HEUG Conference, March 2002

Abstracts of Training Sessions

Points especially worth revisiting in the future are highlighted in yellow

Abstract of Session R-1 (Peggy Bottorff)

Don’t Reinvent the Wheel! A Training Show and Tell

Peggy’s subjective value judgment of slides: We’ll want to refer to this again – includes “what we wish we knew then that we know now” as well as examples of training for end-users. They were implementing student info system, not financials – this limits the usefulness.

Presenters were from Georgetown University: a functional analyst and the Graduate School Associate Director. Powerpoint; 75 slides.

This session reviewed strategies/idea for training programs, and included examples of materials for end-users, functional users, and technical staff. Specific suggestions:

• Classify users into technical staff, functional office staff, and campus community.
• Identify your content: questions to ask yourself
• Identify your training method
• Identify your training schedule

Show and Tell materials in the presentation (which would’ve been more valuable to us if they were for Financials!) include:

• Training Plan, Training Checklist, Training Evaluation forms
• Tipsheets, Web-based user training library/archive, user training aids
• FAQ document
• CyberCam PC Screen Recorder (looked very neat – creates .avi files; refer to http://www.smartguyz.com
• Made use of PeopleSoft resources; describe pros and cons

Abstract of Session R-2 (Lisa Huber)

Lessons Learned: From Traditional Training to Web-based Instruction

This session presented the path taken by the University of Southern Mississippi from traditional training to plans for Web CT training and what was learned. [Student Records]

Presenters: Valerie Craig

Jodi Pettazzoni

Length: 14 slides

Emphasis: Student Administration; focus on admissions, student records, financial aid and academic advisement

Change is needed due to the technology being past its prime

• There must be respect for the old system’s developers and users

Communication within the project and across the campus was one of the key elements with participation of functional users, trainers, consultants, developers and project managers.

• Strong links have to exist between functional/technical/end user teams.

Construction of a training database and security classes has to include administrative and academic buy in.

• The campus cycle must be kept in mind with mandatory sessions for end users.

Development of web based instruction to achieve 3 goals: An information resource; Use of online interactivity; Comfortable vs. efficient training

• Connect end user roles and tasks to training programs

Abstract of Session T-1 (Margie Cox)

Upgrading to 8 – Leveraging Your Existing Training Products

This session presented California State University’s (23 campuses) lessons learned through the development, delivery, maintenance, and upgrade of a system-wide end user training product to leverage existing resources and materials during upgrade cycles.

A baseline end user training product needed to be developed that would

• Reduce costs
• Support further customizations at the campus level
• Be easy to maintain through update and fixes
• Be able to support major software upgrades

Consisting of

• Instructor/participant training guides
• Single-user databases that supported all exercises contained in the training guides
• An online EPSS product for desktop support (which was eventually eliminated)

Lessons Learned

• Electronic EPSS was easy to maintain centrally but distributing updates but was more difficult to mix and match to capture differences needed at campus level
• Majority of end users were more comfortable using print based materials and quick reference sheets as support at their desks

• Training materials contained the procedures for conducting common business practices but in reality campuses required a higher degree of customization than expected
• A common code baseline does not translate to common end user training materials as easily as expected
• Restructuring the training guides into smaller units – allowing flexibility for campuses was necessary

Pointers

• Do not underestimate the amount of time needed to develop materials.
• Allow campuses to have materials in-hand and prototype sessions during upgrade making it easier for them to apply customization
• Centralized development can reduce initial costs but can provide challenges for designing models that support various business practices

Note from Margie: Not sure the decentralizing is an issue at UD. I know there are several campuses, but don’t all campuses within UD following the same procedures?

Abstract of Session T-2 (Paul Anderson)

Student Administration Training Solutions for Project Teams

This session focuses on the Student Administration module of PeopleSoft. It provides a good overview of training support available from PeopleSoft that would be relevant to implementing other modules.

PeopleSoft offers the following five primary training products:

1) Instructor led classroom training. This is offered at various PeopleSoft education centers or at a client’s institution. The emphasis is on individualized attention with opportunities for hands-on training.

2) Live WebCasts. These are 2-way, real-time interactions with PeopleSoft instructors.

3) Seminars On-Demand. These are presentations with voice-overs, and application demos. They are recorded and can be played repeatedly.

4) Skills On-Demand. These are step-by-step instructions and application simulations for hands-on practice of tasks.

The PeopleSoft Knowledge Center offers a Web-based environment. It can deliver courses and information directly to the users desktop, and offer live WebCasts, recorded seminars on-demand and self-paced online courses depending upon client needs.

The url for the PeopleSoft Knowledge Center is:

www.psknowledgecenter.com/go/kc.htm

PeopleSoft listed the following benefits of using the Knowledge Center for training:

1) Convenient desktop learning;

2) Timely and relevant content, (new system features can be taught as they become available);

3) Improved development and retention of employees;

4) On-demand learning support throughout the system lifecycle;

5) Ongoing connection to PeopleSoft resources;

6) Cost and time effective training.

