Ask Yourself:
If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, don’t feel bad. You are definitely not alone. Better yet, it doesn't have to happen again if you keep this important consideration in mind: Implementing an effective business solution involves much more than simply selecting and installing software. A successful implementation—one that truly meets your business objectives—has user acceptance, addresses your business and computing needs, and is delivered on time and on budget. And you have the power to make this happen.
The Challenge:
The extreme pace of IT advances can be daunting, particularly for those who have to decide when and where to leap. A new IT workflow solution can bring many benefits including improved control, accountability, efficiency, and visibility, all of which can lead to dramatic returns on investment. Many companies have taken this step without the necessary preliminary internal evaluation and preparation, leading to time and money spent on solution implementations that fell short of expectations and created more chaos than organization. The key to meeting this challenge effectively is to methodically gather and evaluate information. Internally, this information must come from the user community, IT, and management. This information should cover business process actors, work breakdown steps, data inputs, data outputs, and interaction with legacy information systems. Externally, this means gathering information from possible vendors, should the internal evaluation point in that direction. (More on this later.)
Internally, user participation will facilitate acceptance and provide an accurate view of how processes really flow through an organization. IT participation will also facilitate acceptance, identifying technology and integration requirements early enough in the process to avoid costly mistakes down the road. And regardless of where the IT initiative germinated, management support will ultimately be required for funding and leadership. Moreover, management sets the business objectives for using the new solution to achieve competitive advantage for the firm.
Throughout this internal requirements gathering process the goal is to reach agreement on business objectives as well as functional and technical requirements. Throughout this investigative phase, as well as during implementation and beyond, there is the setting of incremental, value-based goals. These goals empower management by providing a baseline to measure incremental success and apply corrective action should actual project results not correspond to the business objectives.
Executives at Cinergy Power Generation Services, a part of the Energy Merchant Business Unit of Cinergy Corp., one of the leading U.S. diversified energy companies, put themselves through this process recently.
“We understood that it was essential that we take action to position ourselves for continued success and lay a strong foundation for future expansion,” commented Jim Woestman, Manager of Project Controls. “We identified a need for more uniform and consistent business procedures. During the process of gathering requirements, we determined that an IT solution would add value to our organization.”
In mid-2000, Cinergy began the requirements gathering process by establishing a team of engineers and supervisors to identify key procedures for optimization. The result was a prioritized list of ten key business procedures that the team felt made the most significant impact on the Energy Merchant Business Unit. A Steering Committee composed of engineers, supervisors, and information technology (IT) personnel was then established to oversee the optimization process. Ten Optimization Teams were created with one team assigned exclusively to each procedure, allowing each team to focus on a single process. Over a period of 18 months a total of 60 employees selected from the many departments affected by each procedure participated in the Optimization Teams.
As results from the teams’ work were compiled, the Steering Committee concluded that an IT solution would be needed to help manage and track the optimized procedures. Accordingly, the Committee evaluated existing IT infrastructure and legacy systems for viability. It was decided that existing systems would not fulfill the identified needs, so new requirements were mapped against business objectives to create a requirements matrix describing their ideal IT solution.
Something to Consider
Often it is advantageous to talk to potential vendors early in the requirements gathering process. Consider soliciting an objective needs assessment if there is disagreement over objectives or resistance to change, or if the time required to handle the requirements gathering internally would hinder ongoing work. Even without outsourcing a needs assessment, taking the time to meet with potential vendors is an effective way to learn more about quickly changing technology capabilities and the functionality and services offered. Providing vendors with real issues at this early stage will also help you determine if their solution meets your needs.
A good Needs Assessment methodology should identify, gather, and document Strategic Value, Critical Success Factors, and both Functional and Technical Requirements. As illustrated in Figure 1, the Needs Assessment brings the customer team through the first three gates of the IT Solution Implementation Process.
Gate #1 assists the client in determining the strategic value of an IT solution in the context of the current business environment. For example, companies that are looking to shorten business cycle time should focus on solutions that support this strategic value to the organization. This gate also defines the high-level business objectives that will be used as the benchmark for measuring solution effectiveness. Gate #2 defines the critical success factors that, if achieved by the IT solution, ensure that the organization will meet its business objectives. Companies often use the Michael Porter – Situation Assessment, S.W.O.T., and technology diagram models to complete this section. Gate #3 gathers the “Voice of the Customer” through a group requirements discussion.
The benefit of the Needs Assessment approach is that it empowers the functional department constituents to go through a formalized problem identification process that is independent of the selection of the technology solution. This process reduces technology bias while helping to get requirements “buy-in” from the user community. Most importantly, the Needs Assessment process helps the team to prioritize requirements; enabling the client to determine which requirements solutions will yield the biggest return per dollar invested in a solution. At the end of the process, a published Needs Assessment report documents the functional and technical requirements of the optimal solution.
Upon the validation of the Needs Assessment report, the client can then hire solution providers to complete the Solution Architecture, Implementation, and Maintenance gates of the process. At this point, solution providers will have a common framework to offer the best, most affordable solution for the client.
