September 27, 2016
1:00 pm
Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 248
Members Present: Gayle Arries, Tiffany Blackwell, Jackie Blakley, Matt Edwards, Penny Edwards, Stacey Frank, Adam Ghiloni, Scott Harvey, Glenn Hellenga, Linda Jameison, Lynn Lewis, Chris Marino, Crystal McLaughlin, Mandy Orzechowski, Sarah Shumpert, Brian Swords, Hap Wheeler, Tracey Williams
Members Absent: Tim Bowen, Rick Cothran, Jenni Creamer, Mark
Dougherty
Other Attendees: Cara HamiltonLength of Meeting: 1.50 hours
The minutes of the September 13, 2016 meeting were approved as presented.
Cara Hamilton discussed Project Board Training. She distributed a PowerPoint presentation, Project Sponsors & Project Boards at Tri-County, the last page of procedure
1-7-1000.3, Project
Management, and encouraged the group to review the procedure. In addition
to the handouts, the following were noted:
·
Project categories: Both need approval
o
Large – greater than $100,000 and more than
2,000 man-hours
o
Intermediate – greater than $50,000 and more
than 1,000 man-hours
o
Over $1,000,000 must have state approval
o
State approval does not mean state funding
·
To determine if a project idea is viable, it
should go through a feasibility study flow chart. Every option is vetted with the best option
moving forward. A subsequent study fleshes out more detailed design. Keep in mind that sometimes not moving
forward is the best decision.
·
Project management must balance: time, resources, and quality
·
Project Sponsor is typically an Executive Staff
member or Executive Staff member’s direct report, someone who can champion the
project and assign needed resources.
·
Project Board acts as an advisory board. Board members are usually subject matter
experts, technical experts, or are passionate about the project
After the discussion, the group noted the following
obstacles:
·
Getting the necessary signatures.
·
Treating as doctrine. The Board does not push the decision-making
down.
·
Missing next steps/project close out piece.
·
Time scale.
·
Lack of use/awareness of AchieveIt as a
repository.
·
Needs assessment check-in points, after which
the project cannot change. Build into
the project charter’s Milestones.
·
Need to consider inter-dependencies.
·
Need to consider risks/opportunity costs .
Cara, Lynn Lewis, and Adam will create a
post-implementation/close out template, which will become a part of the project
management system.
Brian Swords discussed Project Inter-dependencies and
distributed Distance/Online Learning
Charters & Workgroups. As a
member of each group, he realized that the college has four groups working on
related topics. It was noted that this
is an example of awareness of inter-dependencies and of the need to bring
“scope creep” into check. The members of
the group were encouraged to look at the groups in which they are involved and
to bring any issues back to the ALT.
Project Charters tend to encompass many areas, so communication is key
to avoid this duplicate work. In order
to limit the dependencies ask 1) who is the audience?, and 2) what are the
questions?
Announcements:
Mandy Orzechowski congratulated Gayle Arries on the AOP
Showcase. It was going to be a great
event.
Adam reported that the cohort to fail rate continues to
decrease. It is 17.1 % this year,
trending to 16.3% next year, with a goal of 15%.Matt Edwards reminded the group about the regularly scheduled IT maintenance window this Friday, 9/30 from 2:00 – 8:00 pm. He also announced the kick-off of the Cyber Security Awareness Training Project. All employees will be trained on what to look for from the IT standpoint. Assessments will be taken to determine the effectiveness of the training.
Mandy stressed that the college needs to be very aware of security and confidentiality issues and noted that simply closing your door and locking your computer can be very effective.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Recorded By: Anne Bryan
Next Meeting: Tuesday, October 25, at 1:00, in RH 248
