HRIS Post Implementation Review Detail

					                                                         BUSINESS SERVICES COMPUTING
                                                                         Interoffice Memo




TO:           Mike Szczepanski
FROM:         Tammy Murray
DATE:         May23rd, 2003
SUBJECT:      HRIS Post Implementation Review


Joan Vaughan conducted the Human Resource Information System (HRIS) Post
Implementation review on April 28th, 2003. Those in attendance were Rick Miller, Liz
Rulli, Jim Skiles, Kirk Tolliver, Harry Smith, Kevin Gillenwater, Greg McKinney, Mike
Schulte, Cheryl Gray, Peg Jasper, Susan Davis, Donna Muir, Sheryl Gick.

Overview of the Project
The purpose of the project was to successfully implement a Human Resource system. The
HRIS project began with vendor selection in 1996. In November 2002, Jeff Whitten and
Jim Almond decided to discontinue the project.

Purpose of the Meeting
The post implementation review was arranged to discuss what went well and what can be
improved. Consensus was not obtained on any items mentioned and the comments
documented do not necessarily reflect the group as a whole. While HRIS application wasn‟t
implemented, a review was held because there are many lessons that can be learned from
the process.


Major areas of success:
      There were many knowledgeable business and technical staff on the project.

       Staff gained knowledge of HR system, processes, and learned new software tools.

      Modules such as Compensation Distribution (CD - payroll charge replacement) and
       Time and Attendance (TAD) were well designed, developed and tested.

      Client quality assurance testing strategy was designed and implemented
                                                         HRIS Post Implementation Review



Major areas where improvement is needed:

      As the scope of the project changed, neither the project timeline or project resources
       were adjusted.

      Interface work had to start before development of the On-Line Transaction Process
       (OLTP) was complete.

      Not enough time was allowed at the end of the project for adequate testing and
       training.

      Project experienced schedule compression at the end by trying to meet a fixed
       deadline.

      The functionality to be delivered in the product didn‟t meet the original specified
       requirements.
       Business processes should be reviewed to determine how they could be changed
       instead of modify the application.

      Decision-making authority was not delegated to the lowest possible level to facilitate
       quick decisions.

      Project should have been broken into smaller pieces. Too many pieces have to come
       together at just the right time for it to work.


What Worked Well
Requirements Definition/Scope

      For the first time in a long time we were able to put into writing what our systems
       need to get the job done.
      Features of check printing, TAD went well.
      Documentation was organized and consistent at the launch of the project.
      Large group requirements gathering sessions (i.e. TAD) with many areas
       represented.
      Requirements for Time and Attendance, check printing, Flex replacement were well
       prepared.


Design

      Creative designs to get the job done with what we had.
      A greater number of people now understand the complexity of HR and Payroll.
      Documentation of key processes.




                                          Page 3 of 13
                                                         HRIS Post Implementation Review



      Meeting with clients, Business Analysts, and project staff to generate overview of a
       module before specs written (TAD, staffing) as opposed to developing individual
       screens (Foundation).
      Following InPower design was good.
      Redesign of database.


Development

      New technical skills were developed (i.e. Developer 2000, PLSQL, Unix Script, Auto
       Sys).
      Account Profile Management System (APMS) went well because it was a small
       project and each of the three people involved had expertise in their area of
       contribution.
      Initial simulation (Prototype) pre-Aug 1998 went well. Was key to team learning
       application.
      Standards that were put in place after Oleg Fedoror and Kevin Gillenwater
       (analyst/programmer) arrived were very beneficial.
      Clients appreciated collaboration on Flexible Spending Account (FSA) module.
       Issues that would impact other segments seemed to be uncovered in this work and
       provided a means to illustrate and start problem solving.
      Dedicated staff.


