Making PeopleSoft Administrative Systems Work: the Case for Business Process Redesign

J. Fred Gage
Cleveland State University
Cleveland
Ohio

Abstract

Cleveland State University used Business Process Redesign (BPR) to facilitate an enterprise implementation of PeopleSoft applications.

A PeopleSoft implementation compels the use of BPR by virtue of the fact that some of the software has not been tested in a production environment, the aggressive software release schedule, and the inherent difficulty in tracking user modifications.

Since the University chose to do a "vanilla" implementation, it was critical that work processes be altered to meet project objectives. The project guidelines, the rationale for using BPR, the results and the lessons learned are presented in this paper.

Cleveland State University invested in Business Process Reengineering (BPR) to facilitate an enterprise implementation of PeopleSoft applications in Student Services, Human Resources and Finance.

Cleveland State adopted a very aggressive implementation plan for the PeopleSoft applications while simultaneously rewiring the campus, installing a new PBX and shifting from quarters to semesters. Each of the activities was planned to transform the campus in the shortest possible time.

PeopleSoft products encompass "Best Business Practices" developed in conjunction with organizations from both the private and public sectors and in the case of the new student systems, with the seven beta and eleven charter academic institutions which includes Cleveland State. A PeopleSoft implementation almost compels the use of BPR by virtue of the propensity of the vendor to add functionality to modules, the aggressive software release schedule and the inherent difficulty in tracking user modifications. However, the added flexibility of the PeopleSoft applications provides a vehicle for implementing many of the recommendations resulting from the BPR process.

Since the University chose to do a "vanilla" implementation, it was critical that work processes rather than the software be customized to meet project objectives. By limiting modifications to the system, the PeopleSoft upgrade process is simplified somewhat.

The shift from a "mainframe centric" to a client server environment and the accompanying shift in the locus of control also required a reexamination of existing policies, practices and procedures across the institution and constituted a threat to the traditional campus culture.

The need for Business Process Redesign was articulated in the process of choosing new administrative software. The selection committee for CSU Administrative Systems project developed objectives that included:

Based on the information developed during the RFP process and the discussions that ensued, several hypotheses were developed which formed the basis for the rationale to use BPR as a critical dimension of the PeopleSoft implementation.

Based on the project objectives and the operating hypotheses for Business Process Redesign, the following principles were adopted to guide the Business Process Redesign’

Cleveland State identified several critical areas for BPR: Procurement, Budget Management, Hiring, Enrollment/Certification, Student Finance, Student Records, Recruitment/Admissions and Relationship Servicing for the Alumni/Development area.

In a preliminary meeting with thirty participants from Enrollment Services, the first and perhaps the only point of agreement during the meeting was to use the term Business Process Redesign rather than Business Process Reengineering. Staff pointed out that they did mind changing processes but they didn’t want to be reengineered. The group suggested that there were three areas of enrollment services that could stand scrutiny. The BPR facilitators concluded that two critical areas should be examined first.

The facilitators, members of Cleveland State’s PeopleSoft implementation partner, the Kaludis Consulting Group, solicited opinions from supervisors, unit heads and even VP’s as to whom should participate. Letters emphasizing the importance of the effort and a personal invitation were sent out inviting staff members to participate in the Business Process Redesign effort. A copy of the invitation and a request to release the invitee was sent to each supervisor. Representation cut across all functional areas of the university.

Team members were strongly encouraged to "think outside the box." To foster thinking outside the box, confidentiality was strongly encouraged. Members of the BPR teams were encouraged not to talk about their deliberations with their supervisors or others outside the team. All communications were privileged and if confidence was broken, the team members with the aid of the facilitator, dealt with the issue. As the BPR team gained confidence and trust in the facilitators, ideas, suggestions and recommendations began to emerge. The Student Records BPR team issued 22 recommendations while the Student Finance Team generated 16 additional recommendations. Both groups recommended that a third student group be established to redesign the Recruitment/Admissions area. Two other teams that were working within the same time frame were the Procurement Team and the Hiring Process Team.

The Procurement BPR team came up with seven recommendations involving one organizational change, five policy and procedural changes and one endorsement for comprehensive training for all end users.

The Human Resources Hiring Process BPR team issued 10 recommendations. Three recommendations involved technology projects, four were procedural or policy changes, two were organizational changes and one was a recommendation for on going benchmarking with outside agencies.

At the end of the seven week process, each of the BPR teams issued a document containing series of recommendations and a narrative containing team objectives, the identification of impediments, alternative solutions, the costs associated with the changes as well as the benefits derived from the recommendations. The BPR final document represented a consensus of the participants.