Course listings for the various training products to support the Student Administration module are provided. The list seemed to provide in-depth and comprehensive treatment of the subject matter. While large organizations will want to follow a train the trainer model to keep costs of implementing a system on a large scale manageable, the various training products offered by PeopleSoft may be worth exploring for specific situations, training key trainers or dealing with advanced applications.

Abstract of Session T-3 (Sue Koski)

Developing the Web-Based Learning Assistant

Presentation by Robin Reid, Technology Training Mgr., University of MD, Baltimore

Presentation included 27 PowerPoint slides

UMB is planning to go live with PeopleSoft in October 2002, with Version 8.3 (HRMS, Payroll, Time & Labor, Commitment Accounting with Workflow) and plan for the future to develop Financials, Procurement and Grants Management.

Presentation is about UMB's evaluation of, and planning for the customization/implementation of PS Web-based Learning Assistant (WLA), which was released in April 2001.

If UD is planning to use this tool, then it might be worth reviewing this presentation, although the slides themselves do not offer great insight or information. It was not clear that the released version of WLA was compatible with PS.

Abstract of Session T-4 (Scott Jones)

The Importance of a Key User Group in Implementation and Training

[Student Records]

Comment: This presentation is not much use because it is difficult to interpret exactly what is meant by the bullets, and the environment seems to be quite different. I think you had to be there to really get the message. Overall, this looks to be a much larger institution that seemed to focus on the student records portion, no real mention of the HR or GL can be found. Also, the administration seems to have been very open to user input. Overall, there doesn’t seem to be much similarity at all to UD. However, there are a few points that can be extracted, I have tried to summarize these below.

Implementation: University of new South Wales: 35,000 students, 5,000+ Staff; included scheduling & student records

Process:

· Identified key users in 9 “Schools” (Equivalent to UD Colleges) 1 year prior to implementation

· Key users consisted of 1-3 per school

· Trained total of 300 users before implementation

· Continued training & support after implementation

· Meetings:

§ Structured & organized

User Input:

· Used key user groups to identify important features and benefits and provide input into change management process

· Frequently took advice & implemented key user suggestions

· Utilized key users to spread the word

Challenges:

· User time is in short supply

· User expectations- unrealistic?

· More work for faculty (priority inconsistent)

· Level of interest/expertise varies

Abstract of Session T-5 (Eileen Prazniak)

Session 376 Stuck in the Middle: Balancing the Training Act

Presentation by the IS Training Coordinator, James Madison University

Presentation format: 20 slides pdf file

[pertained to Financials]

This presentation was in bullet style and it was difficult to gain an understanding of how to achieve a balanced training program. It did present the extremes to consider (trainer vs self-taught; training required or not; technical vs functional) but provided no insight into how to assess needs for developing a balanced program.

T-5 continued: Session 445 Birds of A Feather: Training

This session site contained notes from a group discussion of various training topics. Training questions are stated and then followed by responders’ answers. This is an okay (not great) “FAQ” page in case we need to get some ideas on how other Universities are doing something.

Abstract of Session T-6 (Tim Miller)

Training and Change Management for An Upgrade

The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor provided this presentation on the process they used to upgrade from PS Financials 6.1 to 7.5. While the emphasis was on upgrading rather than implementing for the first time, some of the methods they applied are applicable. Their initial plan was to do the conversion in 9 months; it took them 11.

• The presentation provides a good overview of the change management process as they applied it.
• Their training program had four main components:
• Classroom Training
• Delta Guides [referring to what is different w/ new way vs. old way]
• Large scale lectures and demonstrations
• Job Aids
• Their primary methods of communication about the upgrade were:
• Via unit liaisons
• General university publications
• Calendar with key data
• Targeted email

Again, while their emphasis was conversion rather than initial implementation, the points they offered about training and communication (such as you can’t over-communicate) may be worthy of review.

Abstract of Session W-1 (Peggy Bottorff)

DCATS: A Unique PeopleSoft Training and Support Model that Works PURRRFECTLY!

Peggy’s subjective value judgment of slides: low value due to little detail – no need to reread in the future.

Presenters were technology training/admin training people with University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Powerpoint; 19 slides.

This session dealt with the timelines for implementation of PeopleSoft models, and the “just-in-time” training and support model they use. They call this model DCATS: “Data Warehouse Cactus Application Training & Support” (where “Cactus” is their project name for PeopleSoft implementation).

PeopleSoft implementation:

• HRMS 7.5: January 2001
• Financials 7.62: September 2002
• Student Administration: May 2003

Training & Support (DCATS):

• Focus on end-users
• Just-In-Time: Train the end-users as close to go-live as possible
• Provide a single point of contact for PS related support and information distribution to End Users
• DCATS leader has 20+ years of technology training expertise, and knowledge of business processes
• ENFORCED RULE: ATTEND ALL PS TRAINING OR – NO ACCESS

There were no details on the training itself except several mentions of classrooms – no mention of the content of the training or the other delivery mechanisms (e.g. web courses) they used.