Test

      Testing process implemented by Julie Graham worked well (with exception of
       business process documentation – business process, testing and training materials
       were going on at same time and shouldn‟t have). Data load processes were well
       tested and repeatable. The test group put together a great process for identifying all
       the parts to doing a thorough test.
      Conversion and batch testing went well. Automated testing with Quality Assurance
       (QA) Run and QA Director went well once we got beyond the initial learning curve.
      Business Analysts on the project team did a good job of testing the system at various
       points in the development environment prior to production.
      Structured set of business scenarios and very detailed scripts to provided
       consistency to user acceptance testing.
      TAD testing in ENAD was effective.


Implementation

      The roll out of a particular release of the Total Compensation (TC) system was both
       controlled and timely.
      Hosted „workshops‟ for central office staff. This allowed them to touch software and
       become familiar. It allowed them to understand impact of needed business changes.



                                         Page 4 of 13
                                                         HRIS Post Implementation Review



       Release strategy in 2002. – Broke project into pieces by focusing on project team
        and schedule.


Communication

       Communication within the project team and with the end users worked well and
        kept pace with new needs as the TC system grew.
       Liz Rulli provided extremely good communication to the business representatives
        and Process Implementation (PI) Team rep.
       Showcases were well attended and generally viewed as helpful. Helped build an
        understanding of key concepts and demonstrate software and processes.
       Monthly newsletters potential system users were well received.
       With regards to interface work, we were told what was going on and asked for
        feedback. Monthly meetings worked well (i.e. Interface Contacts).
       For the development team, regular meetings helped keep the development staff
        abreast of timeline, developments, expectations, etc.
       Refined and improved Change Management. This is a process to notify the various
        areas when changes to infrastructure needed to be put into place.


System Features (Product)

       The system had most of the features we need. It also had many features we never
        could have used.
       Key on number other than SSN was attractive.
       Once we began to understand it, the compensation plans were flexible and a very
        powerful way to run HR plans.
       One integrated Payroll/HR system.
       Good design and database.
       Web-based product.
       System design was tailored for Purdue‟s business practices.


Training

       The Business Office Training Manual was developing into a good document.
       Hands-on sessions that included detailed materials and practice
        examples/exercises.
       Resources were made available whenever we requested.


Other

       Contributions of the Business Analysts were outstanding




                                          Page 5 of 13
                                                        HRIS Post Implementation Review



   Equipment acquisition and set-up.
   Product selection process was customer driven.
   The last year was extremely productive: Compensation Distribution, Time Entry,
    FSA claims, check printing, staffing, client testing, parallel testing, data conversion.
   Project team was dedicated to seeing a successful implementation.




                                        Page 6 of 13
                                                                                                             HRIS Post Implementation Review
                                                                                           NOTE: SC = Steering Committee, PD = Project Director, PM –
    What Can We Do Better Next Time?
                                                                                           Project Manager, BA = Business Analysts, S = Stakeholders
Issue                                                            Solution                                                              Who     Category

