| IPMA Home | IPMA News |
IPMA News : November 2002
Edited By Mary Ellen Bradley and Bob Monn
IPMA News : November 2002Edited By Mary Ellen Bradley and Bob Monn |
|
Profile: Pat Gebhardt, Information Technology Manager, Department of Natural Resources
Enterprise Information Systems: A New Approach at Central Washington University
Summary of October 10, 2002 IPMA Board Meeting
-- by Mary Ellen Bradley, IPMA Communications Committee Co-Chair
Pat Gebhardt began work at the Department of Natural Resources on May 1, 2002 as DNR's new Information Technology Manager.
What is your background?
I grew up in Renton, Washington, overlooking Boeing Field. My father was an engineer at Boeing and practically everything in those days revolved around Boeing – at least in my life. From that I decided I wanted to be an Aeronautical Engineer and enrolled at the University of Washington (Go Dawgs!). I graduated 4 years later with a Bachelor's Degree in Aeronautical Engineering, just in time for the collapse of Boeing in the early 70's. Fortunately, I was hired by Pratt & Whitney Aircraft in Hartford, Connecticut to design and test the jet engines that went on Boeing (and other) jets. This was at the height of the Vietnam War and after a little over a year at Pratt & Whitney I was drafted into the military. After two wonderful years on Chesapeake Bay as part of the Army Chemical Corps, I was discharged. I really didn’t want to go back into the aerospace industry, and since I had grown up camping, fishing, hunting, and generally enjoying the outdoors, I decided I would pursue further education in a profession that would allow me to spend time outdoors. I went back to the University of Washington to pursue a master’s degree in Industrial Forest Engineering. Upon graduating I was hired by Weyerhaeuser and sent to Southeastern Oklahoma to perform field studies on large, mechanized mobile harvesting equipment. After moving around for a couple of years with Weyerhaeuser (Oklahoma, Oregon and finally Federal Way), an opportunity came up to move to a smaller forest products company in Shelton, Washington. I worked for Simpson Timber Company for 23 years in a variety of positions and still live in Shelton.
How did you become involved in Information Technology?
My master’s thesis consisted on developing a large computer simulation of various timber harvesting activities. I found I had a knack for and thoroughly enjoyed the challenge of translating a complex real life activity into something that could be evaluated and manipulated easily and quickly. Weyerhaeuser hired me to undertake much the same. The team I was a part of collected data, which we would then build simulations around in order for decisions to be made that had multi-million dollar implications. After I joined Simpson Timber I continued to use the computer (these were all mainframes back in those days) to do analysis and planning. In the early 80's, the vice president of Finance decided the emerging PC was more than just a passing fancy. He created a position to provide oversight and planning as to how best to acquire, use and manage what he considered a potentially important productivity tool and offered me the job. From that humble beginning, I developed a staff of over 30 people responsible for providing, along with the corporate computing services in Simpson’s Seattle headquarters, all the computing services to Simpson’s businesses in Washington and Oregon.
How did you become involved in state government?
Simpson, like most other forest products companies, has been hit hard over the past 20 years with increasing regulation, increasing costs and decreasing product prices. At the end of 2001 a decision was made to centralize all of Simpson’s computing management. That made my position unnecessary and I left Simpson in January of 2002. I wanted to stay in the area – I had raised my family and our roots ran deep in the Shelton area. I began to explore opportunities within the state system and conducted a number of informational interviews with agencies that appealed to me from both the type of services they provided and the manner in which they viewed technology. I met many people who were genuinely enthused about what they did and became convinced that the public sector did indeed have benefits that I had been unaware of. I became aware of the opening at the Department of Natural Resources and given my background in the natural resource field felt this would be a great opportunity. I applied for the position, along with a couple of others and was offered two positions in two separate agencies within a week of each other. While the job I turned down would have been a challenge and I know enjoyable, everything pointed to DNR as the place I should be.
What differences have you noted between the private and public sectors?
I can only speak for my six months at DNR. The availability of funds is one of the first things I noticed, both the need to spend money prior to the end of the fiscal year (it really is true that if you don’t spend it you loose it!) and the challenge of trying to acquire funds for critical IT infrastructure related activities. The multiplicity of funding sources and the way some of those sources are tied to very specific activities makes it difficult to plan for and manage an ongoing process of information technology investments intended to keep the agency current with technology. I see this as a critical issue that must be dealt with since the pace of technology change and the funding needed for the agency to provide more and faster service to its constituencies is on a collision course.
Another major difference is in the way in which personnel issues are dealt with. The civil service system, while it has some good points, is a very cumbersome system that in my view is one of the primary impediments to the state becoming more efficient, especially as it relates to productivity from its employees. It also gets in the way of making rational and speedy organizational decisions. And disciplinary actions – enough said…
The last thing that is significantly different than my experience in private industry is the customer and stakeholder base. In private industry IT was almost exclusively focused on internal activities – the only external contact we worried about was working with suppliers or vendors. In DNR a significant portion of the IT budget and time is devoted to providing systems and data for our constituents – providing ways for citizens to interact more efficiently with government. This exacerbates the issue I raised above because of the increased cost of providing technology services in an environment that is so externally focused.
