Advancement of Technology by kjt13489

VIEWS: 107 PAGES: 10

More Info
									                     Advancement Technology Project
                            Status Report - June 30, 2007

The project is progressing very well, and the Discovery Phase is on schedule to produce
the final deliverables by the end of July with a final presentation being scheduled with the
Executive Oversight Committee in August. In order to effectively manage the creation of
the many deliverables for this month, the Project Team was broken into five different
teams working concurrently on the requirements analysis, benchmarking, survey,
technical solutions, and interview validation.

That division of labor worked well and we have been able to accomplish all of our
planned deliverables for the month. The Project Team finalized the requirements
definitions, mapped the current technical architecture and inventories, conducted a survey
of the advancement community, conducted a benchmarking study, and sent out all
interview and focus group summaries for validation.

One step we have not completed is the second presentation to the Executive Oversight
Committee. Although we had planned for it to be held in June, summer scheduling
conflicts have prompted us to move it to late July/early August. The meeting’s agenda
will include a review of the requirements findings, technical assessment, and high level
gap analysis.

As the Discovery Phase of the Advancement Technology Project gets close to
completion, the activity level for Project Team members, consultants, and Advisory
Group members has drastically increased. Below are the detailed activities for the
month of June.

Completed Deliverables

   •    Completed Interviews & Focus Groups

            Interviews    Focus Groups
UIUC             44            10
UIC              21             6
UIS              16             9
UIAA             13             7
UIF              26            14
UA               2              0
Total           122            46

Please note that the 46 Focus Groups were attended by 237 advancement community
members making the total number of direct input 359 individuals.
   • Current Technical Landscape & Inventory

   The Tech Team has compiled the inventory of current technical systems and
   completed the systems diagram showing the interactions between systems. See the
   Technical Feasibility and Solutions Team section on page 4 for more details.


ATP June Status Report                                                     Page 1 of 10
      •   Interview Validations

      All of the documented interviews and focus group notes were sent for review and
      validation.

      •   ATP Survey

      A 13 question survey was designed and sent to 643 members of the University
      Community. There was a 25% response rate. More on the actual results can be found
      in the current activities portion of this report.

Deliverables In Process

•     Benchmarking Study. The benchmarking committee met on June 11 and developed
      the ATP benchmarking questionnaire and a list of 25 peer institutions to contact.
      More on the actual questions and institutions can be found in the current activities
      portion of this report
•     Requirements Analysis for Section 1 (operational needs) and Section 2 (reporting and
      analytical needs) is scheduled for the Project Team in early July.
•     Gap Analysis (level by which articulated requirements can currently be met, unmet or
      not met). After Section 1 and 2 are done, we are asking the system owners to provide
      their input in the met, partially met, and unmet categories. That input will be used by
      the Project Team in their analysis in early July.
•     Technical Architecture Solutions. The technical team has defined the steps they will
      follow to analyze requirements against current architecture to seek potential technical
      solutions. They are now working on a five-step process to narrow down the
      alternatives.

Presentations

There were no new presentations for June. To date we have presented to:

UIUC
          ATP Advisory Group, Campus Alumni Advisory Board, Campus Council on Alumni Relations,
          Committee on Campus Development, Academic Council of Deans, Student Affairs Forum,
          Academic Affairs Forum, and External Affairs Forum
UIC
          ATP Advisory Group, ADVANCE Team, Alumni Relations Committee, Campus Council on
          Alumni Relations, Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, and Deans Council
UIS
          ATP Advisory Group, Deans, Faculty, & Staff, Message Team, Office of Development, Student
          Affairs, Center for State Policy and Leadership Cabinet, Campus Alumni Advisory Board
UIAA
          ATP Advisory Group, Alumni Advisory Group, Urbana Staff, Board of Directors, and BOD Tech
          Sub-Committee
UIF
          ATP Advisory Group and Management Team & Administration Committee




ATP June Status Report                                                             Page 2 of 10
Project Team Current Activities

The Project Team and the CBIG Consultants were divided into five teams: 1)
requirements, 2) interview validation, 3) bench marking, 4) survey analysis, and 5)
technical solutions. Each team was given tasks to complete, and the results and findings
will be analyzed starting with an all day meeting to be held on July 2.