Need to manage scope better                                            Document scope and criteria for determining that a             SC/PD   All
                                                                        project is successful.                                         /PM
       What was in original project documents and what was
        eventually going to be delivered was very different.           Implement process for modifying scope.
       As changes to scope were made (i.e. PUID, e-forms),            If scope does change, then time or additional resources
        project timeline wasn‟t extended nor were additional            should be made available.
        resources made available.
                                                                       When there are changes to scope, estimates should be
       As delays in schedule occurred (i.e. Flex more                  developed on how much that change will “cost”.
        complicated than) no schedule relief was made.
       Too much emphasis on Payroll at the expense of HR
        component.
Current projects and their relationship to other projects need         Manage scope creep.
                                                                                                                                       SC/PD   Requirements/Sc
to be better managed.
                                                                                                                                       /PM     ope
     The complexity added to both the Ariba procurement               Cost and benefit analysts should be performed. A project
        implementation/upgrade and the HRIS project                     needs to clearly state that scope will be managed thru a
        through the HR e-forms was not fully understood for             process that identifies whether a change will be paid for
        some time. Linking the HRIS project to Ariba added a            from money or changes to schedule.
        layer of complexity that could have been avoided.
     Using Ariba for pre-employment was a big mistake –
        had to redo work – no schedule relief.
     Wasted work: Ariba Pre-Employment forms and CD
        Self-Sufficiency. Resources could have been better
        used on core product.
Fixed implementation dates caused problems.                            Steering Committee needs to be willing to hear things they
                                                                                                                                       SC/PD   Other
     Push to meet deadline caused more errors in code.                 may not want to hear and listen to the Project Manager.
                                                                                                                                       /PM
       Need to get „something out there‟ sometimes seemed             Communication to Steering Committee needs to include
        to overrule good business sense.                                good news and bad news. Failure to communicate
                                                                        potential risks or unmet deadlines will only result in false
       Management‟s refusal/denial to believe that the                 expectations.
        project was in schedule trouble cost time and waste
        and caused delay.
Need to improve decision-making process.
                                                                       Determine what decision-making authority team members          SC      All
    Decisions were made and then reversed after
                                                                        have (i.e. what decisions can business analysts make vs.
        development work had already been done.
                                                                        project directors vs. project managers vs. Steering
       Too many competing forces in making design                      Committee).
        decisions. Too many people involved.
                                                                       Need one person (Project Director) in charge with
       Too many design decisions by developers, not by                 complete authority over time (schedule), money, and staff.


                                                                        Page 7 of 13
                                                                                                              HRIS Post Implementation Review

Issue                                                            Solution                                                              Who     Category
        designers.                                                      Need to use common sense approach in decision-making.
       Decision-making authority wasn‟t delegated to Project           Implement Change Management Board process and
        Manager or Business Analysts.                                    procedures for timely decisions.
        Steering Committee dealt with too many detail issues.          Get decision-making process information from other
                                                                         schools.

Tried to bring the entire system up at one time in an all-or-    Future implementations of software should utilize phased              SC/PD   All
nothing approach proved to be very complicated and risky.        approach.                                                             /PM

Work estimates inaccurate (flex, Payroll Charge - PRC).          Allow time for estimates to be developed. Don‟t apply pressure to     PM      Requirements/Sc
                                                                 project team to make estimates fit the time allowed, this will only           ope
                                                                 cause problems in the long run.

Business requirements were not complete.                                Thorough analysis is needed of all business processes.        BA      Requirements/Sc
                                                                         Usage of implementation partners can help with ensuring               ope & Training
       Disconnect between jobs and positions. Analysis of
                                                                         that requirements aren‟t overlooked.
        legacy HR was inadequate. We often don‟t
        understand HR business rules outside the context of             Need to have a better understanding of what requirements
        legacy systems.                                                  really are. Are they really requirements or just old
                                                                         processes that we aren‟t willing to change?
       Didn‟t have someone who knew whole system.
        Individuals knew specific pieces.                               Business processes should be developed prior to training.
       New business processes were not complete prior to
        training. Problems, audits, etc. were pointed out and
        Pi Team had to respond „that is still in development.

Didn‟t change business processes                                        Thorough review of business processes should occur prior      SC/PM   Requirements/Sc
                                                                         to any development work and time should be allowed in                 ope
       We struggled with buying a system designed for de-
                                                                         schedule to do so.
        centralized distribution of data entry. We didn‟t have
        routing and approval to actually move to this kind of           Need to change culture. Review Gartner‟s white paper on
        business process.                                                „Effecting Workforce and Workplace Change‟.
       Didn‟t change business processes to meet existing               Support is needed from top down to effectively change
        functionality within application. Needed more                    business processes.
        business process mapping/redesign and earlier. No
        commitment to change business processes (i.e.                   When staff/departments agree that they will change their
        multiple pay periods, direct deposit vs. printing).              business to fall in line with the system, they have to know
                                                                         what they are agreeing to and then they have to be held to
       Jobs and positions required a fundamental business               it. Change means, change for me too.
        change that hadn‟t existed in the business processes
        and systems before. Struggled with understanding
        what the business processes should be in new system


                                                                         Page 8 of 13
                                                                                                               HRIS Post Implementation Review

Issue                                                             Solution                                                               Who     Category
        versus functionality in new system.
       Not enough political consensus to make meaningful
        business process changes.
       Exceptions for processes kill us.
       Data entry was an issue with regards to „time to enter‟
        all data. Making corrections was never fully
        investigated, documented, and tested.