A key similarity between the private and public sectors is in the quality and talent of the people working in IT at DNR. The people I work with here are every bit as good at what they do as the people I worked with at Simpson and Weyerhaeuser.
What do you want to accomplish at your agency?
There are two key things I would like to accomplish while at the DNR. One is to create a culture within the DNR where information technology usage is viewed as an integral component of meeting the objectives of the agency. I hope to do this by demonstrating that IT can deliver quality services that meet business needs and by engaging the executive management team in shaping the direction and use of IT processes within the agency.
The other thing I hope to accomplish is to leave the IT staff in the agency with the knowledge and experience of consistently being successful. I too often hear it said by people on my staff that it’s management’s job to make them a happy employee. I want to turn that around and help them understand that their job satisfaction (happiness) will come from producing at a level that they have not yet experienced. If I can accomplish that, I will consider my stay at DNR to have been a success.
-- by Don Diebert, Director of Enterprise Information Systems, CWU
Introduction
Since the mid-1990's, significant effort across the country has been devoted to replacing higher education administrative systems including student administration, financial and human resources applications. The underlying reasons have varied including the necessity to replace aging technology, Y2K issues, and/or lack of functionality. Regardless of the reason, the cost and resulting impact of change has been substantial and often controversial.
The change introduced when implementing major administrative applications is pervasive across any organization and particularly difficult for higher education. Given the impact to faculty, staff and students of such massive change, the "completion" of an implementation project is often met with a huge sigh of relief and little if any desire to seek further enhancement and improvement. The project is the end rather than the beginning for achieving maximum benefit from the investment.
Implementation of a new administrative system should serve as a foundation for enabling future business and process improvements. With the closure of the "Project Office", often the result is a return to the "maintenance" mode or status quo, as no other office or group will assume responsibility for seeking change. The return on investment is minimal or even seen as a net loss to the organization.
Background
During the late 1990's, Central Washington University (CWU) faced major issues with maintaining its legacy administrative systems. The issues included a Y2K problem with the human resources system, lack of functionality (such as Web access) with the student information system, and software that overall was based on out-dated technology. After convening a campus-wide committee, a major review of the issues resulted in a recommendation to replace administrative systems with an enterprise software "suite." This resulted in an extensive Request for Proposal process with the eventual selection of PeopleSoft human resources, financials and student administration.
A new unit, the Academic Support Systems Project (A.S.S.P.) office was formed to manage the implementation of each system. A Project Manager position was created to complete the original plan for a "seamless" project with human resources and student administrative going live first, and financials scheduled for a short time later.
Due to fiscal and other issues, the original project plan could not be maintained. Instead of an implementation that had all systems live within a relatively short period of time, each system had to be implemented separately. This resulted in lack of continuity of effort and staffing.
Two of the systems have been implemented with the third in progress:
With the conclusion of each of the first two implementations, the "project" offices were dismantled with the functional and technical experts going back to their offices to run the new systems. No one was left to lead or work on implementing the features that had been planned for "Phase 2". All momentum was lost and we were left with new administrative systems that were, in actuality, a step back in functionality from the previous ones. And, to make matters even worse, the software was forging ahead to new releases adding upgrades to the workload mix. All of these factors led to our search for a new way to manage our systems.
Projects End – but Systems are forever
When organizations undertake major projects such as implementing large software suites (also known as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems), typically a significant effort is made to make the effort successful. In addition to focusing additional resources towards the implementation effort, often a project "governance" structure is developed to provide a mechanism for identifying and resolving issues that arise. Typically, this structure identifies and involves key stakeholders, who assist the project management in resolving issues in a timely manner, so the project remains on schedule and within budget.
Typically, when a project ends, the project office and governance structure are dismantled. A vacuum is created as to who determines what enhancements may be implemented, how resources are allocated between systems, and how efforts are coordinated when a change to one system may negatively impact another.
While the implementation phase may end, the "project" of supporting the systems does last forever. To maximize the benefit and investment in an ERP system, a new, inclusive management philosophy and approach is necessary.
The "Enterprise" Concept
This past year, Central Washington University (CWU) defined and implemented a new approach to maintaining the operational and data integration of all three systems: Human Resources, Financials and Student Administration. Because PeopleSoft software is tightly integrated between systems, CWU recognized that on-going maintenance of installed software must be closely coordinated with development efforts. The following were defined as continuous needs for maintaining our administrative systems across the "enterprise":
Enterprise Information Systems: Organization Charter
Similar to defining a Project Charter, an Organization Charter has been developed for the revised "project office". Known as the Enterprise Information Systems (EIS) office, this unit is charged with the responsibility of managing functional renewal, enhancement and project management tasks for all major administrative systems. This charge includes the following key assignments.
