Recent Articles The Business of Project Management in

N. Arizona Moves to  
Web-Based PPM Public Higher Education
Meet Me Online

Patrick Benson, PMP, Director of Administrative Computing,

John Marshall Law Northern Arizona University
Engages IT Governance

Carnegie Mellon
Leverages PPM

UNLV Finds the Right Examining IT project management in public higher education
Solution starts with the question often asked by legislators, voters
and the media: "Why is it so expensive?" Most of my body of
Columbus State Meets
IT Demand
work has been within this market sector and I've often been
challenged with questions that are variations on this theme.
Carnegie Mellon Finds While there are few clear answers, there are core,
Project Management fundamental differences between the public and private
Partner
sectors that increase costs on all public sector IT projects,
Franklin U. Takes IT to and there are environmental factors that exacerbate the
the Next Level problem in public higher education.
   

Project managers in the public sector are burdened by

challenges that their peers in the private sector are not.
These challenges go to the heart of running a government
agency as a business (not "like" but "as" a business -
meaning in the most cost-effective manner possible without a
profit motive).

First, government is inflexible in both market sector and

market performance. A government agency may be run as
efficiently as a private sector firm - but there is very little
market sector flexibility. Legislation drives what government
agencies will do, and generally who in the government will do
it, and how it will be done, and how much it will cost, and
how much may be charged to users, and when rules start
and when rules end. Notice that in this list of questions,
"Why a government agency does something" is missing.
Government agencies are legislatively driven. The answer to
the "Why?" question runs along the lines of, "Because you're
told to do it." The most basic business plan question, "Why
do this instead of that?" cannot be answered. Government
agencies stand behind the "consent of the governed" rule of
law. By and large, government agencies do what they do
because their target audience's elected officials tell them to
"Why a government agency does something" is missing.
Government agencies are legislatively driven. The answer to
the "Why?" question runs along the lines of, "Because you're
told to do it." The most basic business plan question, "Why
do this instead of that?" cannot be answered. Government
agencies stand behind the "consent of the governed" rule of
law. By and large, government agencies do what they do
because their target audience's elected officials tell them to
do it.

This legislature-as-driver limits a government agency's ability

to change products or prices, or move quickly to expand or
improve services. Why? Because public sector inflexibility
cannot respond as quickly as the private sector to market
changes - the model fails to consider that the market (not a
legislature) is the most efficient and effective allocator of
resources. Government marketing often fails because an
inappropriate mix of goods and services are offered at
market-rate prices. Government agencies fail when forced to
compete in the marketplace because of the inherent
inflexibility of the public sector business model. The best
profit and loss position a government agency should seek is
to break even - which is total failure in the private sector.

Second, government is an open environment. Nearly all

public sector products are public property. IT project
charters, stakeholder registers, scope statements, schedules
and plans, baselines, costs and budgets, risk registers and
response plans, contracts, procurement plans and all the
backing materials are subject to exposure and examination.
Behind public sector projects, one way or another, stand
public funds. Although the specific rules vary among
jurisdictions, many government agencies now find little in the
way of legal backing in the technique of marking IT project
documents as "drafts" or "working papers" to keep them
from public scrutiny. Routinely, one reads about an agency
accused of failing to meet their legal requirements to make
public this or that document . The courts usually come down
on the side of the requestor and the cost of defending this
indefensible position can be significant.

This openness can be seen as another vector of inflexibility;

there are real dollar and time costs to the openness
required. Consider build-versus-buy decisions and the
amount of time spent on, and public scrutiny of, RFQ or RFP
responses. Competition is fierce and losers often litigate;
either seeking to change the outcome, to punish the
contract's winner, or punish the agency that made the
award. Openness drives delay, and time is money regardless
of the market sector.

Third, mandates have unfulfilled costs. Two recent changes

are bringing significant administrative burdens. Federal
Stimulus Funding is bringing money to state and local
government agencies, and GASB-51 is bringing changes to
accounting procedures. There has been precious little
recognition of the downside cost of Stimulus Funding - of the
strict performance and completion deadlines or new
transparency requirements. Changes to GASB can bring the
need for detailed time collection and reporting to major
software development efforts regardless of the funding
source. The requirements take time to analyze and
implement. They delay a project's progress. Here, again,
time is money.

Fourth, collaboration brings a cost burden. This is perhaps

more applicable to higher education than other government
agencies. Higher education institutions are environments of
collaboration - and this strength can work against strong
stakeholder and change management techniques. It can be
difficult to say "no" when a department without an identified
stakeholder or subject matter expert in a relevant area of the
project wants to be involved in project meetings or exercise
veto power over work in which they have no business stake.
Control battles are a way of life in the public higher education
market sector, and a disciplined approach to gathering
requirements and setting scope when consensus is
demanded can be vexing.

