PMO Project Charter Template



Project CharterEnd-to-End Business Process RedesignOctober 18, 2013Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u 1.Project Background, Short Description and Scope PAGEREF _Toc369860586 \h 42.Project Focus PAGEREF _Toc369860587 \h 53.Business Justification PAGEREF _Toc369860588 \h 64.Functional Readiness Assessment PAGEREF _Toc369860589 \h 65.Technical Readiness Assessment PAGEREF _Toc369860590 \h 66.Business Impacts PAGEREF _Toc369860591 \h 67.Priority, Risk of Deferral and Complexity of Implementation PAGEREF _Toc369860592 \h 78.Required to Satisfy: [Check appropriate checkbox] PAGEREF _Toc369860593 \h 79.Project Implementation Approach PAGEREF _Toc369860594 \h 710.Measuring Success PAGEREF _Toc369860595 \h 911.Dependencies of the Initiative on Other HRS/SC/DoIT Areas (as necessary) PAGEREF _Toc369860596 \h 912.Effort Estimate for the Project and Payback Period PAGEREF _Toc369860597 \h 1013.Payback Period Calculation PAGEREF _Toc369860598 \h 1014.Documentation and Knowledge Transfer PAGEREF _Toc369860599 \h 1115.Exit Criteria PAGEREF _Toc369860600 \h 1116.Risks and Issues PAGEREF _Toc369860601 \h 1117.Team Principles PAGEREF _Toc369860602 \h 1118.Signoff PAGEREF _Toc369860603 \h 13Document Change ControlRevision NumberDate of IssueAuthor(s)Brief Description of Change1.010/4/2013Kevin SipplDocument drafted2.010/6/2013Vivek CherianPreliminary Review3.010/7/2013Kevin SipplIncorporated Preliminary Review Feedback4.010/18/2013Kevin SipplIncorporated Project Sponsor Feedback5.010/25/2013Kevin SipplIncorporated Further Project Sponsor FeedbackSC Area: AllSC Op Team:Communications and Professional DevelopmentProject Name:End-to-End Business Process RedesignJIRA:TBDFunding Source:[TII, Operational, UWSYS, UWMSN, etc.]This Project will address:Business process FORMCHECKBOX HRS System related issue FORMCHECKBOX SC Manager: Michelle RunningHRS Team Lead:TBDProject Background, Short Description and ScopeCurrent State:Extensive Service Center ticket analysis has identified three business processes that present the greatest opportunity for errors and HRS problems: new hires/rehires, job data changes, and terminations/transfers. These problems are most evident in the HRS modules downstream from HR, such as Benefits.Following assessments at UW-Stout and UW-Parkside, the two institutions implemented business process redesigns for the three critical business processes to help increase efficiency and improve end-user experience.In order to achieve full HRS stabilization the business processes that support the core transactions within HRS must be fully documented end-to-end involving all external and internal functional areas from recruiting at the institutional department through third party vendors like ETF, evaluated for process improvement opportunities, and possibly enhanced.Project short description:The end-to-end business process redesign project will be implemented in two phases:Phase IThe project team will map the current-state critical business processes from their origins at the institutional level through to vendors and other third-parties. Leveraging existing documentation from the HRS implementation, interviews, and from UW-Stout and UW-Parkside implementations the project team will work with institutions (such as UW-Madison or UW-Milwaukee) to document current state business processes and map pain-points to the business processes.Phase IIThe project team will make recommendations to implement best-practices that mitigate risk and improve efficiency. As part of defining and achieving these best-practices the project team will also include evaluating technical automation options and current gaps in professional development that must be addressed.In Scope:The business process redesign project will examine the three business processes identified as triggering the most errors and being the most critical to the stabilization of HRS:New Hires/RehiresJob Data ChangesTerminations/TransfersWithin each critical process, the project team plans to identify a maximum of three highest priority variations that are materially unique (ex. employee classes – unclassified hires vs. classified project hires vs. student hires) and determine which will require separate mapping.The in-depth examination will begin with the transaction origin at the institution and include each major process step through to the Service Center and third-parties (as applicable), including any HRS data entry, physical or electronic movement of forms or data, approvals, hand-offs or transitions between resources, or process outcomes.After mapping the critical business processes the project team will identify “pain-points” through their own observation and through end-user and leadership interviews, where process improvements and training opportunities could be implemented. When feasible, processes will be standardized across individual operating units.In addition to the pain-points, existing issues in open JIRAs and projects in the Service Center project pipeline will be mapped to their associated steps in the end-to-end business process. With this full picture of outstanding issues the project team will make recommendations to address the identified pain-points.Out of Scope:Issues discovered by or brought to the project team that are determined to be outside of the three identified critical business processes will be out of scope of this project, and instead be referred to the appropriate Service Center or institutional owner, which may then become their own project or initiative.Assumptions:The project team will leverage existing business process maps and documentation whenever possible, including overall processes and previously defined sub-processes.Project FocusTo improve the efficiency of the system, a business process or an organizational unit FORMCHECKBOX To reduce defects or improve quality of service FORMCHECKBOX To reduce or eliminate organizational reliance on external staffing sources FORMCHECKBOX