Didn‟t‟ get buy-in from users. What users expected, wasn‟t        Involve users early and often                                          PD/PM   All
delivered.                                                                                                                               /S
Design work wasn‟t coordinated
                                                                         Applications should be delivered in releases.                  PM      Design
                                                                          Development and testing should be separated and not
       Some aspects of design didn‟t seem solidified until
                                                                          going on at the same time.
        late. Development and testing were going on at the
        same time.                                                       Plan should be developed on how to integrate pieces of an
                                                                          application when multiple developers are doing
       Silo work resulted in pieces not working together                 development.
        (TAD and Leaves example).
       A design made in one module would limit
        functionality in a different module.
Underestimated the amount of time needed for the payroll                 Spend more time developing better estimates of tasks.
                                                                                                                                         PM      Development
self-sufficiency project (building knowledge of old systems).
                                                                         Manage the risk of some projects taking longer and what
                                                                          impact that has on other tasks.
Changes need to be made to testing plan                                  Define roles (BA, developer, user etc.) for the testing        SC/PM   Testing
                                                                          process. Developers should unit test their programs before
       Calculating on „expected result‟ was time consuming
                                                                          turning them over.
        and inaccurate.
                                                                         Allow for parallel testing
       More developer testing should be done prior to
        turning over to testers                                          Data conversion should be done in old system and done
                                                                          early to allow better testing. Data conversion forces issues
       Pushing to meet deadlines led to more bugs in code.
                                                                          to surface.
       Conversion was a serious quality problem.
                                                                         Break project into phases to allow testing to be done early
       Testing needs to be considered first – providing                  and often
        programs to convert old data to provide a valid
        comparison.                                                      All resources need to be made available (include
       Ariba e-forms tested too far in advance of anticipated            hardware/software) to ensure adequate testing.



                                                                          Page 9 of 13
                                                                                                              HRIS Post Implementation Review

Issue                                                            Solution                                                                Who     Category
        implementation.                                                  Money should be allocated in the budget to allow for disk
                                                                          space needed for testing.
       Inadequate disk space for testing full sets of data.

Technical training was inadequate (i.e. Oracle tools).
                                                                 Prior to any development work, training needs should be identified      PM /    Training
                                                                 and schedule for project. Steering Committee should allow for this      SC
       Technical infrastructure too complex, (i.e. Database,
                                                                 to be done in order to not encounter problems in the end.
        languages, web servers, tools, servers.)
                                                                 Computer Based Training (CBT) not adequate for most staff. Need
                                                                 hands-on structured training with staff who have used the tools
       Tools, technology and architecture were immature,        before. This offers opportunity for best practices to be shared.
        unproven in core business (at this university).

Better selection of pilot areas                                  Pick pilot areas were team is familiar with business processes. If
                                                                                                                                         PD/SC   Implementation
     We used a regional campus for e-forms. The distance        pilot areas are needed where business processes are unfamiliar,
        and lack of understanding their processes were           then training should occur to familiarize staff with these processes.
        problematic.
Timing of interfaces                                             Application should be in a frozen state before interface work is        PD/PM   Implementation
                                                                 started. This will ensure that while interfaces are being
       Because Operational Data Store (ODS) work preceded       constructed, the environment is not changing.
        OLTP, much of the interface work never actually
        started.

       Making decisions to late in design phase – made
        interface work hard, because the system was changing.

Not enough time for implementation
                                                                 Don‟t allow schedule compression to take away from time needed          SC/PD   Implementation
     Workshops for central office staff started too late.
                                                                 to effectively implement application.                                   /PM
       Participants wanted more time in process to
       understand software.