The Project Team continues to work diligently, with great enthusiasm as we approach the
end of the line. This is a highly-committed team of volunteers without whom the project
would not have progressed as well. They have to date logged close to 1,000 donated
hours in the work (see graph below).


Project Team Members:                                               Advancement Technology Project
•      Meg Cline                                                     Report on Project Team Hours
•      Tyler Fitch                                                              As of July 1, 2007
•      Dyanne Ferk
                                         Total Project Team Hours                                              987.00
•      Tina Howard
•      Paul Masters
                                                                          Project Team Hours by Week
•      Chan Nair                               140

•                                              120
                                           Reported Hours




       Arlene Norsym
•      Jack Peirce                             100
                                                     80
•      Arkalgud Ramaprasad
                                                     60
•      Bill Reynen                                   40
•      John Rossi                                    20
•      Jeff Sands                                           0
•      Jill Sexton                                              1     3     5     7    9     11      13   15   17   19
                                                                                           Week
•      Gail Snowdon
•      Judy Babb Troxell
•      Lisa Whelpley
•      Rich Williams
•      Michael Wonderlich

In addition to the donated staff, there is a four person Administration Team working on
the Project as well: Lori Carroll (Communications), Nancy Testory (Business Analyst),
Tyler Kearney (Project Analyst) and Andrea Ballinger (Project Director).
The following sections describe each of the five sub-teams activities.

Requirements Analysis Team- Nancy Testory and Dan Feely (Co-Leads)

The requirements team has largely completed its efforts in preparation for the Gap
Analysis scheduled for July. Recently completed tasks in this area include:

       Created a detailed list of all unique requirements resulting from the individual and
       group interviews (section 1 and 2)



ATP June Status Report                                                                        Page 3 of 10
           Began the pre-gap analysis steps that included: comparing the defined
           requirements to the advancement technology that exists today, assessing what
           constraints (functionality, integration of systems, etc.) impede these defined
           requirements, understanding what benefits (i.e., greater efficiency, increased
           giving, etc.) are likely to be associated with improvements in technology and
           comparing how other technology solution options will support these requirements.
           Continued work on the deliverable framework and content.

In the next two weeks, the team will work on completing the Gap Analysis and sharing
this information with their constituencies, incorporating their feedback along the way.

Technical Feasibility & Solutions Team- Rich Williams and Don Arendarczyk (Co-
Leaders)

The Technical Team has continually revised the Technology Inventory and Technology
roadmap deliverables as additional systems have come to light in requirements follow-up
contacts. Most of these additions are local systems used to facilitate advancement
activities linked to specifically to local functions but which contribute to the overall
patterns of technical functionality we have already observed and catalogued.

The team has moved into the analytic phase of its mission and developed an conceptual
advancement technology landscape that identifies possible architecture and system
relationships that serve as directions for further analysis and a framework for possible
solution specification. The team has also analyzed requirements for possible patterns of
functionality that do not current exist and may be targets for solution sets that merit
further evaluation.

The two documents below were completed and sent to the Advisory Groups for review
and feedback. The landscape 1 describes all of the systems we encountered in our
analysis and how they interact with the central systems. We also documented those stand
alone systems. A continuous line indicates that there is automation between the
connections while dotted lines involve some manual processes.




1
    These diagrams are considered dynamic until all validations are received in July.


ATP June Status Report                                                                  Page 4 of 10
The team is currently building technical architecture solution options. These solutions
will be mapped against the gap analysis when it is completed to determine effectiveness
and feasibility.

Benchmarking- Judy Babb-Troxell (Lead)

The benchmarking committee met on June 11 and developed the ATP benchmarking
questionnaire and a list of 25 peer institutions to contact. On June 15, on behalf of the
committee, Loren Taylor sent the questionnaire out to CAAE (Council of Alumni Assn.
Execs) colleagues at 16 institutions. Other institutions not included in this group have



ATP June Status Report                                                     Page 5 of 10
been contacted and interviewed by members of the benchmarking team. A summary will
be prepared and posted as a deliverable.