So, how to succeed? Project managers should focus on doing

the job right, on doing it within the constraints, and getting it
done right the first time. This is a more cost-effective
approach than spending time explaining and attempting to
defend work and processes after the fact.
What does "do it right" mean? Well, doing the same thing
again and again while expecting a different outcome is
insanity, and we don't want to go down that path. In my
opinion, "do it right" means having a consistent, documented
and functional project methodology that is updated with
every success and failure, and can be followed from project
to project.

There are probably as many ways to manage projects as

there are readers of this article. Until recently, my project
management training dated to a college course in 1974 or
1975. Yeah, I know that dates me a bit. To set the record
straight, I do have a dog-eared System/360 BAL green card,
my collection of flowchart templates includes one for HIPO,
and I still remember how to patch-cord a card interpreter
and make printer control tapes. Given this aging knowledge
and facing a dozen new projects for my portfolio, in early
March, I spent a week at a Project Management Institute-
certified training program. Although I cannot say I'll blindly
follow everything, it is fair to say that the PMI project
management model has far more going for it than going
against it. The model provides a framework for being a
repeatably successful project manager and it provides
independent air cover for the inevitable "Why do we have to
...", "Why did you..." and "Why can't we just...." questions
that accompany every project.

Here at Northern Arizona University, I've tasked three project

managers and myself to use the PMI framework on four
efforts with significantly different sizes, scopes, audiences
and timelines. One project is to implement the
Oracle/PeopleSoft Financials package for use only with
Grants and Contracts (feeding to and from a disconnected
third-party financial system - a constraint bringing a unique
set of challenges). The second project is to acquire and
implement imaging and workflow to automate four common
campus forms. The third project is really a program - a
collection of 13 smaller projects aimed at helping our
students stay on track toward timely completion of their
degree. The fourth project, mine, is to automate collecting,
retaining and serving faculty activity information.
Where do I suggest starting? Right at the top of the PMI list
- Develop Project Charter.

Under the PMI approach, the project charter is arguably THE

keystone document for a project. Sitting at the intersection
of Initiating Process Management Group and Integrated
Project Management Knowledge Area - the project charter is
the first point where an institutional audience hears about
the efforts envisioned, who is backing it and the potential
cost. Most importantly, the charter formally initiates a
project and allows the commitment of resources. No charter,
no spending time or money on the project. My advice - get it
early, get it formal, and get it approved by upper
management. In addition to authorizing the project, a solid,
complete charter serves to document initial requirements
that satisfy stakeholder needs and expectations, and defines
the initial assumptions, risks and constraints faced.

The keyword there is "initial" - watch out for the extensions,

modifications and dreaded creep. Change is inevitable. It
just has to be managed.

About the Author

Patrick Benson, PMP, has worked in all phases of
government administrative systems development, support
and management for decades. Today he is the Director of
Administrative Computing at Northern Arizona University.

The major components of his current portfolio include

Oracle/PeopleSoft Human Capital Management (HCM) and
Campus Solutions (CS), the CGI/Advantage Financial suite,
and an Informatica and SAP/BusinessObjects data
warehouse. Major challenges over the next five years
include: getting the PeopleSoft Grants and Contracts version
9.1 modules installed without using the full financials
package, directing the technology as NAU changes focus and
expands into new university structures, assuring the current
production PeopleSoft version 8.9 CS and HCM applications
are split and up-versioned to 9.0 CIM (CS) and 9.1 (HCM),
extending the data warehousing products to include portal-
based dashboards, and either up-versioning or replacing the
installed financial system.

Patrick and Shirley, his wife of 40+ years, enjoy living in

Flagstaff - especially visiting and hiking the front and
backcountry areas of Arizona's Canyon Country; the Grand,
Oak Creek, Walnut and Sycamore are favorites. Both freely
admit, however, they did not enjoy shoveling 12 feet of snow
during the winter of 2009-10.
 installed financial system.

Patrick and Shirley, his wife of 40+ years, enjoy living in

Flagstaff - especially visiting and hiking the front and
backcountry areas of Arizona's Canyon Country; the Grand,
Oak Creek, Walnut and Sycamore are favorites. Both freely
admit, however, they did not enjoy shoveling 12 feet of snow
during the winter of 2009-10.

The Leader in Higher Ed PPM Software  

TeamDynamixHE

What Higher Ed PPM & IT governance insights would

you like to share? Email Jennifer at
jhuber@teamdynamixHE.com.
 
 
   
 
Forward email
Email Marketing by

This email was sent to patrick.benson@nau.edu by jhuber@teamdynamix.com.

Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

TeamDynamixHE | 1275 Kinnear Road | Columbus | OH | 43212