IT project management

1

Attempting to TRIM the excess at Torrens University

Returning to his office one afternoon, Elmo Cee sat at his desk and set-down a manilla folder,

focussing his sight on it, almost absentmindedly. The folder contained the meeting agenda, and

minutes of the previous meeting Elmo had attended. Shifting slightly, and now gazing wistfully in

the direction of the Flagstaff Gardens, where the late afternoon sun drew long shadows of the

mature trees, he reflected on the competing interests at work as he sought to find a solution for

Torrens University’s Document Management system.

Cee was initially brought in to provide expert opinion, following Gartner Consulting’s report about

the suitability and applicability of TU’s Document Management Systems. As it stood, the

University had been using a Records Management tool called TRIM Context for the past several

years; and Gartner had been enlisted to report on the future and current requirements of the

University in the Document Management space.

Determining the suitability of the system was a multi-faceted venture — on the one hand: the

system itself was several versions behind the current release. On the other, there were sentiments

being echoed that this was not the right tool for the job, being of course a Records Management

product, whereas the University had been utilising it as their Document Management System.

Notwithstanding these considerations, it had to be noted that the system had in fact been well-

adopted at the University, given the time that had already transpired since being first introduced.

Setting the Records Management straight

Well-connected and with several years of Project Management experience, and some consulting

stints to boot, Elmo Cee was the ideal candidate to find a solution to this quagmire which Torrens

had found itself in. With a reputation for problem-solving within even the most challenging

organisations, Elmo set about meeting with all the key stakeholders critical to the success of this

project.

Historical Context

The TRIM system was introduced to the University in a somewhat unorthodox manner -- in almost

all cases, the University’s Information Technology Services area evaluates software and IT

solutions on behalf of areas within the University. This is to ensure a standardised approach, with

due to consideration to the prevailing technology landscape within the organisation. TRIM,

however, was decided upon unilaterally by senior executives from the business, without referring

to IT. It was only after the deal was finalised, and the product shipped to the University, that the

Director of Information Technology Services was informed about this purchase.

Pseudonym used to maintain privacy.

2

With the passage of time, and the adoption of this package over several years, the time had now

come to re-evaluate the University’s strategy towards its Records Management System which

stood at version 3.x, whereas the current version supported by the vendor was 7.x.

Gearing up for a major decision

The context surrounding the system is that TRIM was only being used at the Melbourne

campuses; with the University having expanded in recent years to cover two campuses in

Brisbane, and one in Auckland, the scalability of the system needed to be evaluated. Further, the

Auckland campus had their own systems in place to store and archive sensitive Records and

Documents, which staff at the Melbourne campuses could not access.

The roadmap from here was not clear; was the existing system relevant for the University? If so,

would the upgrade to the latest version be applicable and / or helpful?

Of paramount importance is the risk posed to the stakeholders as a result of this undertaking; this

essentially formed the premise of the future directions to be taken at the University.

The next step would be an evaluation of the situation, by means of a three-week engagement

where Elmo Cee could be relied upon to assess the applicability of this endeavour. The

assessment from Gartner had been that TRIM would be useful for Records Management, but not

Document Management.

With 400 existing users, already well-entrenched in the usage of the system, the task was to take

a fresh look and determine the appetite at the organisation for a change of this magnitude.

To begin with, a brand new tool / system would necessitate a huge impact -- starting with the

migration of existing records and sensitive documents. Then there was the other aspect of the

lifecycle of the records -- at what point could the documents be legally destroyed? Security

implications would also need to be considered.

Intentionally bringing about such wide-ranging change, to a well-adopted system with the safety

and security considerations alluded to above, was not without a heightened sense of risk.

Managing the Change

To fully appreciate all the factors at play, and to ensure a considered approach, it was deemed

necessary to initiate a one-year project aimed at developing a comprehensive solution.

This would entail a huge change management component, as the brief was to look at the upgrade

itself, as well as being able to roll this out to further areas within the organisation’s international

locations.

Questions about the level of uptake would have to be considered as well. An on-premises solution,

as a managed service from the University’s Information Technology Services area seemed to be

3

the preferred option at the outset. The primary concern at this stage was to look at initiating a link

between the Auckland and Melbourne campuses to ensure that records could be synchronised

where relevant.

An additional challenge was brought about due to the limitations on network infrastructure -- the

private network link between Melbourne and Auckland campuses had been notoriously slow for

even the most basic of tasks.

Technical challenges aside, the change management would also have to evaluate the resistance

faced by the project from the other campuses where they already had pre-existing systems, not

linked to TRIM. There would need to be a training needs analysis, with possible repercussions on

job descriptions and duties for the affected staff. In essence, an exercise in stakeholder

management.

4

References Agle, B, Donaldson, T & Freeman, R 2008, ‘Dialogue: toward superior stakeholder theory’,

Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 2, pp.153-190.

Bennis, W & Nanus, B 1985, Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row Inc., New

York, NY.

Berkun, S 2005, The art of project management, O'Reilly Media Inc., Sebastopol, CA.

Crowe, S, Cresswell, K, Robertson, A, Huby, G, Avery, A. & Sheikh A 2011, ‘The case study

approach’, BMC medical research methodology, vol. 11, no. 1, p.1.

Dwivedula, R &Bredillet, CN 2010, ‘Profiling work motivation of project workers’, International

Journal of Project Management, vol. 28, no. 2, pp.158-165

Fassin, Y 2009, ‘The stakeholder model refined’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 84, no. 1,

pp.113–135.

Gibson Jr., GE, Yu-Ren, W, Chung-Suk, C, & Pappas, MP 2006, 'What Is Preproject Planning, Anyway?', Journal of Management in Engineering, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 35-42 Goodijk, R 2001, ‘Partnership at corporate level: the meaning of the stakeholder model’, Journal

of Change Management, vol. 3, no. 3, pp.225–241.

Jergeas, GF, Cooke, VG & Hartman, FT 1999, ‘Value engineering incentive clauses’, Cost Engineering, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 25-34.

Liu, JYC, Chen, HHG, Jiang, JJ & Klein, G 2010, ‘Task completion competency and project

management performance: The influence of control and user contribution’, International journal

of project management, vol. 28, no. 3, pp.220-227.

Project Management Institute 2013, A guide to the project management body of knowledge: (PMBOK guide), 5th edn, Project Management Institute, Inc Newtown Square, Pennsylvania. Smudde, P & Courtright, J 2011, ‘A holistic approach to stakeholder management: A rhetorical foundation’, Public Relations Review, vol. 37, no.2, pp.137-144. Watt, A 2014, Project Management, BCCampus OpenText, Vancouver, BC Yang, J, Shen, G, Ho, M, Drew, D & Xue, X 2011, ‘Stakeholder management in construction: An empirical study to address research gaps in previous studies’, International Journal of Project Management, vol.29, no.7, pp.900-910.