The questionnaire contained the following questions:

   1. What advancement system(s) are used now for operational support and how long
       have these been in place? For analytical and reporting? And systems
       management? Are these homegrown or purchased?
   2. Are the users satisfied with it or are there plans to change? If so, what systems
       are being considered?
   3. Who manages the Advancement system from an application management
       standpoint?
   4. Who manages the data within the system to ensure the data is clean and complete?
   5. How is constituent data (ranging from change of address to "John Smith is
       interested in Theatre and may have a desire to contribute in 3 years"...) entered?
   6. How is Athletics involved with Advancement – separate?
   7. How many advancement professionals are within your alumni association,
       foundation, colleges and other related organizations?
   8. How many alumni and other key constituents are supported by this group(i.e.,
       association, foundation, colleges and other related organizations)?
   9. Do you have a total cost of advancement system ownership, for example, how
       much annually is spent to license and maintain the current advancement system?
       What number of staff (or cost) and is required to maintain the advancement
       system?
   10. Organizationally, how are various aspects of the advancement lifecycle
       maintained between the association, foundation, colleges and other related
       organizations?
   11. How integrated is the Advancement system with Student and other systems? Do
       you or how do you perform reporting across both student data and alumni data?
   12. How evolved is your advancement model(in other words is advancement basic
       and focused on friend raising or more evolved and are pursuing social
       networking)?

The institutions we have heard from to date are: Syracuse, Harvard, Brigham & Women's
Hospital (Harvard Affiliate), Ohio State, Texas A & M, Kansas, Virginia, North Carolina,
WTTW/WFMT, Chicago PBS/NPR Affiliates, Grinnell, Cal.-Berkley, Rochester,
University of Arizona, Richmond, University of Texas – Austin, Cincinnati, Nebraska,
and Miami of Ohio.

Survey Results Compilation- Arkalgud Ramaprasad (Lead)

The ATP Requirements Survey was completed and disseminated to 643 individuals. The
survey asked the following questions:

       1. Please indicate your primary job role(s).
       2. Please identify all the constituents with whom you work.



ATP June Status Report                                                   Page 6 of 10
       3. In what stages of the "constituent life-cycle" described below are you directly
           involved?
       4. Approximately how often do you interact with your constituents?
       5. How do you interact with your constituents?
       6. What specific Constituent Relationship Management activities are you
           involved in?
       7. What systems (database, applications, tools) do you use to manage contact
           information and data related to constituents?
       8. What key features of the systems (database, applications, tools) you identified
           in Question 7 work well?
       9. What features would you like added to or changed in the systems you
           identified in Question 7 to better meet your needs? (NOTE: Only answer this
           question if your needs are not currently being met.)
       10. Assuming that the features you identified in Question 9 are implemented, how
           would it impact the following?
       11. In your previous job(s) have you used any of the following? (Please select all
           that apply.)
       12. If you have used other system(s) how does their performance compare with
           those currently used at the University of Illinois?
       13. Are there Federal laws, State laws, or University policies that govern how you
           work with constituent data?

Of the 643 people invited to respond, we received 173 responses. The response rate of
approximately 25% is good. The data provides a comprehensive profile of the
users, their functions, and the systems they use. It also provides a detailed description of
what the respondents like or would like changed in the present systems, and the policies
and laws that affect their use of constituent data.

Several survey respondents took the opportunity to provide additional feedback.
Examples of these comments include:

   •   Scholarship information needs to be integrated to help connect recipients with the
       donors.
   •   Sharing knowledge will enhance customer service to all constituents.
   •   Enhanced technology will help, but people will always be the most important
       aspect of constituent relationship management.
   •   An integrated system that includes event management would be extremely
       beneficial.
   •   Donor confidentiality is of utmost importance and can not be compromised.
   •   Integration with a calendaring system (e.g., Outlook) would allow users to
       become more efficient.

The link to the survey results document in SharePoint is-
https://pbsharepoint.ui.uillinois.edu/sites/ATP/Lists/Announcements/Attachments/15/AT
P_Survey_Results.pdf



ATP June Status Report                                                      Page 7 of 10
Interview Validations- Nancy Testory (Lead) and Dyanne Ferk

The summary notes were disseminated to interviewees and focus group attendees on June
15 for review and/or comments. The participants were also given the opportunity to
provide any additional comments or thoughts formulated since the interviews/focus group
meetings were held as an addendum to the summary. At this time, the response rate is at
51%.

