I am looking for some documentation on the ongoing role and responsibilities of the User and Executive Management following the completion of the implementation of a Corporate Application. This would include activities such as ensuring work practice documentation is in place and relevant, applications are being used efficiently and training for new users.
We are a small global company with approximately 350 employees spread across 14 offices in 5 continents and a consistent methodology is important. Saving Changes...
Michael WoodProject Manager / Business Analyst / Business Process Improvement Guru| Independent ContractorGig Harbor, Wa, United States
In my experience I have always included a formal turnover process in the post implementation phase of a project. As a CIO I felt it imperative that MIS not own any business applications. Therefore as part of the post implementation activities the user community became the owners of the application. With MISs guidance a user group was formed and chaired by a leader within that community. MIS participated in the group as an advisor and a stakeholder. The group became accountable for improvement initiatives and application utilization. MIS provided service levels, analysis and change management support. Top Management provided the leadership and support of this approach and with the CIO led the overall steering committee that set corporate priorities for overall application change and development requests. This approach served to improve the relationship between MIS and the user community. Saving Changes...
...be careful about thinking that the project is merely the implementation, with roll-out, process definition, training, etc., left as undermanaged "post implementation" efforts. The project management effort should not be limited to the purely MIS pieces, even if PM is organizationally sited in MIS. The value to the business comes from a usable application that is used. Getting it "used" is no less a pieces of the scope of the project than getting it usable.
Throwing an application "over the wall" to users is ineffective project management. PM needs to span organizational borders.
>...The value to the business comes from a usable application that is used. Getting it "used" is no less a pieces of the scope of the project than getting it usable.
If there are no process improvements in place to assure business will use the application, IT will be seen as delivering a flawed product. So, turnover, as Michael says is important. Important enough that the project sponsor needs to acknowledge that the business is ready to accept the application in to is work processes and that the proper infrastructure exists to support and bridge the application to the day-to-day business activities.
Often, there is no bridge. So there is no ongoing user training, no training manaual, no updated user manual (or context sensitive help), and no desk procedure manual. Saving Changes...
Michael WoodProject Manager / Business Analyst / Business Process Improvement Guru| Independent ContractorGig Harbor, Wa, United States
Well said Rita. I also believe that MIS needs to learn not to own applications. Ownership and usage go hand-in-hand. It is not a toss it over the transit as much as it is a migration from building to occupying. The goal is to provide leverage to value based activities. MIS must protect the infrastructure and safety of applications and be a partner in the use of that information for which it is a vigilent steward. Saving Changes...
Hello, all. It has been interesting to read your posts. I am a Project Manager for a software development firm. I am responsible for implementing our software all over the world. We do not have good follow-up processes that help us find out how successful our clients are after we leave. Can anyone suggest any ideas on the type of processes that we should put in place, or any ideas of where I can find more information. Thanks! Saving Changes...
Michael WoodProject Manager / Business Analyst / Business Process Improvement Guru| Independent ContractorGig Harbor, Wa, United States
When performing the post implementation review process the 5 feedback areas needed to assess success are as follows: 1. The Contract: Did the implementation complete on time and on budget in accordance with the agreed on terms and conditions? 2. The Process: Was the process used during the implementation acceptable and appropriate for the client?s culture and business environment? 3. The Endorsement: Would the Client use or recommend your products and services in the future? 4. The Outcome: Did the software achieve or exceed the expected ROI? (test this every 3 to 6 months for 2 years) 5. The Continuance: Are there any NEW improvements needed to sustain continued success with the software? I suggest this data be collected at various levels within the client organization and then fed back to Client?s and your management. Hope this helps Saving Changes...
Mike, I agree with the 5 areas to be considered during a PIR. I do tend to think of it in 2 areas though - the financials (post investment reveiw) and post implementation review.
(Yes I know the investment side is considered as part of the PIR, but it helps when discussing with none project mgt bods to explain elements of a PIR).
On the implementation side, can I add perhaps one more suggestion to the 5 points? I would also use the implementation review to analyse the effectiveness of the project management methodology or elements of, to ensure continuous improvement prevails.
Cheers
Phil
p.s. Mike - you're answers are providing me with a fountain of knowledge, based on experience and a great deal of common sense! Cheers!!! Saving Changes...
Michael WoodProject Manager / Business Analyst / Business Process Improvement Guru| Independent ContractorGig Harbor, Wa, United States
Phil
I agree on both counts. When I refer to the process that incorporates the methodology. I might also add that it is vital to lay down some benchmarks in each area so future projects can be measured in terms of improvements achieved.
I have looked through the responses to this topic with interest.
We have a process which has the compilation of a Post Implementation Review as the last step before project closure. Our PIR is aimed more at how the project delivered and the methodology, rather than the benefits received. Our experience is that these documents are rarely forthcoming, even after mild to aggressive chasing. The benefits of PIRs are self evident, they are recommended outputs from standard methodologies. Why then is there such limited enthusiasm for their production?
Any thoughts on this would be most appreciated.
Also I would be very interested to hear from anybody who has successfully implemented PIRs and is using them as a source of data in an improvement process.
Thanks in advance for your help. Saving Changes...
