Feedback based on questions asked by Finance Committee

1.
Can independent corroborating evidence be provided to ensure the rigour of the work
underpinning this business case and the proposed delivery plans?  For example, could Suri
Bartlett be asked to attest to the rigour of the work?

This business case has been prepared by an experienced Senior Project Manager (Corinne Smail) and
the Associate Director - Digital Transformation (Peter Borich). It was undertaken in collaboration
with Finance, the Planning and Management Information unit, Chief Operating Officer, Provost,
Director of Digital Solutions, and the SSP Governance Group.   It fol ows on from the SSP Project
Charter that was endorsed by SLT in April 2020, and SSP wil  continue to have SLT oversight
throughout the delivery period.

As part of the ongoing governance process, the Audit and Risk Committee wil  also continue to
provide oversight of SSP.  Following the PWC Internal Audit, the Provost now updates SSP progress
at each Audit and Risk Committee meeting via the standing agenda item, and also provides a regular
SSP Update to Council in the VC Report.

In addition to the established SSP oversight processes, Management has been exploring how to
provide independent assurance on significant projects without incurring the time and cost of a ful
audit process.  A limited review process is being trialled on SSP where, at selected times in the
lifecycle of a programme, a limited assurance review will be completed by PWC.  The approval of the
SSP business case triggers the first such review.  The scope of the review will be finalised over the
next week or two, and targets a report going to the 16 November Audit and Risk Committee.

Following one of the recommendations of the PWC Internal Audit, Suri Bartlett (Tenzing Limited)
was invited to join SSP Governance in August 2020 (delayed due to COVID). To date he has attended
one SSP Governance meeting as well as individual meetings with the Provost, the Chief Operating
Officer, and members of the SSP team.

In his role in SSP Governance, Suri has already asked questions about the approach taken to
establishing the costs and possible risks, ie he asked us to describe a similar approach by another
organisation.  We have addressed his queries by describing Otago’s work, including confirming with
Otago that its overall programme costs are also approx. $6 million; as well as confirming that for the
first phase by Fusion 5, Otago’s agreed deliverables were completed one week late (due to COVID),
and just under budget.   We also confirmed to Suri that the four companies we contacted to submit
a RFP to be our external partner (an action recommended by PWC and which was undertaken
following the University’s standard IT procurement process) were very similar in their estimate for
the CRM, ie
. Furthermore, following his advice, we added more information in the
business case about risks and mitigations.

As with all governance members, Suri’s role is to ensure that SSP’s decision-making framework is
robust, and that the programme’s capital investments will be well managed during the programme.

1 | P a g e

2.
Can we map the Project Review Gates on to financial decisions (ie stage the spend) ahead
of a full programme plan?

Review Gate  Review Gate  Review Gate  Review Gate

1
2
3
4
Total

Apr-21
Dec-21
Apr-22
Dec-22

Project resources
Fusion 5
Portal
Booking system
Integrations
Contingency
Total (‘000)
1623
2175
810
1507
6115

The financial assumptions stated in the business case apply to the above Project Review Gates.

3.
Is there additional corroborating evidence (either from University pilots or from the other
universities) that can help give Council confidence that this is the right way to proceed and
have confidence in delivery?

Paerangi - the Student Success Framework referred to in the SSP Update (and added again at the
end of this document) is a values-based framework built upon the guiding principle of rangatiratanga
which we demonstrate through promoting learner agency.  It supports the student journey from
enquiry to graduation and beyond.  This overarching framework is based upon learnings from
previous University reports and papers; student journey workshops; interviews with students about
what success means to them; pilot activities; and world best practice in student-centred institutional
transformation.  A large number of reports, references, case studies, and outcomes from previous
and current pilots are held on the SSP SharePoint site and can be made available on request. Below
we refer to a small number of the pilot initiatives and comparative national and international
experiences that have informed SSP to date:

Workstream i: Admissions and Enrolment

This workstream is tied to the technology that we plan to introduce, including the personalised
portal as well as integration with current systems such as Marketo.  The major component is to
replace our current Online Enrolment System and will apply to all students, international and
domestic, and regardless of location. Students will be able to apply at any time of the year.
Enrolment will be separated. The development work is very much a team effort as we are guided by
those who do this work.  Our approach is informed by the previous work of SSTP ratified by our
business analyst over the last few weeks who undertook a sector scan of the domestic university
market players (specifically AUT, Canterbury, Massey, Waikato, Otago). While all of them have
online form capabilities against submitting an admission, only four have a concept of a portal to
manage admission and enrolment related functions.



We have already prepared basic wireframes that wil  help inform our intended Proof of Concept
(PoC) work from Fusion 5. A wireframe is also known as a screen blueprint and is a visual guide that
2 | P a g e

represents the skeletal framework of a website or form. Wireframes are created for the purpose of
arranging elements to best accomplish a business objective and a creative idea. The wireframe
depicts the page layout or arrangement of the website's content, including interface elements and
navigational systems, and how they work together.  The Proof of Concept will show to our staff and
students for the first time how the new process will work (the portal work is planned for 2021). This
PoC is intended to be delivered this year ready for building and integrating the system in 2021. The
PoC phase is important as it is a cost-effective method for validation prior to investing in the ‘real’
system.  It wil  be an exciting moment to share this with stakeholders and will help people
conceptualise what we have been working on over the last few months.