From the responses received to date, 20% of the responders had changes, comments or
addendums. Of that group, 25% of the remarks were previously documented, 38%
reflected additional requirements, and 37% contained organizational/policy issues.

The next steps for the Validation Sub-Team are:

    •   document any requirements indicated by revised interview notes or addendums
        submitted by the participants that are not already documented
    •   continue to validate the summaries of any subsequent interview or focus group
        meetings that were not included in the June 15 canvass
    •   confirm that all interviews and focus group meetings have been documented and
        transmitted for validation of interviewees/focus group attendees

ATP Advisory Groups Current Activities

Below is a summary of activities of the five advisory committees provided by their
leaders:

•       UIUC Advisory Group- Tracy McCabe (Lead)

The UIUC Advisory Group populated ten focus group sessions with faculty and
administrators representing faculty, student affairs, career services, graduate admissions,
undergraduate admissions, alumni affairs, campus development, communications,
corporate relations, and off-campus programs. The composition of attendees satisfied our
group’s intention to be inclusive and to ensure that all constituent interest groups had a
representative voice in the process of data gathering. The process of reaching out to
interest group leaders across campus to identify focus group participants allowed our
group the opportunity to more fully educate the community about the project and to
influence faculty and administrators of its potential benefit to their area of responsibility.

The UIUC Advisory Group also promoted the participation of advancement community
members in the online survey and provided the project team with an expanded list of
target recipients.

•       UIC Advisory Group- Arkalgud Ramaprasad (Lead)

I have distributed the survey results to our group and also the system diagrams. In the
next couple of days I will distribute the requirements documents, the benchmarking


ATP June Status Report                                                       Page 8 of 10
report, et cetera. I have solicited their feedback by e-mail. I also plan to call a meeting
early next week to obtain their final set of comments.

•      UIS Advisory Group- Lisa Whelpley (Lead)

The UIS Advisory Group met on 6/13/07 and 1) reviewed the advancement community
list, including who would receive surveys and who had participated in individual and
group interviews for UIS; 2) discussed issues that have come up in multiple UIS
interviews and focus groups, particularly pertaining to data access and service quality;
and 3) reviewed the constituent survey and provided ideas for enhancements to several
questions. Lisa Whelpley subsequently contacted Lori Carroll to provide the feedback
for revisions to the survey.

During the first half of the month, one advisory group member participated in each of the
UIS group interviews to identify key staff concerns, which will better prepare the group
to validate the interview results. When the survey was distributed on June 20, Dyanne
Ferk and Lisa Whelpley sent a joint email to UIS people who received the survey,
encouraging their participation and offering to answer questions or concerns. In the latter
part of the month, Dyane Ferk served as a Core Team member in charge of contacting all
who participated in ATP interviews and focus groups, giving them a chance to review the
meeting notes and provide feedback, and then compiling feedback from those
interviewed. Lisa Whelpley served on a group of Core Team members charged with
further refining the functional and operational requirements.

•      UIAA Advisory Group- Paula Havlik (Lead)

The UIAA Advisory Group had ensured that at least one Group member participated in
each of the focus interviews with UIAA staff, and took notes on the key issues discussed.
We met at the end of June, after all of the interviews had been concluded, to debrief and
compare notes, as a means of preparing for the task of reviewing deliverables in July.

•      UIF Advisory Group- Susan Restad (Lead)

The Foundation Advisory Group met once in late May and twice in June. Primary
activity consisted of learning more about project initiatives from core team members, and
monitoring the project web site. Members were briefed regarding upcoming project
deliverables, and their responsibilities relative to reviewing these. Four meetings are
scheduled through the month of July, in preparation for significant work needed to review
project deliverables.

Current Project Risks

There are no obvious risks at this time.




ATP June Status Report                                                       Page 9 of 10
Next Steps

•     Complete the Gap Analysis
•     Technical Solutions and Alternatives
•     Validations from Advisory Groups on the Deliverables
•     Final Deliverable (comprehensive document)
•     Final Presentation to EOC




ATP June Status Report                                       Page 10 of 10

								
To top