Leveraging the Power of Shared Responsibility

1. Leveraging the Powerof Shared Responsibility A Shared Responsibility Model Study of PeopleSoft Support in 9 Institutions

2. Project BackgroundMultiple pressures to optimize and innovate Staff Expectations • Self-service • Real-time reporting • Strategic partnership between IT and the business Student Expectations Transparency & Accountability • Expensive re-invigoration of classroom IT • Front office service delivery expectations • Reporting program outcomes and benefits + student success • Delivering on strategic goals • Reputational and operational risk management Maintaining Competitive Edge Funding Pressures Software Costs • Shrinking government funds • Capped tuition • Licensing • Ongoing maintenance costs • Scaling infrastructure • Investment for high cost faculties • Renewed focus on student recruitment • Expansion of programs and research

3. Project Background9 colleges and universities working together MTCU Funded the study through PIF Grant Conducted the study

4. Inquiry-driven StudyKey questions provided the scope and direction Which PeopleSoft-specific services can be collaboratively delivered across the participating institutions? SUPPORT SERVICES What is the appropriate delivery and funding model to provide the collaborative service? DELIVERY MODEL What is the appropriate governance model to facilitate shared responsibility in the delivery of the selected service? GOVERNANCE MODEL What are the estimated cost savings and qualitative benefits that can accrue through shared responsibility implementation? BUSINESS CASE What are the steps, timeline and resources required to successfully implement the shared responsibility model? ROADMAP

5. How did we evaluate opportunities for shared responsibility?Process included interviews, research and data analysis Initiate Project & Develop Baseline Identify Service Delivery & Cost Opportunities Prioritize Opportunities & & Develop Roadmap 1 2 3 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 Based on the cumulative analysis, identify 10 – 20 prime shared responsibility service candidates. Develop Report & Roadmap Finalize recommendations sequence implementation of priority opportunities

6. What is Shared Responsibility?Different models depending on the range of sharing “intensity” Communication & Cooperation Collaboration Integration Institution 1 Institution 2 Institution 1 Institution 1 Institution 2 Institution 2 New Co. Knowledge Sharing - Or - Institution 3 Institution 4 Institution 3 • Models Shared Infrastructure (Institution 4) Institution 3 Institution 4 Institution 1 Institution 2 Resource Coordination Intensity of Sharing More Intense Less Intense Institution 3 Institution 4 • Standardized processes and policies • Centrally managed / hosted • Dedicated resources • Potential for stand alone entity • Open communication and cooperation • Minimal commitment • Steering Committee led • Maintain independence • Integrated service planning • Standardized processes and policies • Pooling and sharing staff • Steering Committee led • Characteristics

7. What did we learn about sharing?Common process required to implement most opportunities 1 4 3 Share Knowledge Share Infrastructure Pool Resources • 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 • Service delivery and standards governance • Steering Committee Led • Centrally hosted • Dedicated System Manager • Simplified IT footprint • Service improvement • Process Standardization • Key step for all sharing models • Steering Committee Governance • Set standards and performance • Adoption requires central system • Central Knowledge Manager • Participant investment / membership fee Build Capacity 2 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 D B E G F C

8. Summary of OpportunitiesWhat 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

9. Opportunity ProfileKnowledge Management Governance Model • Steering Committee to determine standards and monitor performance • Fund pooling agreement as part of the general TOR between the participating entities • Central Management through dedicated Content Manager Institution 1 Institution 2 Knowledge Sharing Institution 1 Institution 2 Institution 3 Institution 4 Infrastructure & Funding Model • 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 • Fund Pooling set out in a formal agreement Institution 3 System Host Cost Assumptions Benefit • Annual cost for 1 FTE • Potential costs related to audit of fund management • Infrastructure provided by a participating institution • Content Manager can be based in any of the institutions • Critical enabler to building capacity • Capacity increases range from 5% - 25% • Provides pilot for governance required for other opportunities

10. Opportunity ProfileTesting Communication & Cooperation Model Collaboration Model Integration – Shared Infrastructure & Resource Model • Share best practices through Knowledge Management • Sharing testing resources remotely across sites • Sharing infrastructure and software hosted by one participant, managed by a dedicated resource Institution 1 Institution 2 Institution 3 Institution 4 Institution 1 Institution 1 Institution 2 Institution 2 Cost /Benefits Cost /Benefits (see KM for details) Cost /Benefits Resource Coordination Knowledge Sharing • 25% savings based on ‘sharable’ components: test strategy and test plans • Build testing capacity / expertise • Cost of Resource Manager and KM resource • Decreases backlog and improves service delivery • Full time Service / Infrastructure Manager • Further capacity gains through standardization and faster testing cycles Institution 3 Institution 3 Institution 4 Institution 4 Implementation Considerations Implementation Considerations Implementation Considerations • Knowledge management platform • Dedicated knowledge management resource • KM platform and resource • Resource Manager to manage contributions • Infrastructure and resource hosted by an institution that is compensated through pool funding