To Reduce effort (time, FTE etc.) required to perform work FORMCHECKBOX Other (please explain): FORMCHECKBOX Business JustificationProvide a holistic view of the identified business process steps across UW System and the corresponding issues that are encountered by end-usersIncrease efficiency within the identified business processes for both institutions and the Service CenterAid the Service Center in prioritizing its stabilization efforts and ensuring resources are allocated to the areas most in-needReduce risks, such as data integrity, security, and separation of duties (dependent on business process and recommendation)Leverage successes from institutional projects like the one conducted at UW-Parkside relating to business process improvementsDocumented 28 business processes and created 18 checklists based on best-practices and staff rolesIssue Tracking improvements via Sharepoint automation11 workflow solutions created14 reports createdMSC Event Evaluation and New Hire Hold reports decreased from 50 lines to less than 2 linesFunctional Readiness AssessmentService Center resources are available to dedicate time to documenting processes and interviewing involved parties, including possible institutional visitsInstitutions are open to Service Center resources contacting their employees – both virtually and in-person – to interview and document the steps taken at the institutional level for the identified business processesInstitutions are prepared to receive evaluations of current state business processes and recommendations on how to improve processes, including being willing to work with the Service Center to implement recommended process changesTechnical Readiness AssessmentThe Service Center and institutions would need to examine their readiness for any technical process improvements at the time such recommendations are identifiedBusiness ImpactsSystem functionalityThe project may include analysis and recommendations relating to other systems working in conjunction with HRS, and possibly require effort or guidance from those corresponding system owners (ex. JEMS team from UW-Madison)OperationsThe new hire/rehire, job data change, and termination/transfer business processes will possibly be updated per project team recommendations and affect institutional and Service Center operationsDependent on specific business process and recommendationOrganizationNew business process documents could (and may be required to) be reviewed by internal audit to ensure the proper due diligence and risk mitigation has gone into the future-state redesign recommendationPriority, Risk of Deferral and Complexity of ImplementationPriority of the ProjectRisk of Deferring the ProjectComplexity of Implementing the Project FORMCHECKBOX High FORMCHECKBOX High FORMCHECKBOX High FORMCHECKBOX Medium FORMCHECKBOX Medium FORMCHECKBOX Medium FORMCHECKBOX Low FORMCHECKBOX Low FORMCHECKBOX LowRequired to Satisfy: [Check appropriate checkbox]Federal Regulations FORMCHECKBOX CampusNeeds FORMCHECKBOX Bargaining Unit FORMCHECKBOX State Statutory FORMCHECKBOX UWS Policy FORMCHECKBOX UWS Procedural FORMCHECKBOX SC Efficiency FORMCHECKBOX Campus Efficiency FORMCHECKBOX Comments (Additional details can be added as well): Project Implementation ApproachIn outline format, explain step-by-step approach to implement the project including high level project plan and time-line]Project PlanPhase IDiscoveryDevelop charter document (Oct 4, 2013)Project lead review and incorporate feedback (Oct 11, 2013)PMO review and incorporate feedback (Oct 18, 2013)Service Center Director review and incorporate feedback (Oct 25, 2013)Present project to Service Center Steering Committee and incorporate feedback (Nov 6, 2013)Present project to Service Center Executive Committee for implementation approval (Nov 12, 2013)ImplementationDevelop Project Plan (November 2013)Form task-group for each critical business process (November 2013)Develop Communication Plan for end-user outreach (December 2013)Map critical business processes (December 2013 – February 2014)Identify issues and pain-points (March – April 2014)Examine and map open JIRAs and Service Center project pipeline to business processes (April 2014)Phase IIImplementationDevelop recommendations to address issues and pain-points (May 2014)Present recommendations to Service Center managers and PMO to prioritize (May 2014)Determine future projects based on approved recommendations (June 2014 – TBD)Team structure – Will be determined during Phase I ImplementationSponsor: Michelle RunningProject Manager: Scott KrauseLead: TBDTaskgroup – New Hire/RehireAG 1 Institutional Rep: TBDAG 2 Institutional Rep: TBDAG 3 Institutional Rep: TBDSC TAM: TBDSC HR: TBDSC Time and Labor: TBDSC Absence: TBDSC Payroll: TBDSC Benefits: TBDSC Finance: TBDTechnical: TBDUWSA: TBDETF: TBDInternal Audit: TBDTaskgroup – Job Data ChangeAG 1 Institutional Rep: TBDAG 2 Institutional Rep: TBDAG 3 Institutional Rep: TBDSC HR: TBDSC Time and Labor: TBDSC Absence: TBDSC Payroll: TBDSC Benefits: TBDSC Finance: TBDTechnical: TBDUWSA: TBDETF: TBDInternal Audit: TBDTaskgroup – Termination/TransferAG 1 Institutional Rep: TBDAG 2 Institutional Rep: TBDAG 3 Institutional Rep: TBDSC HR: TBDSC Time and Labor: TBDSC Absence: TBDSC Payroll: TBDSC Benefits: TBDSC Finance: TBDTechnical: TBDUWSA: TBDETF: TBDInternal Audit: TBDMeasuring SuccessPhase IExistence of full detailed process maps for the high-priority business processesCommunication and distribution of process maps to stakeholdersAwareness and education of stakeholders on the documented processesIdentification and adoption of metrics within the current business processes to aid in measuring improvementsPhase IIInitiation of independent projects leading to measureable reductions in the following statistics:Number of data exceptions reported by various queries through the WEDNumber of back-dated hiresNumber of back-dated terminationsNumber of terminations/rehires on same effective dateNumber of