Cinergy’s Needs Assessment Road
Throughout the internal requirements gathering, Cinergy’s Steering Committee met with a variety of software vendors. In addition to learning about the functionality of various solutions that might meet their needs, they also realized that there was a very basic difference to be considered between vendors. While some of the vendors they consulted were VARs (Value-Added Resellers) and implementers of branded software solutions, some were actually the developers of the software, with the capability to customize functionality and react quickly to integration challenges during the implementation process.
Using data from the internal needs assessment and information learned from numerous vendors, Cinergy’s Steering Committee finalized project goals and requirements and developed a detailed RFP (Request for Proposal) for a Project Collaboration Tool. This RFP provided thorough details describing the procedures to be automated, the legacy systems that would need to be integrated, the technology that would need to be incorporated, and the incremental milestones that Cinergy expected the vendor to meet. In providing these details, Cinergy could be sure that the vendors would have all the information they would need to realistically evaluate their interest and capabilities, and to prepare comprehensive proposals.
There are a variety of directions that any organization can take from this point, depending on the complexity of the solution needed, the confidence level created through the proposals, and the urgency of need. A vendor might simply be chosen from their submitted proposal. Another option would be to require a formal presentation to the account team to clarify a proposal and look for that elusive, though critical, component of personal chemistry.
Cinergy had specified in their RFP that vendors chosen to participate in the next phase of the selection process would be required to present their proposals in person to the Steering Committee. Prior to this step, Cinergy evaluated the RFP responses in order to narrow the field of choice. Four vendors were selected for this final phase, and each presented their solutions and strengths to the Steering Committee in January 2001.
The Outcome
Cinergy awarded the contract for their Project Collaboration Tool to LASCOM Solutions, Inc., and their package-centric™ workflow solution called Advitium™. Headquartered in Paris, France, LASCOM has regional branches in Lyon, Toulouse, Strasbourg, and Stuttgart, and a development and solution center in San Diego, California. LASCOM currently services the needs of many leading energy industry companies such as Nooter/Eriksen, Bonneville Power Administration, and Coen Company.
LASCOM is currently designing and implementing Cinergy’s Project Collaboration Tool business processes including engineering drawing release, vendor communication, and work approval procedures. Production rollout is planned for December.
- Has your organization spent precious time and money implementing an Information Technology (IT) business solution only to have it fall short of user expectations?
- Is your organization looking to solve “world hunger” with a single business system where the implementation budget and schedule are five times longer than what management wants?
- Does your organization have difficulty prioritizing business solution requirements and getting consensus from the core implementation team?
- Has your organization ever rolled out an IT solution that was behind schedule, over budget, and unable to meet evolving business objectives?
If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, don’t feel bad. You are definitely not alone. Better yet, it doesn't have to happen again if you keep this important consideration in mind: Implementing an effective business solution involves much more than simply selecting and installing software. A successful implementation—one that truly meets your business objectives—has user acceptance, addresses your business and computing needs, and is delivered on time and on budget. And you have the power to make this happen.
The Challenge:
The extreme pace of IT advances can be daunting, particularly for those who have to decide when and where to leap. A new IT workflow solution can bring many benefits including improved control, accountability, efficiency, and visibility, all of which can lead to dramatic returns on investment. Many companies have taken this step without the necessary preliminary internal evaluation and preparation, leading to time and money spent on solution implementations that fell short of expectations and created more chaos than organization. The key to meeting this challenge effectively is to methodically gather and evaluate information. Internally, this information must come from the user community, IT, and management. This information should cover business process actors, work breakdown steps, data inputs, data outputs, and interaction with legacy information systems. Externally, this means gathering information from possible vendors, should the internal evaluation point in that direction. (More on this later.)
Internally, user participation will facilitate acceptance and provide an accurate view of how processes really flow through an organization. IT participation will also facilitate acceptance, identifying technology and integration requirements early enough in the process to avoid costly mistakes down the road. And regardless of where the IT initiative germinated, management support will ultimately be required for funding and leadership. Moreover, management sets the business objectives for using the new solution to achieve competitive advantage for the firm.
Throughout this internal requirements gathering process the goal is to reach agreement on business objectives as well as functional and technical requirements. Throughout this investigative phase, as well as during implementation and beyond, there is the setting of incremental, value-based goals. These goals empower management by providing a baseline to measure incremental success and apply corrective action should actual project results not correspond to the business objectives.
Executives at Cinergy Power Generation Services, a part of the Energy Merchant Business Unit of Cinergy Corp., one of the leading U.S. diversified energy companies, put themselves through this process recently.
“We understood that it was essential that we take action to position ourselves for continued success and lay a strong foundation for future expansion,” commented Jim Woestman, Manager of Project Controls. “We identified a need for more uniform and consistent business procedures. During the process of gathering requirements, we determined that an IT solution would add value to our organization.”
