Leveraging the Power
of Shared Responsibility
A Shared Responsibility Model Study
of PeopleSoft Support in 9 Institutions
Project Background
Multiple pressures to optimize and innovate
Staff Expectations
Transparency & Accountability
•
•
•
•
•
•
Self-service
Real-time reporting
Strategic partnership between IT
and the business
Reporting program outcomes
and benefits + student
success
Delivering on strategic goals
Reputational and operational
risk management
Licensing
Ongoing maintenance costs
Scaling infrastructure
•
•
Maintaining
Competitive Edge
Software Costs
•
•
•
Student Expectations
•
•
•
Investment for high cost
faculties
Renewed focus on student
recruitment
Expansion of programs and
research
Expensive re-invigoration of
classroom IT
Front office service delivery
expectations
Funding Pressures
•
•
Shrinking government funds
Capped tuition
© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.
Project Background
9 colleges and universities working together
Project Portfolio Office
Queen’s University
Participating Higher Education Institutions

St. Lawrence College

York University

Seneca College

Niagara College

McMaster University

University of Waterloo

Ryerson University

Western University

Queen’s University

Canadian University Council of Chief Information
Officers (CUCCIO)
Observing Higher Education Institutions

University of Ottawa

University of Alberta
Conducted the study
MTCU Funded the study through
PIF Grant
© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.
Inquiry-driven Study
Key questions provided the scope and direction
SUPPORT SERVICES
Which PeopleSoft-specific
services can be collaboratively
delivered across the participating
institutions?
DELIVERY MODEL
What is the appropriate delivery
and funding model to provide the
collaborative service?
GOVERNANCE MODEL
What is the appropriate
governance model to facilitate
shared responsibility in the
delivery of the selected service?
BUSINESS CASE
What are the estimated cost
savings and qualitative benefits
that can accrue through shared
responsibility implementation?
ROADMAP
What are the steps, timeline and
resources required to successfully
implement the shared
responsibility model?
4
How did we evaluate opportunities for shared responsibility?
Process included interviews, research and data analysis
1
Initiate Project &
Develop Baseline
2
Identify Service Delivery
& Cost Opportunities
3
&
Prioritize Opportunities
& Develop Roadmap
Develop Communication & Tools
Develop functional maturity models,
interview guides and data collection tools
Conduct Jurisdictional Scan
Identify local and global service delivery trends
Identify Appropriate Service Model
Select the appropriate model for each candidate
Baseline Service
Maturity model based evaluation of each
function within each institution
Develop Opportunity Profiles
Scoring based on Opportunity Size, Readiness and Fit
Prioritize Opportunities
Prioritize strongest benefit and lowest risk
Baseline Cost
Fully-loaded cost of individual PeopleSoft
Support Functions
Short-list Shared Responsibility Candidates
Develop Report & Roadmap
Finalize recommendations sequence
implementation of priority opportunities
Based on the cumulative analysis, identify 10 – 20 prime
shared responsibility service candidates.
5
What is Shared Responsibility?
Different models depending on the range of sharing “intensity”
Communication
& Cooperation
Institution
1
Institution 2
Collaboration
Institution 1
Integration
Institution 2
Institution
1
Institution 1
Institution 2
Institution 2
Knowledge
Sharing
Models
Institution 3
Resource
Coordination
Institution 4
Less Intense
• Open communication and
cooperation
• Minimal commitment
• Steering Committee led
• Maintain independence
Institution 3
New Co.
- Or Institution 4
Shared
Infrastructure
(Institution 4)
Intensity of Sharing
• Integrated service planning
• Standardized processes and
policies
• Pooling and sharing staff
• Steering Committee led
Institution 3
Institution 3
Institution 4
More Intense
•
•
•
•
Standardized processes and policies
Centrally managed / hosted
Dedicated resources
Potential for stand alone entity
Characteristics
6
What did we learn about sharing?
Common process required to implement most opportunities
1
4
3
Share Knowledge
Share Infrastructure
Pool Resources
•
•
•
•
•
•
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Key step for all sharing models
Steering Committee Governance
Set standards and performance
Adoption requires central system
Central Knowledge Manager
Participant investment /
membership fee
• Service delivery and
standards governance
• Steering Committee Led
• Centrally hosted
• Dedicated System Manager
• Simplified IT footprint
• Service improvement
• Process Standardization
Framework for prioritization
Central Resource Manager
Usage and quality tracking
Pay per use of resource
Resource leveling across institutions
Resourcing meets industry benchmark
