user at St Andrews want to argue for staying with Tribal?

The SITS benefits from a user’s perspective• Tribal are market leaders in this area, providing SITS software

for more than 70% of the UK HE/FE sector, expanding in Australia/NZ, South Africa, Ireland and North America

• A reputable and well-known 3rd party supplier so conversations in statutory areas are easier (eg, HESA, UCAS)

• Nine of the Scottish HEIs are Tribal customers and there is a strong user community and knowledge base among colleagues in Scotland

• The product is well-supported (MySITS helpdesk & Forums)

• We already know SITS very well (first installation in 1999) and we already have most of the technology required although it is unutilised or not customised

• Range of experts and beginners among staff in Registry, Finance, Student Services which means that up-skilling and training are easier

• Well-established SITS Internal User Group for information sharing and decision making

• We have a strong voice in the SITS user community – Scottish and North England Regional User Group, Executive User Group, various UK Working Groups and Special Interest Groups

• Reciprocal reputation for Tribal and St Andrews in a partnership arrangement so that we maintain a competitive market edge

• Cost benefit if all student administration tools were to be built on a single platform

• Cost benefit as ongoing Tribal consultancy would become less of a dependency as staff become specialists and are able to maintain systems and developments

39

End of presentation two

Q & A

40

University of St AndrewsSER

Delivering SER and beyond

Steve Bott (Tribal)

14 August 2014

Master’s RoomHebdomadar’s Block

Where delivery of SER will take you

Leadership

Continuous

Improvement

Performance

Measurement KPIs

Better processes

Informed decision making

Improved performance

• A fast-paced, pragmatic delivery style• Uncomplicated, easy to use tools & techniques• Clear and compelling case for change at each/every project stage

• Greater clarity within project communications • Single template for benefits/project tracking to inform prioritisation and resource

planning decision so that everyone ‘sees’ the same information at every stage of a project

• Project delivery supported by a transition towards a Continuous Improvement culture• Creates ‘belief’, builds team ethic and delivers an in-house problem-solving capability

• A revised governance structure• Responsibility for delivery and decision-making placed closer to the work

How Tribal can help you to deliver SER

Fast-paced, pragmatic delivery style

Option 1 – Iterative/Time driven• Iterative methods evolve an entire set of deliverables over time,

completing them near the end of the project• Project actions are resourced to meet fixed deadline

Contractual Legislative Academic calendar To support dependent project that has fixed deadlines

Option 2 – Agile/Continuous improvement• Agile methods complete small portions of the deliverables in each delivery

cycle (iteration)• Project team complete actions as fast as possible within resource

availability and BAU cover

Agile Project Management

Greater clarity within project communications

Project Delivery Template – Decision MakingProject Title: 1. Problem Statement Nature of the problem to be addressed (as specific, succinct and quantifiable as possible) Where it fits within the overall strategy for the process area Where it fits in relation to other planned/in progress project actions

2. Prioritisation Statement Why this project should be done next (as specific, succinct and quantifiable as possible) Number of occurrences (per week); Students affected; Other dependencies (we can’t do that if we don’t do this);

Deadlines (and resulting required start date); availability of resource

3. Investment/ROI Statement Investment affordability ROI analysis 4. Projected BenefitsCost Process time saved (in Hours); Reduction in number of meetings; chasing information; waiting for decisions;

approvals hierarchyRisk Removal of single points of failure; Reputation; Reduction in IT systems utilised; Reduction in single points of

failure; More accurate data; Budgetary controlQuality Reduction in end-to-end lead time; Staff morale; Happier students; Right First Time; Better decision making;

Visibility

Project Delivery Template – Project ManagementProject Title: 5. Countermeasure and scope:

6. Desired Outcome and Success Criteria

Brief description of the proposed solution Where it fits within

Brief description of what you are trying to achieve How will you show the project has been successful? Goals should be (SMART): Specific, measurable,

attainable, relevant and timely

7. Projected Resource Required 8. Stakeholders, Risks & Potential Barriers Time in hours Skills required Split by work packages

Any interaction/impacts with other projects or work areas

Who else needs to be made aware of this work?

9. Final Outcome (Reflection on how it went) Link to previous Desired Outcome and Success Criteria Unforeseen Results

Project managers • Often have difficulty in influencing the pace of delivery• Seen as ‘outsiders’ by project team• Have a different reporting line Slows down communication Different agendas and priorities BAU will always take priority • Role is passive

Project management accountability retained within project team• Placed as close to the point of improvement/change as possible• Actions are driven by personal/team needs, gains and benefits• Role is active

Project Management

Project delivery supported by a transition towards a continuous improvement

culture

Programme planning meets pragmatism

From Here To Here?Plan

Act Do

Check

Continuous Improvement

The goal is to keep momentum not kill it!

Empowering the Continuous Improvement Process

Ownership• I have permission and I can self-direct within agreed

limits• I have sufficient time and resources to do my job well

Purpose• I am making a contribution to the programme overall• I have a personal connection with the new solution

Mastery• It satisfies my desire to get better at stuff• I have the necessary skills and the confidence to use

them

How it will feel to your

staff

• Leadership ability

• Experience & Knowledge of the business processes

• Credibility

• Authority

• Good communication & presentation skills

• Good at building and maintaining relationships

• Passionate about the project benefits

• Able to handle ambiguity

• Supportive and available

Skills set for Project Delivery

Revised governance structure

PROGRAMME CONTROL GROUPSER Steering Group

PROGRAMME PLANNING GROUP

SER Advisory BoardSER Ops GroupChange Unit / LEAN

PROJECT DELIVERY GROUPProject ManagerProcess OwnerSMEsRules OwnerAdministrator/AnalystProject Champion

TECHNOLOGY GROUPIn-house – systems integrationIn-house – SITS developersTribal – SITS developers

Solving problems

Sharing knowledge/ideas

Removing excuses!