       Implementation should have started earlier

       Time was too short to do training and test.

       Deadlines were unrealistic and, consequently, not met.

        Implementation criteria changed in Nov; for instance,
         added W-2s.
Knowledge transfer to Continuing Support staff was a struggle    Develop plan early on in project for how information will be
                                                                                                                                         SC/PD   Implementation
and little progress was made.                                    shared with continuing support staff. Time should also be allowed
                                                                                                                                         /PM
                                                                 in schedule for the transition of project staff into continuing
                                                                 support roles after the project is complete.


                                                                         Page 10 of 13
                                                                                                             HRIS Post Implementation Review

Issue                                                           Solution                                                               Who     Category
Need a more coordinated communication approach on next
                                                                        At the beginning of the project, identify all stakeholders    PD      Communication
project.
                                                                         and the person responsible (single point of contact) for
     Newsletters and showcases too late in process.
                                                                         communicating project information to those stakeholders
       Need better communication between functional areas              Determine early on what needs to be communicated and
        (developers, implementation team, regional                       to whom.
        campuses, etc.)
                                                                        Try to use video conferencing for communicating with
       Due to time/resource constraints, it was difficult to            regionals
        meet with knowledgeable staff and solve problems.               Newsletters and showcases should occur early on in a
                                                                         project
       Involve Internal Audit from inception to post-
        implementation review. Internal Audit should provide            Need to involve IT people from regionals at a much earlier
        guidelines up front and provide periodic reviews.                stage.
                                                                        Provide updates on deadlines and project goals
       Not enough time to communicate better with
        departments                                                     Don‟t lose touch with what others outside the project don‟t
                                                                         know or understand.
Time and resources needed for training were under estimated     Don‟t allow schedule compression to take away from time needed
                                                                                                                                       PM      Training
    Creating training materials takes 20 hours                 to effectively implement application. Allow more time for
       development for every hour class time. (If you           development of training materials, training of staff to provide
       thoroughly know your materials and data doesn‟t          training.
       change)
                                                                Need to determine a way to train staff on systems of this
       The number of classes to be offered was staggering.     magnitude.

       Training rooms for hands-on classes were difficult to
        obtain.

       Training began too late for anticipated
        implementation.

       Trainers lacked knowledge to explain „why‟ things
        happened (i.e. Summer Pay). Hurt their creditability.
Cross training for project staff didn‟t occur
                                                                During project allow time for technical staff to receive some          PM/     Training
                                                                business process training and business staff to receive some           SC
                                                                technical training.
Need to have a better understanding of how new system           Future applications should not be modified to the extent that
                                                                                                                                       SC/PD   System
„thinks and feels‟.                                             HRIS was. If packages are purchased and implemented with very
                                                                                                                                               Features/Product
      Understand the architecture for application – system     few customizations, implementation partners can help with
         required mainframe components (Cobol and 1/Sam         learning what a system can and can‟t do.
         on client/server) and we were implementing on a

                                                                        Page 11 of 13
                                                                                                                   HRIS Post Implementation Review

Issue                                                              Solution                                                                Who     Category
         client server.
Staffing levels inadequate                                         Benchmark with other institutions on staffing levels they used in
                                                                                                                                           SC/PD   Other
     Not enough Business Analysts                                 the project. Funding sources for staffing after project should be
                                                                   identified early on.
       Business Analysts should not be removed from the
        operations they represent.

       Not enough IT and client resources available – no
        backfill.

    Project team staffing levels not high enough priority.
Improve management of project team                                    Locate project team staff all in one area
                                                                                                                                           PM/SC   Other
    Project team not co-located.
                                                                      Review project team periodically to determine if staffing
       Be prepared to change staff when they lose                     change are needed.
        accountability.
                                                                      Avoid vacation restrictions at all cost. While the project may
       Need the best people on the project                            benefit in the short-term, it hurts morale significantly.