Clearing backlog of logged issues
Build
Capacity
Sample Staffing
Benchmark
• Duplication of effort estimated
across institutions
• Sharing reduces duplication
• Increases capacity
• As much as 25% increase in
capacity in Testing
Institution
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Summary of Opportunities
What were the services that we identified for sharing?
Knowledge Management
Standalone system and dedicated Knowledge Manager. Basis to support all 5 opportunities.
Testing
Sharing test scripts and tools to build capacity, sharing testing resources and eventually sharing testing
environments
Application Development
Sharing best practices and code, sharing app development resources and sharing development tools
and environments
Report Development & Maintenance
Sharing knowledge, reports and pooling resources for report development and maintenance
Enterprise Architecture
Investment in expert resources to be shared across all institutions through a dedicated Resource
Manager
Service Desk
Minor benefits from sharing knowledge, sharing a common tool/platform and service desk resources
Opportunity Profile
Knowledge Management
Governance Model
Institution
1
Institution
2
Knowledge
Sharing
Institution
3
• Steering Committee to determine standards and monitor performance
• Fund pooling agreement as part of the general TOR between the participating entities
Institution
4
• Central Management through dedicated Content Manager
Infrastructure & Funding Model
Institution 1
Institution 2
• Annual membership to defray the cost of a dedicated Content Manager
• System Hosting will be provided by a volunteer institution that will be compensated through
annual membership relief
Institution 3
System
Host
Cost
• Fund Pooling set out in a formal agreement
Benefit
• Annual cost for 1 FTE
• Critical enabler to building capacity
• Potential costs related to audit of fund
management
• Capacity increases range from 5% - 25%
• Provides pilot for governance required for
other opportunities
Assumptions
• Infrastructure provided by a participating
institution
• Content Manager can be based in any of the
institutions
Opportunity Profile
Testing
Communication & Cooperation Model
•
Share best practices through
Knowledge Management
Institution 1
Integration – Shared Infrastructure & Resource Model
Collaboration Model
•
Institution 2
•
Sharing testing resources remotely
across sites
Institution 1
Institution 2
Sharing infrastructure and software hosted by one participant,
managed by a dedicated resource
Institution 1
Institution 2
Knowledge
Sharing
Resource
Coordination
Institution 3
Institution 4
Institution 3
Institution 4
Institution 3
Cost /Benefits (see KM for details)
•
•
25% savings based on ‘sharable’
components: test strategy and test
plans
Build testing capacity / expertise
Knowledge management platform
Dedicated knowledge management
resource
Cost /Benefits
Cost /Benefits
•
•
Implementation Considerations
•
•
Institution 4
Cost of Resource Manager and KM
resource
Decreases backlog and improves
service delivery
•
•
Implementation Considerations
•
•
KM platform and resource
Resource Manager to manage
contributions
Full time Service / Infrastructure Manager
Further capacity gains through standardization and faster testing
cycles
Implementation Considerations
•
Infrastructure and resource hosted by an institution that is
compensated through pool funding
Opportunity Profile
Application Development
Communication & Cooperation Model
•
Share best practices / Knowledge
Management
Institution 1
Integration – Shared Infrastructure & Resource Model
Collaboration Model
•
Institution 2
•
Sharing development resources
remotely across sites
Institution 1
Sharing development infrastructure and software hosted by one
participant, managed by a dedicated resource
Institution 1
Institution 2
Institution 2
Knowledge
Sharing
Resource
Coordination
Institution 3
Institution 4
Institution 3
Institution 4
Institution 3
Cost /Benefits (see KM for details)
•
•
•
Potential benefits of 5%-10% over
baseline
Shortened development time
Addressing backlog
Dependent on a consistent KM
platform to share integration scripts,
code and release lessons learned
Cost /Benefits
Cost /Benefits
•
•
Implementation Considerations
•
Institution 4
Cost of Resource Manager and staffing
tools
Benefits through collaborating on
development, upgrades, bundles,
patches and fixes
•
•
•
Implementation Considerations
•
Resource management function and
staffing tools required to load-balance
resources based on variations in
demand
Lift and shift costs + dedicated Systems Manager
Efficiencies gained through shared tools and standardization of
development cycle
Greater standardization in systems + common release cycles
Implementation Considerations
•
Requires active management and resource oversight to
coordinate assignment of staff to projects
Opportunity Profile
Report Development & Maintenance
