See Your Way Through ItA tried-and-true system to restore order to chaotic portal plansContinued from Page 1 The group was frustrated by conflicting goals and stymied on what to do next. It was at this point that the Delphi Group became involved. A SECOND ROUNDThe first thing we did was administer a Web-based survey designed to unearth current information resource practices and portal requirements. It went to everyone in the organization through the corporate email system and took about 20 minutes for each respondent to complete. The survey's presentation of the many issues the portal project faced created a level of dialog and common understanding that had been missing. The findings showed that many of the differences in opinion about the portal stemmed from differences in teams' perspectives, responsibilities, and activities. Through targeted interviews that represented all categories of stakeholder, we found solutions to some apparent requirements conflicts. The CEO's conviction that the corporate program should be the kick-off project got a major reality check when it became clear that it had far less impact on the organization than other options and, further, it relied upon some sophisticated infrastructure that wasn't likely to be available in the first phase of the portal rollout. These were messages the group couldn't effectively deliver to the CEO without hard findings. The survey and interviews revealed a lot of other useful information and significantly focused the requirements gathering. To establish focus, we used Delphi's portal architecture model. (See Figure 1) The model, supported by Delphi methodology, was the framework for structuring requirements gathering and documentation. Equally important, the result defined the customer solution in terms that enabled ready evaluation and selection of portal products. For each of the architecture's nine elements, a set of structured worksheets was used to break out the subfunctions of each element and record the specific requirements of each subfunction and its relative value. By targeting very specific opportunities and evaluating each with a common approach and rigor, the team was able to focus on areas and applications of highest value. Consensus and confidence were growing. REQUIREMENTS CONSENSUSThis process (small group meetings, facilitated initially by Delphi and later by Information Center resource staff) provided a clear set of requirements and mapped those to the opportunities they would enable. What everyone could readily see was a list of project options and the functions they required, ranked by benefit. With the requirements well-documented, the issue really became "How many items on the list will we undertake?" At this point, the portal committee took the lead and expanded the requirements documents to include an as-is and to-be cost analysis. These, in conjunction with an ROI spreadsheet, were reviewed with departmental staff. This "business case" approach validated the general consensus on ranking the items, with some minor changes, and brought to the forefront several realistic options for proceeding — and several options that should be avoided. Perhaps most important, it presented an estimate of the benefits to help define the project's scope with respect to its budget. Armed with this insight, it was possible for IAP and its consultants to quickly narrow down the type of vendor and product needed. In much the same way as the methodology had focused requirements gathering, it focused vendor and product evaluation. For a more detailed version of this case study, please see the unabridged article at www.delphigroup.com/ consulting/ case_studies. Scott Wallace [sw@delphigroup.com] is a senior consultant with the Delphi Group.
|
 |
Most Popular This Week
IE Weekly Newsletter
Subscribe to the newsletter
| |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