       Integrating new players to the team was tough – key           Provide necessary training for new staff added to project; don‟t
        concepts about software weren‟t easily transferred.            just expect them to „pick-up things‟.

       It was difficult for staff who were devoted part-time to      Dedicate needed staff to project full-time and allow backfill for
        project and part-time to operational duties to spend           their old positions. Develop plan for how dedicated staff will
        required time on project work. (Operational duties             transition into other positions when project is complete.
        always seem to take precedence)

       Lost our consultants at important time – tried to work
        new hires in at end.

       Vacation restrictions over the course of a year and no
        vacation allowed the last three months of the project
        caused staff unhappiness.

       Not enough continuing support during project.
        Resources were stretched too thin.

Schedule didn‟t allow adequate time for development of             Allow project schedule to be adjusted to allow time needed for
                                                                                                                                           SC/PD   Other
training materials, interface work, training                       tasks to be completed or the following should be done: add
                                                                   resources or adjust scope.
Too many management (staff) changes in Business Services           Turnover cannot be avoided, however this is a risk to schedule and
                                                                                                                                           SC      Other
and ITaP.                                                          should be managed through the risk assessment and contingency
                                                                   plan.

                                                                         Page 12 of 13
                                                                                                               HRIS Post Implementation Review

Issue                                                             Solution                                                               Who     Category
Had problems with managing versions of software (utilized         Document process for how version control software will be used
                                                                                                                                         PM      Other
PVCS software). Same problems would occur in new release as       and do periodic reviews to determine if process is working to
before.                                                           manage risk.
Never try to „rewrite‟ a package. There are too many              Make commitment to buying applications instead of writing or
                                                                                                                                         SC      Other
opportunities for scope creep and less impetus to redesign        rewriting software.
business processes.
Consultants delayed things and they lacked leadership.            Develop plan for managing the consultant relationship. Within
                                                                                                                                         PM      Other
                                                                  that plan, it should indicate what the roles and expectations are of
                                                                  the consultants.
Improve organization of development process. Have a more          Involve project team in developing project schedule and
                                                                                                                                         PM      Other
logical flow to development. Let‟s figure out how to get people   determining the order of tasks.
assigned to positions before we start trying to extract
person/position and pay information for the ODS. When
neither side of the design is complete, guessing and entering
dummy information is misleading to both sides and keeps
issues from being resolved earlier
Improve management of project tasks.                                      Project methodology should be adopted and followed
                                                                                                                                         PD/PM   Development
     Need closer monitoring of progress or lack there of                 Lead developers/business analysts should be utilized to
                                                                           allow schedule to be updated and monitored.
       Development team was disorganized at times.
        Opportunity existed for a lead developer to guide or
        oversee the development aspects.

Learn from mistakes; don‟t keep making the same ones.                     Review post implementation reviews from other projects
                                                                                                                                         SC/PM   Other
                                                                           and determine action plans to avoid repeating problems.

                                                                         Develop and follow project methodology to ensure scope is
                                                                          managed and key processes are not overlooked.
Level of commitment to the project did not appear to be the       Future projects of this magnitude should have support from
                                                                                                                                         SC      Other
same across areas. This caused problems with development          President on down. Steering Committees should be utilized to
and testing.                                                      ensure that priorities are consistent across the organization.
Lack Risk Management or contingency plan                          Develop Risk Management plan early on in project. Plan should
                                                                                                                                         PD/PM   Other
                                                                  outline potential risks, probability of occurring and ways to
                                                                  mitigate the risk. Review of the plan should be done throughout
                                                                  the project and any new risks identified should be documented.
Didn‟t understand gaps of what system would do and what           Gap analysis should be prepared prior to purchasing a product.
                                                                                                                                         PM      Other
business “requirements” were.                                     This ensures that staff are aware of what business processes will
                                                                  have to be changed or what changes will be have to be made to the
                                                                  system. For areas in which there are gaps, business processes
                                                                  should be changed.




                                                                          Page 13 of 13

				
DOCUMENT INFO