Responsible for project delivery

Ultimate accountability

Delivering the Benefits

Skills enabled empow

erment

Agi

le, r

espo

nsiv

e , i

nfor

med

dec

isio

n m

akin

g

Programme Governance

SER Projects

ITSAlum

ni

Admissions

Student

Services

Finance

ELT

Registry

Careers

Tribal

Schools

Project Governance, Roles & Responsibilities

Rules owner- Decides on process and business rules ensuring they are

fit for purpose

Process owner - Identifies and verifies system and process requirements- Retains responsibility for proposed process and system

design and approves changes

Project Champion- Conduit between the project & SER community - Advocacy within units to promote change

Project Manager- Project planning & delivery; Meeting facilitation - Helps project groups reach agreement on scope,

requirements, resources and delivery schedules

Business Rules

Project Team

Control Group (SER Steering Group)- Strategic vision, Risk, Budget , Scope

Planning Group (SER Advisory Board, etc.)- Oversight, Facilitation, Guidance, Support, Direction,

Control, Training

Legend: Collaborate

Direct Escalation

Subject Matter Experts- Provides business knowledge to the project- Requirements finalisation & user stories

Business Analyst - Elicits process and system requirements and

transforms these to inform the product build - Maintains supporting documentation

Business Team

Delivery Group ( For each project)- Project ownership, solution design & project delivery

Project Governance, Roles & Responsibilities

Rules owner- Alison Sandeman- IT Developer

Process owner - Becky Ballantyne

Project Champion- Ben Stride

Project Manager- ??

Business Rules

Project Team

Control Group (SER Steering Group)- Strategic vision, Risk, Budget , Scope

Planning Group (SER Advisory Board, etc.)- Oversight, Facilitation, Guidance, Support, Direction,

Control, Training

Legend: Collaborate

Direct Escalation

Subject Matter Experts- Marie-Noel Earley- Julie Ramsay- Admissions Officers x 3 Business Analyst - Claire Doherty

Business Team

Delivery Group ( For each project)- Project ownership, solution design & project delivery

Proposed delivery plan

Interactive Workspace Enterprise Service Desk (ESD)

Suggested Delivery Plan – more resource earlier onOct 2014 Aug 2016Feb 2015

Tran

che

1Tr

anch

e 3

Curriculum Approvals

T 2 Changes of

Circumstance

Paperless Admissions

Scholarships & Funding

?

?

CSA

Advising

QuickWins

SER

Proj

ects

Interactive Workspace

Interactive Workspace

Contingency

Contingency

Contingency

Contingency

Benefits Realised

Sept2014

Releases capacity to

Project modules delivery sequencing

Project modules delivery sequencing

Project modules delivery sequencing

Project modules delivery sequencing

Enterprise Service Desk (ESD(

Enterprise Service Desk (ESD

)

Pilot ProjectsLearning informs remainder of

SER project delivery

Risks and requirements for delivering culture changes for SER and beyond

• SER scope and purpose is still disconnected even after three iterations • Disconnect between what project teams think they are delivering and what the Steering Group is

expecting of them

• Chronic shortage of dedicated project resource• BAU consumed project resource in previous SER iterations• Individual Project teams are not clearly defined/constant/consistent

• Complex project review and prioritisation procedures • Too many levels of authority – different Boards, Groups etc• High numbers of interested parties – endless papers and reports that no-one has time to read• Decisions not being made by fact holders• Slows down decision making process• Lack of consistency in approvals process and decisions made

• We share knowledge but we don’t act on it or know what to do with it

Culture change – Key risks

• SER purpose and vision need to be restated• St Andrews needs a clear strategic vision – understood by all• Single unified message from the top (ie, the Steering Group) to enable project teams to have clarity of

their objectives• Visible support for SER through your own behaviours – informal ‘go-see’

• SER projects must be adequately resourced to meet planned deadlines• Ring fenced SER resource not Business as usual must come first

• SER must interact effectively with MIG and web development projects to ensure a cohesive outcome across all three initiatives

• Meetings need to be outcome driven and as brief as possible• Meetings must have a clear purpose, an agenda and recorded minutes (with actions and owners)• First agenda item should be ‘what I’ve achieved since the last meeting’• Ask – ‘who needs to attend/can we make a decision without them?’• Everyone required attends or sends a nominated deputy authorised to make decisions• Everyone attends on-time and are prepared and ready to contribute• Meetings should finish on-time (or early!)

Culture change – Key dependent actions

• Provide the vision and strategic direction that people can depend upon and work toward

• Ensure messages and guidance are consistent and re-enforced by your own behaviours

• Be inclusive and collaborative and build teams

• Set clear objectives and challenge ways of thinking then………….

TRUST YOUR COLLEAGUES TO DELIVER!!

Key requirements for Continuous Improvement

Building Teams, Trust & Ownership

Learn how to give people what they want instead of what you want to give them!

A final thought…

Don’t underestimate the influence you have on others!

66

End of presentation three

Q & A