Workstream i : Student Retention

In addition to the wider reference material referred above, SSP has conducted a stocktake of
University retention related activity and related interviews with staff.  Specific University pilots that
have been undertaken to understand the new approach to retention include:

The trimester 3, 2019 retention pilot using PHIL123, aimed at supporting students who failed half or
more of their courses the previous trimester:
•
The pilot comprised a co-ordinated and proactive approach to wrap-around support from
the Success Coach and Tutor, instructional re-design, student self-reflection, and student
commitment through an independent learning plan.
•
90% of the students from this cohort who engaged with the Student Success Coach
successful y passed the course and saw a retention rate into trimester 1 2020 of 91%,
compared with 71% for al  students who failed half or more of their courses in the previous
trimester.
•
Overall, 83% of all students enrolled in PHIL123 passed the class, even though the majority
of the class comprised previously low achieving or model ed at-risk students. This compares
with a pass rate of 73% for the prior 3 years. The overal  retention rate into trimester 1 2020
was 87%.
•
73% of students who were modelled as at risk of failing the PHIL123 course specifically,
passed the course. The retention rate for this cohort was 81%.
•
The students’ evaluation questionnaire showed that al  students who engaged with the
Student Success Coach said it was a very positive experience and positively impacted their
ability to manage university life.  These students were more connected with the course, felt
more confident about studying at the end of trimester 3 compared to the start, and were
more likely to be retained the fol owing trimester.

Wider piloting in trimester 1 and 2 was impacted by COVID, however during that time the SSP
Retention Project has continued to work on further initiatives including:
•
Development of an advisor-to-student ratio calculated specifically for our University through
a comprehensive caseload calculation approach based on an individual institution’s student
body, which is recommended by NACADA the global community for advising and applied
successfully in institutions such as Texas A&M University.
•
Personalised proactive advising from a single point of contact.
•
Monitoring student achievement and engagement during the trimester combined with
proactive outreach.
•
Ongoing training for advisors in holistic and inclusive techniques.
•
Proactive outreach to students to plan for the next trimester.
•
Developing online forms and workflows to reduce the advisor’s administrative burden.
•
Best practice in case management and consistent processes.
3 | P a g e

•
Participating in the development of the minimum student experience and first year
transition.
•
Actively responding to the code of practice for domestic tertiary students/pastoral care of
international students through the development of the holistic model of advising and
academic support.
Workstream ii : Multi-channel Service Centre
The proposal for a multi-channel student service centre came out of the SSTP Target Operating
Model report provided by KPMG (commissioned by the University in April 2018). This report was
based on extensive design work with University stakeholders, used case studies to describe students’
journey, and corroborated the importance of coordinating support services at University-wide level
as per the SSP Update.  Additionally, KPMG’s 2019 CRM review stated (page 3) that “VUW would
only truly realise the benefits of this investment [CRM] if it was complemented with re-consideration
of the existing organisation design, operating model modifications, process simplification, and
standardisation.”
Workstream iv: Enabling Technology
Regarding the CRM and portal, our plans are very much aligned with other Australasian universities
and have leveraged the recommendations in the KMPG and PWC reviews.  Late last year, members
of the SSP team and Digital Solutions attended a Sydney event hosted by KPMG that covered the
CRM decisions of Australian universities.  They also visited Newcastle and met with col eagues from
UNSW Australia, Charles Sturt, Southern Cross, and Wol ongong.

.  This is also the approach of
AUT, Otago, Massey, Canterbury, Lincoln, Otago Polytechnic as well as many overseas universities.
  Otago, for
example, has already centralised (now branded as ‘AskOtago’) its core administrative functions from
across all areas of the University for both staff and students.  This took several years to achieve and
was a difficult transition. Otago has since commissioned Fusion 5 to overlay the service management
framework utilising a CRM.

We regularly liaise with other NZ colleagues (as we do for much of our work, networks are vital)
though the impact of COVID has affected this. For example, Digital Solutions were scheduled to visit
AUT when the second Auckland lock-down occurred.  See also, Otago Polytechnic’s plans and
University of Otago’s CRM.