In mid-2000, Cinergy began the requirements gathering process by establishing a team of engineers and supervisors to identify key procedures for optimization. The result was a prioritized list of ten key business procedures that the team felt made the most significant impact on the Energy Merchant Business Unit. A Steering Committee composed of engineers, supervisors, and information technology (IT) personnel was then established to oversee the optimization process. Ten Optimization Teams were created with one team assigned exclusively to each procedure, allowing each team to focus on a single process. Over a period of 18 months a total of 60 employees selected from the many departments affected by each procedure participated in the Optimization Teams.
As results from the teams’ work were compiled, the Steering Committee concluded that an IT solution would be needed to help manage and track the optimized procedures. Accordingly, the Committee evaluated existing IT infrastructure and legacy systems for viability. It was decided that existing systems would not fulfill the identified needs, so new requirements were mapped against business objectives to create a requirements matrix describing their ideal IT solution.
Something to Consider
Often it is advantageous to talk to potential vendors early in the requirements gathering process. Consider soliciting an objective needs assessment if there is disagreement over objectives or resistance to change, or if the time required to handle the requirements gathering internally would hinder ongoing work. Even without outsourcing a needs assessment, taking the time to meet with potential vendors is an effective way to learn more about quickly changing technology capabilities and the functionality and services offered. Providing vendors with real issues at this early stage will also help you determine if their solution meets your needs.
A good Needs Assessment methodology should identify, gather, and document Strategic Value, Critical Success Factors, and both Functional and Technical Requirements. As illustrated in Figure 1, the Needs Assessment brings the customer team through the first three gates of the IT Solution Implementation Process.
Gate #1 assists the client in determining the strategic value of an IT solution in the context of the current business environment. For example, companies that are looking to shorten business cycle time should focus on solutions that support this strategic value to the organization. This gate also defines the high-level business objectives that will be used as the benchmark for measuring solution effectiveness. Gate #2 defines the critical success factors that, if achieved by the IT solution, ensure that the organization will meet its business objectives. Companies often use the Michael Porter – Situation Assessment, S.W.O.T., and technology diagram models to complete this section. Gate #3 gathers the “Voice of the Customer” through a group requirements discussion.
The benefit of the Needs Assessment approach is that it empowers the functional department constituents to go through a formalized problem identification process that is independent of the selection of the technology solution. This process reduces technology bias while helping to get requirements “buy-in” from the user community. Most importantly, the Needs Assessment process helps the team to prioritize requirements; enabling the client to determine which requirements solutions will yield the biggest return per dollar invested in a solution. At the end of the process, a published Needs Assessment report documents the functional and technical requirements of the optimal solution.
Upon the validation of the Needs Assessment report, the client can then hire solution providers to complete the Solution Architecture, Implementation, and Maintenance gates of the process. At this point, solution providers will have a common framework to offer the best, most affordable solution for the client.
Cinergy’s Needs Assessment Road
Throughout the internal requirements gathering, Cinergy’s Steering Committee met with a variety of software vendors. In addition to learning about the functionality of various solutions that might meet their needs, they also realized that there was a very basic difference to be considered between vendors. While some of the vendors they consulted were VARs (Value-Added Resellers) and implementers of branded software solutions, some were actually the developers of the software, with the capability to customize functionality and react quickly to integration challenges during the implementation process.
Using data from the internal needs assessment and information learned from numerous vendors, Cinergy’s Steering Committee finalized project goals and requirements and developed a detailed RFP (Request for Proposal) for a Project Collaboration Tool. This RFP provided thorough details describing the procedures to be automated, the legacy systems that would need to be integrated, the technology that would need to be incorporated, and the incremental milestones that Cinergy expected the vendor to meet. In providing these details, Cinergy could be sure that the vendors would have all the information they would need to realistically evaluate their interest and capabilities, and to prepare comprehensive proposals.
There are a variety of directions that any organization can take from this point, depending on the complexity of the solution needed, the confidence level created through the proposals, and the urgency of need. A vendor might simply be chosen from their submitted proposal. Another option would be to require a formal presentation to the account team to clarify a proposal and look for that elusive, though critical, component of personal chemistry.
Cinergy had specified in their RFP that vendors chosen to participate in the next phase of the selection process would be required to present their proposals in person to the Steering Committee. Prior to this step, Cinergy evaluated the RFP responses in order to narrow the field of choice. Four vendors were selected for this final phase, and each presented their solutions and strengths to the Steering Committee in January 2001.
The Outcome
Cinergy awarded the contract for their Project Collaboration Tool to LASCOM Solutions, Inc., and their package-centric™ workflow solution called Advitium™. Headquartered in Paris, France, LASCOM has regional branches in Lyon, Toulouse, Strasbourg, and Stuttgart, and a development and solution center in San Diego, California. LASCOM currently services the needs of many leading energy industry companies such as Nooter/Eriksen, Bonneville Power Administration, and Coen Company.
LASCOM is currently designing and implementing Cinergy’s Project Collaboration Tool business processes including engineering drawing release, vendor communication, and work approval procedures. Production rollout is planned for December.
For more information, please contact
LASCOM Solutions Inc.
at: 858-452-1300 or
sales@lascomsolutions.com or
visit www.lascomsolutions.com
