Application Streamlining Initiative
Phase Two
Project Update
Executive Summary
The Application Streamlining Initiative completed phase one in April, 2012. That phase had the goal of gathering an inventory of all Cornell computer-based
applications. Over 1,000 applications were inventoried and evaluated. Cornell units made decisions knowing the value of each application. Some units chose to discontinue applications after reviewing the value proposition.
Phase two is designed to find savings with consolidation. This phase takes the enterprise view of applications (not by unit) and makes recommendations on the value of consolidating like applications into one central or standard service. The ASI team identified eight good candidates for consolidation success. Three have been chosen to build a business case for capital project funding. The
remaining five candidates received recommendations for continued consolidation.
Phase Two Goals (from the Phase One Close Out Report)
Phase Two will focus on the opportunity for consolidation. Many units have created applications for similar purposes. This phase will attempt to uncover the
applications that can be replaced by either a standard application service or a “best practice” application used by all.
We will examine three sources of information that might lead to the best potential applications for consolidation. The first source comes from the feedback session with technical leads. The second source comes from each unit’s report on their own plans and recommendations. The third source will be the inventory of applications sorted by functional purpose.
We will create a list of potential candidates for consolidation and create a set of criteria used to evaluate the candidates. We plan to take the best projects forward for capital project funding.
From the feedback session, we also learned that the units would like to have a database of the applications rather than by-unit Excel spreadsheets. This will allow them to keep the inventory current and have access to the broad array of
applications that are already in use at Cornell. This may lead to good investment decisions.
Investigation Results
The three sources of information listed in the goals section were examined and a list of potential candidates for consolidation emerged. These candidates, listed in Appendix A, required further analysis to determine the best overall candidates for capital projects.
Two additional sets of information were developed to help with this prioritization. First, ASI unit liaisons examined the unit inventories to determine the number of applications that might fit into one of the consolidation project categories. Second, a survey was commissioned and sent to ASI sponsors and ASI technical leaders. The results of the review of the results showed yielded a list of the top three potential candidates for consolidation potential and a set of recommendations on the other five candidates.
The top three projects are Document Management, Archival Solution, and Customer Relationship Management (CRM). The ASI team, assisted by business analysts and customer subject matter experts (SMEs) will create a business case for each of these potential projects. From these business cases, we will determine if they will be included as requests for capital funding for FY14.
Capital Project Candidates
Document Management – there has been a growing demand for document management solutions for the campus for years. Point solutions like ImageNow and Fedora have filled the need for some units but there has not been an
implementation of an enterprise-wide solution.
Several investigations have occurred to remedy this situation. A task force, chaired by Steve Lutter, looked at commercial offerings, open source options, and general purpose solutions (like SharePoint). At the time, no real consensus was developed and funding was difficult to find.
This project has the most potential for true cost savings throughout the entire campus. Some applications can be discontinued but there will also be real workplace productivity gains by using a common solution.
Archival Solutions – throughout Cornell’s history with applications, the replacement of various systems seldom saw a complete shut down of the older version. While the business processes were changed, the historical data was viewed as important. To allow continued viewing of historical information, the older applications were kept alive.
This presents problems in many ways. First, with new applications come new data models. The older data does not conform to the newer data models and can then be misinterpreted. Having the application that accesses historical data continue to operate to access the information causes real audit concerns. It would be better to have a static copy (unchangeable) of the information.
Many applications could be discontinued if Cornell had a common solution for creating and storing archival information.
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) – consists of a broad category of business functions. The ASI database showed many applications that did event management, customer (subscriber or donor) management, communication management, etc.
There is an extended Cornell family that we call “affiliates”. These are folks that have a very strong interest in a particular functional domain. For example, the Lab of Orinothology programs, the Library Patrons, Athletic Fans, or Johnson
subscribers are all subgroups of people that have data requirements that need to be entered, stored, tracked, etc.
All of the applications that are used to track various individuals have many of the same functional needs. A project to create an enterprise CRM for Cornell could have a very big impact on the institution and reduce the cost of running myriad
applications that perform this function.
Recommendations for Other Services
The ASI team has recommendations for the remaining candidates that did not rise to the top of the list.
Survey Management – many units are running surveys on behalf of their constituents. Various software solutions are employed. The feedback that we received indicated that the CIT offered survey service, a cloud offering from Qualtrics, was indeed a viable solution for the campus.
ASI recommends that units that require the use of survey software should consider the Qualtrics solution. For very complex surveys, the Survey Research Institute on campus should be engaged to do survey instrument preparation.
Access Control / Key Management – many applications exist on campus to maintain a repository of keys and key cards for individuals. Recently, an ASPC project developed a new key management system for the Vet School.