Communication & Cooperation Model
•
Best practices / Knowledge Management
Institution 1
•
Collaboration Model
Integration Model
Sharing reporting resources remotely across sites
Integration with Application
Development Infrastructure
Institution 2
Institution 1
Knowledge
Sharing
Institution 3
Resource
Coordination
Institution 4
Institution 3
Cost /Benefits (see KM for details)
•
•
•
Cost of dedicated Knowledge Manager
Benefits of sharing reports and related code
Benefits exceed costs at Year 4
•
Knowledge management platform hosted by
one of the institutions
Dedicated knowledge management resource
Institution 4
Cost /Benefits
•
•
Implementation Considerations
•
Institution 2
Cost of dedicated Resource Manager and staff
allocation software
Potential efficiencies gained over time from sharing
resources
Implementation Considerations
•
•
•
Reuse of software licenses for reporting tools
Shared resources will work remotely to attend
reporting requirements
Potential to morph into data analytics COE
Opportunity Profile
Enterprise Architecture
Context
•
Enterprise Architecture a gap across most institutions
•
Opportunity is based on pooling collective funding to build a PSFT Enterprise
Architecture capability across the institutions
Collaboration Model
•
Sharing NEW Enterprise Architecture resources remotely across sites
Institution 1
Institution 2
Resource
Coordination
Institution 3
Institution 4
Cost /Benefits
•
•
•
2 FTE needed to bring capacity up to benchmark across the system
Net benefit builds capability and move towards design standards
No immediate or direct cost savings have been calculated
Implementation Considerations
•
•
Leverage KM platform and resource as collateral is developed
Resource Manager to manage contributions
Opportunity Profile
Service Desk
•
Sharing best practices / Knowledge
Management
Institution 1
Integration – Shared Infrastructure & Resource Model
Collaboration Model
Communication & Cooperation Model
•
Institution 2
•
Sharing Service Desk resources
remotely across sites
Institution 1
Institution 2
Sharing infrastructure and software hosted by one participant,
managed by a dedicated resource (on site or remote)
Institution 1
Institution 2
Knowledge
Sharing
Resource
Coordination
Institution 3
Institution 3
Institution 4
Institution 4
Institution 3
Cost /Benefits (see KM for details)
•
•
Marginal efficiencies may be realized
through communication and
cooperation
Roughly 5% efficiency
•
Knowledge management platform
hosted by one of the institutions
Dedicated knowledge management
resource
Cost /Benefits
Cost /Benefits
•
•
Implementation Considerations
•
Institution 4
No immediate material benefit over
communication
Requires simultaneous implementation
of service desk platform
•
•
•
Implementation Considerations
•
Resource pooling requires
standardization of process and selection
of a common service desk platform
Centralization of the support desk function and standardization of
the platform / tool
Builds discipline and s breadth of insight into common PSFT issues;
Benefit of roughly (20%)
Implementation Considerations
•
•
Need disentanglement from existing service desks, and
technologies
Leveraging scale dependent on most common architecture design
across institutions
Implementation Roadmap & Business Case
A measured approach over a manageable timeframe
Year 3 – X
Year 2 – 3
Year 1
Build the Foundation
Evolve and Mature
Integrated Service Delivery
Establish a Knowledge Management
Capability
Collaborative Delivery Terms of
Reference
Integrated Delivery model
governance
Develop Governance model for
communications
Implement Governance model for
communications
Service Desk
Develop and implement cooperative
delivery for Testing
Develop and implement
collaborative delivery for Testing
Testing
Develop and implement cooperative
delivery for Development
Develop and implement collaborative
delivery for Development
Development
Develop and implement cooperative
delivery – initial services
Collaborative Delivery – remaining
services
Total
Year 1
Year 2 - 3
Year 3 - 4
Year 5
Year 6-10
Total Costs
$11,400,000
$700,000
$3,600,000
$3,300,000
$600,000
$3,200,000
Total Benefits
$22,700,000
$500,000
$2,200,000
$2,700,000
$2,700,000
$14,600,000
Net Benefits
$11,300,000
($200,000)
($1,400,000)
($600,000)
$2,100,000
$11,400,000
Immediate Next Steps
Building a foundation to scale up sharing
1
•
Establish
participants
•
Design and
implement
governance model
•
Develop long term
vision and plan
•
2
Develop KM
KPI’s and TOR
•
Hire dedicated
KM
•
Design and
implement KM
system
Jim Carse
Director, Project Portfolio Office
jim.carse@queensu.ca
613-533-6000 X75629
3
•
Assign KM
champions
at each
institution
•
Train staff
Shaun Cahill
Project Manager
cahills@queensu.ca
613-533-2341
4
Collect,
cleanse
and
promote
content
Sheldon Miller
National Higher Education Leader,
Strategy & Operations
shmiller@deloitte.ca
16
(902) 721-5536