11. Opportunity ProfileApplication Development Communication & Cooperation Model Collaboration Model Integration – Shared Infrastructure & Resource Model • Share best practices / Knowledge Management • Sharing development resources remotely across sites • Sharing development infrastructure and software hosted by one participant, managed by a dedicated resource Institution 1 Institution 2 Institution 3 Institution 4 Institution 1 Institution 1 Institution 2 Institution 2 Resource Coordination Knowledge Sharing Institution 3 Institution 3 Institution 4 Institution 4 Cost /Benefits (see KM for details) Cost /Benefits Cost /Benefits • Potential benefits of 5%-10% over baseline • Shortened development time • Addressing backlog • Lift and shift costs + dedicated Systems Manager • Efficiencies gained through shared tools and standardization of development cycle • Greater standardization in systems + common release cycles • Cost of Resource Manager and staffing tools • Benefits through collaborating on development, upgrades, bundles, patches and fixes Implementation Considerations Implementation Considerations Implementation Considerations • Dependent on a consistent KM platform to share integration scripts, code and release lessons learned • Resource management function and staffing tools required to load-balance resources based on variations in demand • Requires active management and resource oversight to coordinate assignment of staff to projects

12. Opportunity ProfileReport Development & Maintenance Communication & Cooperation Model Collaboration Model Integration Model • Best practices / Knowledge Management • Sharing reporting resources remotely across sites Integration with Application Development Infrastructure Institution 1 Institution 1 Institution 2 Institution 2 Resource Coordination Knowledge Sharing Institution 3 Institution 3 Institution 4 Institution 4 Cost /Benefits (see KM for details) Cost /Benefits • Cost of dedicated Knowledge Manager • Benefits of sharing reports and related code • Benefits exceed costs at Year 4 • Cost of dedicated Resource Manager and staff allocation software • Potential efficiencies gained over time from sharing resources Implementation Considerations Implementation Considerations • Knowledge management platform hosted by one of the institutions • Dedicated knowledge management resource • Reuse of software licenses for reporting tools • Shared resources will work remotely to attend reporting requirements • Potential to morph into data analytics COE

13. Opportunity ProfileEnterprise 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

14. Opportunity ProfileService Desk Collaboration Model Communication & Cooperation Model Integration – Shared Infrastructure & Resource Model • Sharing Service Desk resources remotely across sites • Sharing best practices / Knowledge Management • Sharing infrastructure and software hosted by one participant, managed by a dedicated resource (on site or remote) Institution 1 Institution 2 Institution 3 Institution 4 Institution 1 Institution 1 Institution 2 Institution 2 Resource Coordination Knowledge Sharing Institution 3 Institution 3 Institution 4 Institution 4 Cost /Benefits (see KM for details) Cost /Benefits Cost /Benefits • Marginal efficiencies may be realized through communication and cooperation • Roughly 5% efficiency • 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%) • No immediate material benefit over communication • Requires simultaneous implementation of service desk platform Implementation Considerations Implementation Considerations Implementation Considerations • Knowledge management platform hosted by one of the institutions • Dedicated knowledge management resource • Resource pooling requires standardization of process and selection of a common service desk platform • Need disentanglement from existing service desks, and technologies • Leveraging scale dependent on most common architecture design across institutions

15. Implementation Roadmap & Business CaseA measured approach over a manageable timeframe Year 3 – X Year 1 Year 2 – 3 Build the Foundation Evolve and Mature Integrated Service Delivery Establish a Knowledge Management Capability Integrated Delivery model governance Collaborative Delivery Terms of Reference 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

16. Immediate Next StepsBuilding a foundation to scale up sharing • Establish participants • Design and implement governance model • Develop long term vision and plan 1 3 • Assign KM champions at each institution • Train staff • Develop KM KPI’s and TOR • Hire dedicated KM • Design and implement KM system 4 2 Collect, cleanse and promote content Sheldon Miller National Higher Education Leader, Strategy & Operations shmiller@deloitte.ca (902) 721-5536 Jim Carse Director, Project Portfolio Office jim.carse@queensu.ca 613-533-6000 X75629 Shaun Cahill Project Manager cahills@queensu.ca 613-533-2341