ASI recommends that the owners of the Key Management System reach out to campus units that are maintaining their own databases to see if there is a good
functional fit. The Key Management System should evolve to become the one key management system on campus.
Project Management – considerable effort occurs on campus to plan, schedule, and track project activities. Various project management software is being used to accomplish this task.
ASI understands that there is currently an effort to acquire a standard project management solution for the campus. This selection process is being facilitated by PDC.
ASI recommends that all units that need project management software should get involved in the search for the new software and plan to switch to it when
implemented.
Lab Management – application software exists on campus to manage both computer labs and research labs. This software keeps track of inventory, lab scheduling, etc.
ASI recommends that the units with lab management software create a task force to examine best practices for lab management and select one of the applications as the Cornell standard.
Learning Management - systems maintain records of personnel that have taken courses, developed skills, and passed certification exams. Several years ago, Human Resources, Risk Management, and Facilities ran a selection process to choose an enterprise system for tracking this information. It is in production today as the Enterprise Learning Management (ELM) system.
ASI recommends that any unit that is running their own learning management system or maintaining a database of staff records, should update staff records in ELM. There is a persistence and standardization that comes from this system since it synchronizes with PeopleSoft HR every night.
Additional Project Recommendation
The ASI team heard from the technical leaders that the ASI effort was important and the information gathered was valuable. However, since the data is stored in
spreadsheets, it will have limited value in the future. The information will because stale and is not searchable across all units.
The remedy for this is to create a database with the information for all units. This will allow for the addition of other valuable attributes (like the technical products used by the applications), updating applications as the situation warrants, and removing applications when they are retired.
The search capabilities of a database system will be particularly helpful when new projects are being proposed. It will be easier to tell if such applications already exists on campus and the measured value of said applications.
The likelihood of units keeping their inventory current is much greater with a database system. The ASI effort should have an annual update to remain valuable to campus.
A business case for this project will be completed and submitted to the capital funding bodies for prioritization.
Appendix A: Analysis Methodology Email
ASI Sponsors and Technical Leaders,
If you have read the ASI phase one close out report, you know that we are entering into phase two of ASI. This phase is designed to find application areas that will offer the best chance for consolidation. To find these nuggets, the ASI team has been evaluating three data sources. First, the feedback from the phase one close out meeting. Second, the final status reports entered by each unit. Third, the actual database of applications sorted by functional purpose.
We have identified eight areas for further exploration (aka "good ideas"). The eight good ideas are survey tools, archival solutions, document management, learning management, project management, lab management tools, access control, and
customer relationship management (CRM). These will also be defined further at the end of this email.
We have created a methodology that examines each of these good ideas based upon four evaluation factors: cost savings, unit motivation, IT strategy, and business strategy. These will be defined in greater detail later.
Several good ideas were deferred because they are likely to be covered by the WorkDay project or other projects underway. Two such examples are Salary Improvement applications and Budget Forecasting applications.
To give us a better idea of the value of each of the proposed ideas, we will be asking you to complete a brief survey. When you receive your survey, you may want to refer to this email for the definitions. We will be using the survey information to determine the projects that have sufficient merit to be included in the capital project budget process.
If you have any comments or questions, please send me a note. I expect that the survey will take about 10 minutes of your time.
Thank you, in advance, for being willing to offer your suggestions. Dave Koehler
_______________________
NOTE: The use of the term central service does not mean that it will be a CIT service. It could be a Software as a Service offering or a standard application used by many units.
Good Ideas:
Survey Tools - many units use applications to create and administer surveys. Would a central service be valuable?
Archival Solutions - units have mentioned that they keep older applications alive just to view historical information. If there was a better way to archive and retrieve this information, applications could be discontinued.
Document Management - there are both home-grown and vended packages on campus. Would one supported system be of value?
Learning Management -- units continue to run applications to keep track of their staff skills, competencies, and certifications.
Project Management -- would standardized project management tools (like effort tracking, resource scheduling, etc.) be of value?
Lab Management Tools -- many units run applications to manage their labs. These are either academic oriented laboratories or computer labs. Would a standard system be of value?
Access Control Applications -- units run either their home-grown or vended package to manage access to facilities and key inventories
CRM/Membership Management -- a large number of applications focus on
maintaining information on discipline-specific groups of people. They are used for mailings, dues, subscriptions fund raising, etc. Would one shared system be of value?
Evaluation Factors:
Cost Savings -- The highest weighting will be given to a project that reduces the cost of running applications. This does not imply that it has to save money, only that it
saves effort.
Motivated units -- the best projects are ones that have units that have the capacity and desire to allocate resources
IT Strategy -- replacing older technology (like the mainframe) with Software as a Service or Service-orientation will be given a higher weight
Business Strategy -- modernizing applications that support the highest mission purpose will be given higher weight