The final reports were not distributed publicly but were reviewed by each of the functional area leaders and presented to the PeopleSoft Executive Committee – the President, the Vice-Presidents and the Vice Provost for Information Technology. Each of the recommendations was discussed and with few exceptions approved for implementation. The few exceptions were those recommendations that required consultation with the Faculty Senate, the AAUP, the Board of Trustees or involved the consolidation of offices reporting to different Vice Presidents. After discussion and clarification, the senior administration approved the recommendations and commissioned an Implementation Steering Group for Business Process Redesign (ISG/BPR).

The ISG/BPR Team was charged:

To realize the charge, the Steering Group was directed to:

The Implementation Steering Group reviewed all the material presented by the BPR groups and sought common themes that cut across the differing sets of BPR implementation priorities. They chose to deal first with the implementation/integration of technology based recommendations. After several weeks of deliberation the Steering Committee issued their implementation priorities.

Changes in the organizational structure, processing issues and institutional policies were also addressed to facilitate making BPR an intrinsic part of the working environment.

Four technology projects were initiated as a direct result of the Business Process Redesign. Despite the heavy workload imposed on both the IT and functional areas, there has been no shortage of project champions. Not only do the projects represent an infusion of new resources, but they usually have high visibility and often are fun.

The first project involved the purchase of an interactive voice response unit from Periphonics, a PeopleSoft partner. The project which was originally scheduled for production on December 5^th, 1998 may be shifted to the Spring semester due to the fact that Periphonics, Sun Microsystems and PeopleSoft are working very hard to make Periphonics compatible with PeopleSoft release 7.5.

The second project operating under the aegis of the Vice President for Finance and Administration is the "Smart Card" I.D. project. After evaluating a number of competing proposals, Cleveland Sate has entered into an agreement with Cybermark to provide a smart card I.D. system for the campus. The projected completion date for this project is the third week of January 1999.

The installation of Lotus Notes as the vehicle for communication, workflow and distance learning was a third recommendation. The email system at Cleveland State had fallen on evil times and there was a great deal of interest in a product that had a built-in calendar function, would allow collaboration and was closely coupled with workflow in the PeopleSoft administrative applications. The communications portion of Lotus Notes has been piloted and is in the process of being installed on staff and faculty desktops. No effort has been made to use the workflow portion of Lotus Notes and the Learning Space option for distance learning is being evaluated and compared to other products with a shorter learning curve.

One of the recurring themes in all the business process redesign deliberation was the emphasis on reducing paper flow. Cleveland State purchased document imaging technology from Bluebird Systems but has not as yet begun implementation. The document imaging project will begin in Enrollment Services and eventually involve the Financial Aid, Student Finance, Registration and Admissions offices.

There appears to be a distinct hierarchy in the implementation of the products of BPR. Technical projects flowing from BPR recommendations appear to be the easiest issues to tackle. These projects usually require an infusion of new resources. There is also the prospect that the new project may mean improved services or reduced workload. Ownership of the project is usually shared between the functional area and IT. Ownership by the functional area (e.g. Admissions) is to be preferred greatly to ownership residing in Information Services but it doesn’t always work that way. Launching a technical project is to be preferred to inaction as it lends itself to the efficacy of the process redesign. Although the total cost of ownership increases so does the benefit to the end users.

The second level of difficulty appears to be changing procedures and processes. These tend to be "owned" by a small group and in some instances, the original reason for the process or procedure may have been lost in history. It’s extremely important to work with those individuals until they understand the new processes and how it relates the larger picture. This requires patience and support on the part of the implementation team as changing the process frequently require new skill sets and training.

Changing policies in inherently more difficult than changing a process or procedure. Policies usually across functional areas and cover a broader range of activities. Policies typically require support from faculty governance bodies, the senior administration and often the Board of Trustees. Civil Service and employees covered by collective bargaining often contribute to the mix and University Counsel may be involved. Many colleagues report that the inability to get even the simplest policy change has wrecked havoc with their implementation. Policies may also originate with other bodies in the organization. In one instance, the campaign by several faculty members to add plus and minus grades actually helped Cleveland State implement a practice the student body felt was most desirable.

Unfortunately, not many units suggest structural change that may improve organizational effectiveness. This appears to be especially true when units report to different vice-presidents. Shifting reporting lines disrupts established patterns and changes behaviors that may be very comfortable. There is a sense of loss and perhaps a perception of being punished for unknown reasons. Organizational change may mean moving into the enemy camp. Fortunately, in one such instance at CSU, members of one group volunteered to move to see if the merger of the two offices was feasible. In one critical meeting I was told that the unit could do PeopleSoft or BPR but not both. The unit head then went on to say that she just had to say that even though she realized both were very important and that the unit would press ahead with their reorganization.

