Project Intake Evaluation and Decision Making Process Proposed

Project Intake, Evaluation and Decision Making Process Proposed Recommendations August 8, 2017 1

Agenda ØScope of Work ØObjectives and Principles ØAssumptions ØOverall Approach ØProposed Process ØImplementation, Communication Plans 2

Scope of Work Ø Develop “IT Project Proposal” Definition Ø Create Project Proposal Intake Template Ø Develop Scoring Methodology, Routing Strategy Ø Route Proposals through IT Governance Ø Identify Issues, Types of Proposals that may Need Further Scrutiny by the IT Steering Committee (ITSC) 3

Objectives and Principles Ø Rationalization - create rational, effective, consistent framework Ø Prioritization – no more “one-off” project evaluation, funding requests Ø Governance driven, collaborative, transparent, expert-based Ø Agility and flexibility – easily modified/improved; “One size does not fit all. ” Ø Pace/Speed – rapid evaluation and decision-making Ø Innovation – recognize/encourage innovative services Ø Minimize duplications and redundancies 4 Ø Identify IT infrastructure/resource requirements

Assumptions ØMandatory: All IT project proposals will go through the process ØService Catalog and Project Repository will be used ØAdequate professional and administrative staff 5

Overall Approach Ø Two Workgroups were Created • Project Proposal Intake, Scoring and Routing • Project Prioritization and Recommendation Ø Various Sources were used by Groups, Including EITDM Materials 6

Committee Members Tamra Dagnon Senior IT Business Analyst, Do. IT J. J. Du Chateau Enterprise Architect, Do. IT (Chair of Subgroup B) John Ford Deputy Director, Academic Technology, Do. IT Eric Giefer Director Information Technology, Law School Karen Hanson Manager Project Management Office, Do. IT Elizabeth Harris Director of CEETE, College of Engineering Phil Hull Associate Registrar, Enrollment Management Rafi Lazimy Exec Dir IT Planning & Strategy, CIO Office (Chair) Sabrina Messer Manager User Services, School of Education Alan Ng Dir Outreach Tech & Faculty, Div of Continuing Studies David Pagenkopf Director of Application Development & Integration, Do. IT Jason Pursian Interim CIO, College of Agriculture & Life Sciences Greg Putnam Sr Info Proc Consultant, College of Letters & Sciences Bruce Riley Procurement Specialist, Purchasing Services Alan Silver Comp Sys Admin, Dept of Chemistry (Chair of Subgroup A) Sara Tate-Pederson IS Specialist, AIMS David Towers CFO, Wisconsin School of Business Steve Van Der Weide Dir of IT Solutions, Wisconsin School of Business 7

Definition of “IT Project Proposal” ØA “Project Proposal” is a… “Request by a campus unit to implement an IT service that is owned by the campus unit and is designed to support the mission and the operational and managerial business needs of the unit with welldefined business outcomes. The service employs information technologies and resources, people, and processes to collect, manipulate, store and disseminate information to achieve its objectives. ” 8

Types of Services Ø Customer Facing • Projects that aim to develop or re-design services that deliver value to customers by facilitating outcomes customers want to achieve Ø Infrastructure Services • Projects that aim to develop or re-design services that deliver core infrastructure functionalities that enable customer-facing services Ø Innovative Projects • Proposals that aim to create new, innovative IT services 9

Intake Form ØIntake Form includes: • Project Name and Description; Contact Info • Reasons for – Purpose of - the Project • Scope of Impact, Including: o Users/Customers; Total Num. of People that will be Impacted • Privacy, Security Concerns • Cost and Effort Estimates: to Implement; to Operate • Impact on IT Resources/Infrastructure Capacities 10

Scoring Process ØScoring Process • 10 questions will be scored • Each question will be scored on a scale of: o o o • 0 – Low Impact 2 – Medium Impact 4 – High Impact Aggregate Score determines Project Classification Aggregate Score Project Classification 0 - 13 Low Impact 14 - 26 Medium Impact 26+ High Impact 11

Approval Process ØReview and Approval • Low Impact Proposals o Approved “automatically” • Medium and High Impact Proposals o Route to Relevant TAGs for review, recommendations to ITSC o Review may require additional information o Route to ITSC for decision-making 12

Review by Advisory Groups Ø Advisory Groups are encouraged to identify proposals that need further scrutiny by the ITSC. Examples: • Duplicate existing services and/or projects • Have potential to become shared, campus-wide services • Have significant impact on (1) the campus portfolio of core IT infrastructure, and/or (2) the campus IT resources/infrastructure capabilities • Meet compliance and other mandated requirements, and/or significantly reduce the risk to UW-Madison • Need campus funding • Are innovative and/or ”interesting” 13

Review by Advisory Groups (continued) Ø Advisory Groups are encouraged to: • Establish a process to manage, review, make recommendations to the ITSC • Appoint standing and/or ad-hoc committees/subgroups to review, make recommendations • Establish and maintain a uniform, consistent format for making recommendations to ITSC: o Initial “context” list: Items in the previous slide 14

Implementation Plan Ø Team-Based: • Executives/Directors in the CIO Office • Professional Staff • Subject-Matter Experts (as needed) • Admin Staff Ø Project Portfolio/Repository 15

Communication Plan Ø To Campus Leadership, Deans Ø Broader Message to Associate Deans/Directors Ø Announce the new process on Oct. 1, 2017, and invite units to start submitting proposals 16

Discussion Questions: 1. Are we missing any relevant questions in the Intake Process? 2. Are we missing important impact filtering questions? 3. Do you recommend other issues, considerations, and types of proposals - in addition to the ones listed in Section 9. c - that will help Advisory Groups in making recommendations to the ITSC and that may need further scrutiny by the ITSC? 17

Project Intake, Evaluation and Decision Making Process – Questions? Thank you for your time and attention! 18