Workstream v: A different way of working
Paerangi was created specifically for our University, with next steps being to develop a visual
representation of the co-ordinated individual initiatives that will contribute to each of the outcomes;
and the third (final) level, which details the inputs/outputs/KPIs etc of each of those initiatives.  The
Paerangi framework stems from New Zealand’s Tertiary Education Commission’s Ōritetanga –
tertiary success for everyone and is based on world best practice.   We are building networks within
New Zealand to establish a wider community of practice that includes other universities (particularly
the University of Auckland) and other higher education institutions, such as Wintec which is already
doing good work with learner success.  There are also international connections through the
Achieving the Dream organisation which represents over 277 US institutions of higher education
4 | P a g e

committed to evidence-based institutional improvement and student success, and which informed
New Zealand’s TEC’s Ōritetanga.
As referred to in the SSP Update, Georgia State University has previously demonstrated how a
university can transform student success by implementing a holistic student support programme.
The ROI for the University with just a one-point increase in retention (325 students) resulted in an
additional $3.8 million per year.  From 2011 to 2017, the University increased the number of degrees
awarded from 4,222 to 7,047 (67%).  Tim Renick, Georgia’s Senior Vice President for Student
Success, visited New Zealand last year on the invitation of the TEC. Amongst other observations, he
stated that ”campus politics” matters and you need the authority to readily direct reforms such as
adopting new technologies, adapting advising practices, and ensuring that predictive analytics can
be applied. He also observed that a decentralised model with barriers to communication and
consistency, means making transformative change on a campus is extremely difficult.
To give another example: in 2008, Florida International University had 80% of its first-year students
returning yet the four-year graduation rate was just 20%. In 2009, the University decided to shift
from faculty to professional advising and, over time, increase the number of advisers. FIU’s four-
year graduation rate has risen by 15 percentage points and full-time student retention has increased
by six percentage points to 88%, and it continues to rise. Again, a high ROI.
A 2020 Hanover Research report on student success synthesises sectoral experiences. In this report
it is noted that institutions changing to a centralised advising model should:
•
Develop a multi-year plan with the involvement of all stakeholders (note: Paerangi – student
success framework as well as the other workstreams);
•
Hire a new advising director early in planning reorganisation and use pilots to identify
potential problems (note: the proposed Titoko Establishment Director);
•
While integrating advising units, organise advisers into clusters that can address specific
experiences, programs or colleges to maximise impact on student success at all levels and
years (note: the Paerangi Student Success Framework and the proposed organisational re-
design plans).
Our participation in these national and international communities of practice, and the research and
learnings they enable, will continue to inform SSP as it develops over the next two years.
4.
New risk:  What happens if key Fusion 5 staff leave?  In other words, how can we mitigate
the vendor’s risk?

Here are the various areas Fusion 5 has developed to ensure the project is set up for success:

•
Collaborative working with University Project team – throughout the project, Fusion5 team
will work collaboratively and closely with SSP project team’s core members like PM, BAs and
Solution Architect etc.  Fusion5 wil  provide the thought leadership to guide the joint project
teams to deliver the required outcomes. The University Project team wil  be consulted and
involved heavily. This will ensure Fusion5 and University teams work as one team and the
knowledge wil  be shared so the University will build up internal knowledge and capability in
the solution that will be delivered;

•
Multiple consultants in each workshop/work stream – Fusion5 resource large CRM
implementations with multiple consultants in each stream (functional & technical). The
estimate has allowed two consultants in each workshop, which wil  ensure no-one becomes a
5 | P a g e

single point of failure. At the beginning of each stage (e.g. analysis, design, build), the Project
Manager and Lead Consultant wil  go through the designed approach for the joint team to
ensure everyone is on the same page.  All the consultants working on the project will follow
the same template and standards;

•
Project artefacts documentation standard – Microsoft DevOps or a similar tool will be adopted
to capture the project artefacts (e.g. User Story, Acceptance Criteria, Test Script).  The
expectation when a consultant captures a user story/build task is that it can be picked up by
another consultant easily.  Fusion 5 has refined these processes over many years to ensure
they are adopted in a common way, and are readily translated by someone new;

•
Keep register up to date – any assumptions or decisions being made will be logged in a central
repository with clear details.  DevOps provides full traceability on any change or
communication against any user story;

•
In a scenario that Fusion 5 needs to onboard a new consultant to replace a key project team
member, handover wil  be managed and wil  not incur any cost to the customer.

SSP will also add this to the programme risk register though it is a very low risk.

5.
Final y

If the Business Case is approved by Council on 5 October, by end of 2020 we should have:

•
Demonstrated a Proof of Concept for the separated Admission and Enrolment process for
international and domestic students;
•
Completed the ful  Statement of Work by Fusion 5 for the CRM and full admission process;
•
Selected a vendor for the portal (requires a separate procurement process);
•
Appointed the Establishment Director;
•
Appointed a second Business Analyst to work with the University and Fusion 5;
•
Completed the Change Management project plan for organisational re-design;
•
Digital Solutions scaled up to meet agreed system integrations requirements;
•
Met with relevant university staff to discuss SSP update and the suggested future approach,
including nurturing excitement for these plans;
•
Developed a full implementation plan for Phase 1;
•
Completed an SSP audit by PWC.

If there are delays these deliverables will not occur until the end of first quarter 2021, pushing the
programme as a whole out into 2023 with associated additional costs.

6 | P a g e

7 | P a g e

Document Outline