CSU has been able to leverage the Business Process Redesign recommendations to absolutely minimize the modifications to the PeopleSoft applications. In order for a software modification to be approved, the requestor must submit a written request with the proposed change to the PeopleSoft Steering Committee. The petitioner must then persuade a majority of the eleven members that the change is absolutely necessary, won’t consume excessive programming resources, and will have a major impact on improving user services. Requests that run counter to a BPR recommendation usually don’t survive the process. Once a modification is approved by the PeopleSoft Steering Committee, it is passed on to the PeopleSoft Executive Committee for final endorsement.

Cleveland State was chosen for participation in a PeopleSoft "Early Success" upgrade program in part because rigorous standards required to modify the software was enforced. Of course, the fact that CSU was in production with the PeopleSoft student administrative software and the on-going positive partnership with PeopleSoft also contributed to that decision.

Even though the BPR recommendations are usually "something obvious," the process assures wide acceptance and ownership of the recommendations. As one dean remarked, "There’s nothing in those recommendations that my people hadn’t already been thinking about." When asked, some did indicate that they were thinking about the issues that were translated into recommendations but readily acknowledged that they couldn’t have gotten "buy in" without the BPR practice.

When Cleveland State faced with the prospect of having to change operating systems and databases, the question was posed – "What do we lose if we go back to the legacy systems?" The answer was overwhelmingly, "We’d lose all the effort we put into BPR and that’s the best thing that’s happened since I’ve been here."

Business process redesign helps keep priorities straight when there are so many competing demands because the priorities are backed by the consensus of users.

Some entity has to monitor and facilitate implementation of the BPR recommendations.

At CSU the responsibility was assigned to the Implementation Steering Group but since that group identified the seven highest priority projects, the responsibility has shifted to the PeopleSoft Steering Committee.

Business process redesign is an ongoing process. There are many desirable projects and the institution must be both cautious and bold at the same time. Cautious lest the individuals responsible for implementation are stretched too thin over too many projects for too long a time, yet bold enough to seize an opportunity when it presents itself.

PeopleSoft provided the impetus to carefully examine internal business processes to assure success in the implementation of the HR, Finance and Student Administrative systems. Several factors can be identified which have contributed to the success of business process redesign activities.

Cleveland State is very fortunate to have senior leadership including the Board of Trustees who not only understood the necessity for new administrative systems but were also willing to commit the resources necessary to achieve the desired objectives. Fortunately, there were Board members who had experienced the implementation of new systems and the attendant risks.

With twenty-five PeopleSoft module teams and seven business process teams in play, over two hundred and fifty staff and faculty members have been actively engaged in some aspect of the PeopleSoft implementation.

Business Process Redesign cannot be translated into reality without experienced facilitators. CSU was fortunate to have the skilled experience of an implementation partner that was not only experienced in the higher education arena but also solidly grounded in business process redesign.

Providing a privileged environment where BPR team members could participate in full confidence led to candid discussions and more daring recommendations that might have otherwise been generated.

The Business Process Redesign teams began to sense that their recommendations might actually be taken seriously once the approval process was explained. The quick embrace of the technology projects were also an indicator that the recommendations were being taken seriously. Too often the recommendations are presented but there is no ensuing action. Not all the recommendations have been addressed and there is some lingering concern but the overall feeling is one of pride and increasingly accomplishment.

No matter how often or in what medium you choose to communicate, it is never enough. Use every appropriate means at your disposal to let the campus community know what you are doing but make sure that the communications plan is appropriate to your campus culture.

Campus visits by representatives of other universities and colleges who were contemplating the purchase of PeopleSoft applications were a major factor in changing attitudes toward Business Process Redesign and PeopleSoft. Having to deal with the daily problems and labor intensive "workarounds" left the Cleveland State teams with little time to reflect on how many issues they had successfully addressed. The information sessions were often as enlightening to other team members as they were to the visitors. Even though many of the individuals worked in adjacent areas, and often met to discuss specific issues, real understanding and appreciation of the scope of the project and the level of institutional commitment were enhanced by the visits.

The combination of BPR and the PeopleSoft implementation is expected to yield a reduction in staffing, capital requirements, and operations expenses, a greater concentration of expertise and experience, flexibility in structure, recognition, and compensation as well as a greater focus on the needs of students, faculty and staff. Experience thus far suggests that these potential benefits may yet be realized but it still too early to tell with certainty where the idea of Business process Redesign will be incorporated into the campus community as Business as Usual.