EIS Status
To date, CWU has made substantial progress implementing an enterprise approach to managing the administrative systems activities. Significant milestones include:
Conclusion
The current technological and operating world in which higher education must operate requires an enterprise approach to providing both project and longer-term support to administrative systems. No longer can higher education organizations treat support of administrative systems as a short-term "project", followed by limited investment, fractured or inadequate management, and lacking a defined approach to system governance and prioritizing investment.
Regardless of the software vendor, the underlying technology and the demands of higher education are seeing continual and even faster change than in the past. The common practice of the past, to stage a major system implementation, then to drop maintenance, reduce/eliminate all except critical support, and wait for the next, new, big technology change, is no longer feasible. Continuous and carefully planned investment across all administrative systems is most likely to see the best return on investment and highest satisfaction by users. Central Washington University has recognized these issues, electing to develop and implement an "enterprise" approach to managing its administrative systems.
Read about the new CIO Roundtable in the latest issue of DIS Tech News.
5 Years Ago -- November 1997 IPMA Newsletter
10 Years Ago -- November 1992 IPMA Newsletter
15 Years Ago -- November 1987 IPMA Newsletter
20 Years Ago -- November 1982 Association of Data Processing Managers Newsletter
25 Years Ago -- November 1977 Association of Data Processing Managers Newsletter
Members Present: Mary Ellen Bradley, Thomas Bynum, Phil Grigg, Sheryl Hall, Dennis Jones, Dennis Laine, Mike McVicker, Bob Monn, Darrel Riffe, and Shelagh Taylor. Phil Coates, CFO and Jim Andersen, Forum Events Manager, were also present.
Mike McVicker, IPMA Vice-Chair, opened the October 2002 meeting of the IPMA Board of Directors at 7:35 a.m.
Reports
Secretary/Treasurer: The minutes from the September Board meeting were approved.
The board approved the September financial status and activities reports. The board requested that the Cash Flow Projection Report be included in the monthly distribution to the board.
Business Planning: No Report
Executive Seminar: Phil Grigg reported that the 2002 Executive Summit was, based on everything he’s heard, a major success. Total attendance was 79, (53 state employees, 3 higher-education, 21 corporate sponsors and 2 Gartner Group facilitators.) It appears that the event came in slightly under budget. Phil distributed an analysis of the questionnaires submitted for the 2001 event at Skamania Lodge and the 2002 event at Campbell’s and they show that the ratings for the sessions were about a full point higher for this year’s program. The ratings for the location, meals and lodging were slightly lower this year.
The 2002 Summit follow-up session is scheduled for October 31st at a location yet to be determined.
Phil thanked the various board members who helped put the program together this year. The board expressed it’s appreciation to Phil and Darrel for a job well done.
The board directed Phil and Darrel to begin preparations for next year’s event in much the same format as this year. Decisions regarding whether it will be by invitation only again and whether to charge a registration fee, have been deferred to a future board meeting. It was decided that the location for the 2003 Summit should be at Campbell’s again to reinforce the notion that it is a different kind of program than previous Executive Seminars. It was agreed that the event should be put on some sort of location rotation in future years. The board expressed a preference for holding the event at roughly the same time of the year, perhaps a little earlier, and directed Phil and Darrel to complete a tentative booking for as high a number of attendees as possible so the options could be kept open as long as possible.
Forum: Jim Andersen gave the following status report that reflected the decisions made at a very productive committee meeting October 8, 2002.
Professional Development: Sheryl Hall reported that the October 16th event titled "Escaping the Legacy Jungle": XML and Web Services in Digital Government is on track and ready to go. On the first day that the web site opened up for enrollments in the class, 80 people signed up. There is currently a waiting list of 20 people.
Communications: Bob Monn reported that September had been an exceptionally busy month for web site changes with activity related to the 2002 Executive Summit, Forum 2003, and the October 16 Professional Development event as well as an overall refresh of the look of the top-level pages. The October issue of IPMA News has not yet been published; the issue will go out as soon as a summary of the Executive Summit held last week is completed. The November issue will contain a wrap up of the Professional Development activities for 2002.
New Business:
Election of Board Members: Phil Grigg, Darrel Riffe and Dennis Jones volunteered to serve as the nominating committee this year. The board members whose term is about to expire will notify Phil, Darrel or Dennis if they plan to run for re-election. An e-mail will also be sent to the membership seeking individuals interested in running for a board member position.
Annual Board Planning Retreat: The Board directed Mike McVicker, as Vice-Chair, to proceed with making the necessary arrangements for the annual board planning retreat.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 a.m.
IPMA, P.O. Box 1943, Olympia, WA 98507-1943