benefit reinstatementsNumber of off-cycle checks for terminated employeesDependencies of the Initiative on Other HRS/SC/DoIT Areas (as necessary)Development:Dependency is to-be-determined, as any HRS system development would be identified following Phase II of the projectTesting:Dependency is to-be-determined, as any HRS testing would be identified following Phase II of the project Reporting / EPM:The project team may identify existing WED metrics (assuming ongoing WED development and testing moves to Production during the project timeframe) for use in measuring process exceptions within the current-state business processesSecurity:Dependency is to-be-determined, as any HRS security impacts would be identified following Phase II of the project Training:The Professional Development team will need to be involved in the business process redesigns in order for the team to be able to create the necessary documentation and training materials for executing training sessions with institutional and Service Center usersCommunications and Change Management:The Communications team will be depended upon to distribute any necessary information to the institutions and Service Center relating to institutional visits, the redesigned business processes, and training sessions offered as part of the future-state solutionsAny changes or improvements desired for the Service Center website will require working closely with the Web Design teamThe project, Communications, and Professional Development teams – along with Service Center leadership – will need to work together to ensure the concerns and suggestions of business process owners and end-users are fully considered in order to achieve the buy-in required to successfully implement the business process improvementsBatch:Dependency is to-be-determined, as any HRS batch impacts would be identified following Phase II of the projectOther Tech (Migration, DBA etc.)None at this timeEffort Estimate for the Project and Payback PeriodEffort required to implement Phase I of the project (consulting and UW): 3,500 hours – $285,000Resource Assumptions are over a 30 week project period unless otherwise notedProject Sponsor – 10 hours/weekProject Manager and PMO Support – 10 hours/weekTwo Professional Development/Instructional Designers – 25 hours/week eachConsultant Analyst – 25 hours/weekTen Taskgroup members – 5 hours/week each (over 12 week period)Effort required to implement Phase II of the project: TBD, dependent on approved recommendationsPayback Period CalculationTBDDocumentation and Knowledge TransferDetailed current state business process documents will be developed – including Visio diagrams and written detailed explanations – for each of the critical business processesKB documents and job-aids will be created where gaps are identified in current documentationTraining sessions (live and virtual) will be developed for updated business processes and those currently experiencing the largest inconsistencies in executionExit CriteriaData integrity errors, as measured through management dashboards and the WED, are reducedEnd users are able to complete their required tasks in a shorter amount of time, as measured by status reporting or supervisor observationEnd users can efficiently enter data into HRS and other systems with reduced processing times, as measured by time stamps and dating of completed entryRisks and IssuesRecommendations for business process or technology changes at the institutional level will require additional change management and may not receive the necessary buy-in from the affected employees and their leadership to be successfulDocumenting the current state business processes in the desired level of detail may require a significant amount of resources, with a risk of reaching or exceeding initial budget estimates, due to a variety of aspects:Lack of previous projects of comparable size and scope for basis of timeline and budgetLarge number of stakeholders that will need to be involved in the projectInstitutional visits will necessitate travel expensesTaskgroups will require dedicated effort from a wide-range of SMEsTime of Service Center managers and institutional leadership will be needed to approve the business processes and their subsequent improvementsTeam PrinciplesStrive to maintain a sense of humor when appropriate and necessary, especially in the face of adversity.Strive to uphold honesty and candor, and create a comfortable professional environment where all participants feel comfortable engaging in discussion. Challenge the thought, not the person.HRS team members will be responsible for prioritizing their efforts.Strive to respond to requests with a status update within as reasonable amount of time. Email and JIRA will be updated, as appropriately, with status updates.Respect idiosyncrasies and the unique contributions of each person.Meeting facilitation guidelines: designate a facilitator and timekeeper and stick to schedule time and topics, create an agenda (schedule and meeting objectives), designate a note taker who will distribute or post meeting notes on MWS in a timely manner,arrive on time, allow all members to participate, come prepared to discuss agenda items, andInvite all attendees at least 1 day in advance.Meeting mantras: Make decisions in meetings. Do not negatively discuss meeting decisions outside of meeting. No outside sabotage. Don’t be divisive.Work towards consensus. Address parking lot issues in a timely manner.Judicious use of cell phones, IM, texting, or computers in meetings.Minimize sidebar conversations.Silence in meetings is consent.The Project Team will have a standardized structure to support document review, update, and archive documents. Each team is responsible for reviewing, updating, and archiving documents in MWS.SignoffSC Manager Sign-offName:Michelle Running Signature:Date: SC PMO/Internal Controls Sign-offName:Fatma DemirbilekSignature:Date: ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download