University of Wisconsin System

HRS Project

End-to-End Business Process RedesignCharter

Project Charter

End-to-End Business Process Redesign

October 18, 2013

Table of Contents

1.Project Background, Short Description and Scope

2.Project Focus

3.Business Justification

4.Functional Readiness Assessment

5.Technical Readiness Assessment

6.Business Impacts

7.Priority, Risk of Deferral and Complexity of Implementation

8.Required to Satisfy: [Check appropriate checkbox]

9.Project Implementation Approach

10.Measuring Success

11.Dependencies of the Initiative on Other HRS/SC/DoIT Areas (as necessary)

12.Effort Estimate for the Project and Payback Period

13.Payback Period Calculation

14.Documentation and Knowledge Transfer

15.Exit Criteria

16.Risks and Issues

17.Team Principles

18.Signoff

Document Change Control

Revision Number / Date of Issue / Author(s) / Brief Description of Change
1.0 / 10/4/2013 / Kevin Sippl / Document drafted
2.0 / 10/6/2013 / Vivek Cherian / Preliminary Review
3.0 / 10/7/2013 / Kevin Sippl / Incorporated Preliminary Review Feedback
4.0 / 10/18/2013 / Kevin Sippl / Incorporated Project SponsorFeedback
5.0 / 10/25/2013 / Kevin Sippl / Incorporated Further Project Sponsor Feedback

SC Area:All

SC Op Team:Communications and Professional Development

Project Name:End-to-End Business Process Redesign

JIRA:TBD

Funding Source:[TII, Operational, UWSYS, UWMSN, etc.]

This Project will address:

Business process / HRS System related issue

SC Manager: Michelle Running

HRS Team Lead:TBD

1.Project Background, Short Description and Scope

Current 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 I
The 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 II
The project team will make recommendations to implement best-practices that mitigate risk and improve efficiency. As part of defining and achieving these best-practicesthe 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:
  1. New Hires/Rehires
  2. Job Data Changes
  3. Terminations/Transfers
Within each critical process, the project team plans toidentify 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 inopen JIRAs andprojects 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.

2.Project Focus

  1. To improve the efficiency of the system, a business process or an organizational unit

  1. To reduce defects or improve quality of service

  1. To reduce or eliminate organizational reliance on external staffing sources

  1. To Reduce effort (time, FTE etc.) required to perform work

  1. Other (please explain):

3.Business Justification

  • Provide a holistic view of the identified business process steps across UW System and the corresponding issues that are encountered by end-users
  • Increase efficiency within the identified business processes for both institutions and the Service Center
  • Aid the Service Center in prioritizing its stabilization efforts and ensuring resources are allocated to the areas most in-need
  • Reduce 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 improvements
  • Documented 28 business processes and created 18 checklists based on best-practices and staff roles
  • Issue Tracking improvements via Sharepoint automation
  • 11 workflow solutions created
  • 14 reports created
  • MSC Event Evaluation and New Hire Hold reports decreased from 50 lines to less than 2 lines

4.Functional Readiness Assessment

  • Service Center resources are available to dedicate time to documenting processes and interviewing involved parties, including possible institutional visits
  • Institutions 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 processes
  • Institutions 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 changes

5.Technical Readiness Assessment

  • The Service Center and institutions would need to examine their readiness for any technical process improvements at the time such recommendations are identified

6.Business Impacts

  • System functionality
  • The 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)
  • Operations
  • The 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 operations
  • Dependent on specific business process and recommendation
  • Organization
  • New 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 recommendation

7.Priority, Risk of Deferral and Complexity of Implementation

Priority of the Project / Risk of Deferring the Project / Complexity of Implementing the Project
High / High / High
Medium / Medium / Medium
Low / Low / Low

8.Required to Satisfy: [Check appropriate checkbox]

Federal Regulations CampusNeedsBargaining Unit
State Statutory UWS Policy UWS Procedural
SC Efficiency Campus Efficiency
Comments (Additional details can be added as well):

9.Project Implementation Approach

In outline format, explain step-by-step approach to implement the project including high level project plan and time-line]

Project Plan

Phase I

  1. Discovery
  2. Develop charter document(Oct 4, 2013)
  3. Project lead review and incorporate feedback (Oct 11, 2013)
  4. PMO review and incorporate feedback (Oct 18, 2013)
  5. Service Center Director review and incorporate feedback (Oct 25, 2013)
  6. Present project to Service Center Steering Committee and incorporate feedback (Nov 6, 2013)
  7. Present project to Service Center Executive Committee for implementation approval (Nov 12, 2013)
  1. Implementation
  2. Develop Project Plan(November 2013)
  3. Form task-group for each critical business process(November 2013)
  4. Develop Communication Plan for end-user outreach (December 2013)
  5. Map critical business processes(December 2013 – February 2014)
  6. Identify issues and pain-points (March – April 2014)
  7. Examine and map open JIRAs and Service Center project pipeline to business processes (April 2014)

Phase II

  1. Implementation
  2. Develop recommendations to address issues and pain-points (May 2014)
  3. Present recommendations to Service Center managers and PMO to prioritize (May 2014)
  4. Determine future projects based on approved recommendations (June 2014 – TBD)