Abstract of Session W-2 (Chris Cook)

Focus Groups to Service Centers: Recipes for Success

This session chronicles the Syracuse University’s end-user training program from go-live to established culture. The training team has been in place for 4 years. Using only in-house resources, the SU Training team supported staff through Student Records, Campus Community, Admissions, Human Resources and Student Financials implementation and upgrades. They outlined the plan from determining who is your audience to -knowing when to stop.

Key points
Know how many end users you need to train (they trained 1500 users)

Know what resources you may need to train these folks (either time or space/hardware)

SU’s resources include:

1 -FT trainer/manager

1 -75% assistant

1- Document expert (volunteer in addition to other duties)

1- 12 unit training room

‘Borrowed’ resources included:

3 FY trainers borrowed from FCMS

Role of the training ‘dept’ (much like this committee):

ID Training Needs

Develop Curriculum

End User Documentation

Train in class

PR for upgrade to Staff

‘Riot’ control/Fire Fighting

PR that worked for SU included:

Web site with plans and dates for trainings

Newsletter

Focus Groups

Train the Trainer

Reward and Thank people

Keep technical documentation NON-technical for end users

SnagIt, job aids (internal conversion type of assistance I gathered)

Timing:

Make sure the job cycles are not bothered by your training schedule

Give them WHAT they need WHEN they need it

Know when to stop:

Is your user group smarter than you?

Can someone in the functional area shoulder the load?

Abstract of Session W-3 (Chris Cook)

Archiving within an Enterprise Database

This session dealt with the archiving of data in the HRMS and SA systems at the University of Minnesota.

Summary: Primary reasons for archiving was PERFORMANCE. This session would be helpful for the HRMS unit to assess the issues and the archiving options available to them. They did utilize a university data warehouse for their archiving of data.

At the University of Minnesota, they provide 3 options for data retrieval:

Custom SQR report

PSQuery

University Data Warehouse

Length: 34 slides in acrobat

Abstract of Session W-4 (Dave McCarren)

Combining Policy and Tasks in a Comprehensive Training Delivery System

This session dealt with an implementation experience involving PS HR and FIN.

Very basic - not of much value to our project - may be worth a very quick review - no more than 7 minutes to get the basics of the material

Pages 8 - 16 contain the applicable info.

Abstract of Session W-5 (Ruth Tauber)

Building a Tradition of Teamwork: Making the ‘Train the Trainer’ Model Work for Your PeopleSoft Implementation

Presenters part of ASP (Administrative Systems Project) at University of Missouri. Powerpoint; 28 slides.

The Uof M utilizes PeopleSoft applications and modules in Student Administration, Financial, Human Resources and Reporting. In its Presentation Overview it stressed the maximum utilization of a number one resource – PEOPLE and building a tradition of teamwork while streamlining administrative business processes and replacing legacy systems.

Offered a good overall project outline:

1. The FOUNDATION – the role of upper management while offering a case study in “as is,” vision for the future and develop of a plan.
2. ENABLING A WAY TO WORK – SELL the concept to Executive, Middle Managers and Subject Manager Experts.
3. PLANNING - Obtain/use Feedback to determine training methodology, develop objectives, design protocols, monitor and report status, develop needed interventions.
4. SET GOALS – Educate community and Overcome Fear.
5. INTERVENTIONS – Enable Executives, Enable Middle Managers, Enable Key Users.
6. Use Subject Matter Experts.
7. IDENTIFY TRAINERS.
8. TRAIN TRAINERS.
9. PROVIDE SUPPORT TOOLS.
10. PROVIDE SUPPORT.
11. REPORT ON TRAINING RESULTS.
12. REPORT ON RESULTS OF INTERVENTIONS.
13. POINT THE COMPASS AT TRUE NORTH – Create a learning organization in progress (series of phases).
14. How do you eat an elephant . . . One bite at a time!

Key phrases: Building a tradition of Teamwork; Overcome Fear; Enable Executives, Middle Managers and Key Users.

Handouts

Abstract of Session W-6 (Steve Grasson)

Title: Training: Get it started and Keep it Going

Presenter: Michelle Piekutowski, Training Coordinator, Clemson University; 33 slides (Powerpoint)

This presentation illustrates steps Clemson University took to create and maintain end-user training program. Highlights in the process were:

• Trainer was hired. [our committee: use resources e.g. User Services, Media Services]
• Team members were selected
• Team members sent for training on the system.
• After training, each team member was assigned to prepare a lesson.
• Team members presented lessons to each other.
• Trainer meets with team members to decide:
• Types, levels, and length of training classes needed
• Help with screen shots to be used during trainings
• Trainer meets with each Budget Unit Head to discuss those needing training and levels of training needed.
• Classes scheduled via emails.
• Training accounts and databases used in trainings. [We think it is important to use “real” data, ideally pertinent to users’ own departments.]
• Evaluations done in each class and those who did not attend are rescheduled.
• After training, trainees signed security statement and were given passwords.
• One full-time person was hired for help desk.
• Classes were to be continued due to turnover.
• E-learning was also offered.