[Previous] [Next]
[Previous] [Next]
For users, the system must do what it is supposed to do. For management, it must not only do that, but it should also be completed within or close to budget. Many project managers seek to do post-implementation appraisals for "learning" purposes. The typical question asked is, "What would we do differently, if we had to do it over again?" For most people in the functional area, this can be a real waste of time. The reality is that most of them will not be around when such a project is repeated, and even if they are the rules will have changed so much that lessons learned may be obsolete. It may be of value to the technical organization, who may be looking ahead to another system implementation, but even in that case, the issues will perhaps be so different that the value of the experience may be questionable. The exception to this may be if the project was the first to use a new technology (such as client/server), a distributed data model, or perhaps a relational database management system. Then the lessons learned will be well worth documenting for the future.
For the finance staff, the real appraisal that occurs is the next year's closing process with the attendant audit. The latter will be focusing on both the financial reports and the actual operation of the system from an accounting integrity perspective. The positive side of this auditing process is the value of a clean report validating the use of the system. Wellesley College used its external auditors to audit the proposed system prior to and after implementation, so that it could report back to its governing board. This was different from, and in addition to, the auditors doing their audit of numbers and signing off that the new system was an appropriate transition from the old. In Wellesley's case, this system audit was actually done by the auditing firm's technology team, rather than by the auditors.
Another example of post-implementation appraisals that may take place is an independent assessment by senior management of the benefits derived from the new system. Indiana University commissioned a Big Six consulting firm to do such an assessment a year after initial implementation. It provided a number of significant benefits. The attention of the institution was focused on this initiative and it gave the users a real opportunity to air any concerns they had to an independent party. Such an objective evaluation can also help to focus on what else may need to be done to realize the full value of the institution's investment. Again, the value of getting a positive assessment is well worth the time and energy devoted to supporting such an independent appraisal.
It may be worth noting, in conclusion, that no bell is rung when implementation is completed, since it may never be quite complete. Here again, the difference may be based on whether the institution bought or developed a system. In the case of the former, the institution may or may not elect to make upgrades to the vendor's package by purchasing a maintenance contract. One reason it may not is the possible high cost of such a contract. If, however, the system was developed in-house, a continuous process of refinement will likely be the norm and the institution needs to be sure to provide the base funding for such efforts.
Some experts think that the current upsurge in financial systems replacement is due to their neglect over the years as other initiatives took precedence. With continual changes in funding policies and management techniques, it may be prudent to ensure that campus financial systems are kept more in synch with such changes over the next decade.
[Previous] [Next]