Team structure – Will be determined during Phase I Implementation

  1. Sponsor: Michelle Running
  2. Project Manager: Scott Krause
  3. Lead: TBD
  4. Taskgroup – New Hire/Rehire
  5. AG 1 Institutional Rep: TBD
  6. AG 2 Institutional Rep: TBD
  7. AG 3 Institutional Rep: TBD
  8. SC TAM: TBD
  9. SC HR: TBD
  10. SC Time and Labor: TBD
  11. SC Absence: TBD
  12. SC Payroll: TBD
  13. SC Benefits: TBD
  14. SC Finance: TBD
  15. Technical: TBD
  16. UWSA: TBD
  17. ETF: TBD
  18. Internal Audit: TBD
  19. Taskgroup – Job Data Change
  20. AG 1 Institutional Rep: TBD
  21. AG 2 Institutional Rep: TBD
  22. AG 3 Institutional Rep: TBD
  23. SC HR: TBD
  24. SC Time and Labor: TBD
  25. SC Absence: TBD
  26. SC Payroll: TBD
  27. SC Benefits: TBD
  28. SC Finance: TBD
  29. Technical: TBD
  30. UWSA: TBD
  31. ETF: TBD
  32. Internal Audit: TBD
  33. Taskgroup – Termination/Transfer
  34. AG 1 Institutional Rep: TBD
  35. AG 2 Institutional Rep: TBD
  36. AG 3 Institutional Rep: TBD
  37. SC HR: TBD
  38. SC Time and Labor: TBD
  39. SC Absence: TBD
  40. SC Payroll: TBD
  41. SC Benefits: TBD
  42. SC Finance: TBD
  43. Technical: TBD
  44. UWSA: TBD
  45. ETF: TBD
  46. Internal Audit: TBD

10.Measuring Success

Phase I

  • Existence of full detailed process maps for the high-priority business processes
  • Communication and distribution of process maps to stakeholders
  • Awareness and education of stakeholders on the documented processes
  • Identification and adoption of metrics within the current business processes to aid in measuring improvements

Phase II

  • Initiation of independent projects leading to measureable reductions in the following statistics:
  • Number of data exceptions reported by various queries through the WED
  • Number of back-dated hires
  • Number of back-dated terminations
  • Number of terminations/rehires on same effective date
  • Number of benefit reinstatements
  • Number of off-cycle checks for terminated employees

11.Dependencies 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 project
  • Testing:
  • 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 processes
  • Security:
  • 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 users
  • Communications 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 solutions
  • Any changes or improvements desired for the Service Center website will require working closely with the Web Design team
  • The 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 improvements
  • Batch:
  • Dependency is to-be-determined, as any HRS batch impacts would be identified following Phase II of the project
  • Other Tech (Migration, DBA etc.)
  • None at this time

12.Effort Estimate for the Project and Payback Period

Effort required to implement Phase I of the project (consulting and UW): 3,500 hours – $285,000

  • Resource Assumptions are over a 30 week project period unless otherwise noted
  • Project Sponsor – 10 hours/week
  • Project Manager and PMO Support – 10 hours/week
  • Two Professional Development/Instructional Designers – 25 hours/week each
  • Consultant Analyst – 25 hours/week
  • Ten Taskgroup members – 5 hours/week each (over 12 week period)

Effort required to implement Phase II of the project: TBD, dependent on approved recommendations

13.Payback Period Calculation

  • TBD

14.Documentation and Knowledge Transfer

  • Detailed current state business process documents will be developed – including Visio diagrams and written detailed explanations – for each of the critical business processes
  • KB documents and job-aids will be created where gaps are identified in current documentation
  • Training sessions (live and virtual) will be developed for updated business processes and those currently experiencing the largest inconsistencies in execution

15.Exit Criteria

  • Data integrity errors, as measured through management dashboards and the WED, are reduced
  • End users are able to complete their required tasks in a shorter amount of time, as measured by status reporting or supervisor observation
  • End users can efficiently enter data into HRS and other systems with reduced processing times, as measured by time stamps and dating of completed entry

16.Risks and Issues

  • Recommendations 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 successful
  • Documenting 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 budget
  • Large number of stakeholders that will need to be involved in the project
  • Institutional visits will necessitate travel expenses
  • Taskgroups will require dedicated effort from a wide-range of SMEs
  • Time of Service Centermanagers and institutional leadership will be needed to approve the business processes and their subsequent improvements

17.Team Principles

  1. Strive to maintain a sense of humor when appropriate and necessary, especially in the face of adversity.
  2. 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.
  3. HRS team members will be responsible for prioritizing their efforts.
  4. Strive to respond to requests with a status update within as reasonable amount of time.
  5. Email and JIRA will be updated, as appropriately, with status updates.
  6. Respect idiosyncrasies and the unique contributions of each person.
  7. Meeting facilitation guidelines:
  8. designate a facilitator and timekeeper and stick to schedule time and topics,
  9. create an agenda (schedule and meeting objectives),
  10. designate a note taker who will distribute or post meeting notes on MWS in a timely manner,
  11. arrive on time,
  12. allow all members to participate,
  13. come prepared to discuss agenda items, and
  14. Invite all attendees at least 1 day in advance.
  15. Meeting mantras:
  16. Make decisions in meetings.
  17. Do not negatively discuss meeting decisions outside of meeting. No outside sabotage. Don’t be divisive.
  18. Work towards consensus.
  19. Address parking lot issues in a timely manner.
  20. Judicious use of cell phones, IM, texting, or computers in meetings.
  21. Minimize sidebar conversations.
  22. Silence in meetings is consent.
  23. 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.

18.Signoff

SC Manager Sign-off
Name:Michelle Running
Signature:Date:
SC PMO/Internal Controls Sign-off
Name:Fatma Demirbilek
Signature:Date:

End to End Business Processes_Project Charter__V3_2013_10_07.docx1 of 1311/1/2018