SCT Banner - Administrative Information Software (AIS)
Information System.
In September, 2001 the Board approved a $2.5 million dollar information system project to be paid from sales tax proceeds. Although success was to be determined by completing the project on time and under budget, the ultimate success of this project should be measured by the ability of management to provide useful information for decision making purposes. However, lack of leadership, poor project management and key personnel turnover (at Washburn University and at SCT Banner) lowered the likelihood of real success.
Defining Success.
The implementation of SCT Banner software may be deemed a success by some because of its ability to cut checks and enroll students. However, one does not have to invest $2.5 million for software that merely performs clerical functions. The key factor for success is the ability of the personnel using the software to extract information. There are three factors that seriously hamper the successful implementation of this project.
1. Lack of Leadership
A document titled “Washburn University BANNER Implementation Project Definition” was developed at the beginning of this project. It set forth the scope of the project, roles played by key personnel, the project budget and deliverables. It was to act as the basic guideline for project implementation.
The leadership role of the Steering Committee, one of many teams created to facilitate smooth implementation, was clearly set forth in this document. The lack of leadership was most evident in the Steering Committee’s inability to develop a decision framework for the project. The inability of this group to engage in decision-making is evident in the meeting summaries and had a detrimental impact on the successful implementation of the project. Read the meeting summaries and see if you can find evidence of leadership. Although they met weekly, there is rarely any evidence of thoughtful discussion followed by an informed decision.
2. Poor Project Management
The Project Manager was responsible for project leadership and monitoring schedules and budgets. As in many other fiscal areas, it was hard to know for sure if all the costs were being accounted for appropriately. Some charges were made to the operating budget, some to the project. Again, this is an indication of the administration’s unwillingness to be held accountable to a budget. Some things to note regarding this project would be the following:
- Five PC’s were purchased for the AIS/VPAT area. At least two of these PC’s were not project related costs.
- Salaries were charged to this project, per Board action. However, this capital project never included any budget for salaries.
- The $62,740 paid to BKD for “process mapping” was paid again to SCT Banner as part of the project. The BKD contract was an unnecessary expenditure and provided very little, if any benefit to Washburn University. It would be interesting to read the bid documents, scope, and deliverables for that contract.
3. Key Personnel Turnover
It was stated early in the project that retention of key personnel would be critical to the success of this project. Job advertisements posted in the Topeka Capital-Journal throughout the implementation period indicated that little attention was paid to this factor.
Poor Communication.
At the beginning of this project, all meeting summaries were posted on the web site in the interest of keeping all stakeholders informed of as many aspects of this project as possible. Posting meeting summaries became erratic, with no appearance of fulfilling the ground rule of frequent and consistent communication. Either these key teams stopped meeting, or the information no longer needed to be shared. Either conclusion should be of some concern.
Unavailable Information.
At the January 15, 2003 Board meeting, subsequent to President Farley’s reporting the successful implementation of the Finance and Payroll modules, V.P. Hill reported that some information was not available for the Board because the “Banner program is not able to do the report as we’ve been doing it for the past year”. While this comment may have seemed inconsequential to some, it is an indication of the serious misunderstanding of system conversion. In particular, it highlights the lack of understanding regarding implementation of an information system versus an accounting system.
Inflexible Functionality?
On December 9, 2004 the Board of Regents Budget/Finance Committee Meeting approved a budget planning calendar that resulted in a recommendation of the FY06 salary and wage budget guidelines and performance pay proposal to the full Board of Regents at the January board meeting. Unlike previous years, this recommendation was made prior to determining the FY06 tuition rates. One of the reasons given for this "modified normal schedule" was the necessity for manual entries into Banner's budget module if a new budget is approved after rolling the old budget into the new year, as has been done for the past three years.
Over Budget.
In January, 2004, additional consulting hours to assist with the installation were approved at a cost of $359,000, paid from University reserves. The FY05 AIS operating budget added two more full-time positions, bringing a total of 5 additional personnel to support this project. The personnel cost for administrative computing has increased from $236,200 in FY99 to almost $643,000 in the FY05 budget.
A recap of the approved costs, the capital costs spent through FY03 and the operating costs included in the FY05 budget follows:
NEW Costs |
Approved | Actual |
|---|---|---|
Capital Costs |
||
| Software/Installation | $2,035,000 | |
| Hardware | 400,000 | |
| Additional Consulting | 359,040 | |
| Total Capital Costs: | $2,435,000 | $2,231,942 |
Operating Costs |
||
| Software Maintenance | $ 170,000 | |
| Hardware Maintenance | 40,000 | $ 357,671 |
| Personnel | unknown | 406,710 |
| Total Operating Costs: | unknown | $ 764,381 |