Staff experienced the SIS implementation and upgrades that are legacy system users and SIS heavy users.
Experienced SIS Implementation and Upgrades
Legacy System User SIS Heavy User Experience Upgrades only Non-legacy System User SIS Light User
Brad’s Textural Description Feelings Generated toward the Mandated Change
At the beginning of the implementation, Brad stated he felt victimized because of all the negative issues brought on by the mandated change.
But you know it was something that we were forced to do and not happy about it. The politics at the time, all the leadership issues, it was like there was nothing good about it. It seemed so like such a mountain to climb so I feel victimized at times.
System Attributes Contributed to the Acceptance or Resistance of SIS
The negative feelings generated toward the mandated change were because of the need to learn a new system that was believed to be regarded as an inferior system to the current legacy system.
There wasn't a lot of enthusiasm on campus about going to the SIS. That was not our chosen product. It had all kinds of reputations and none were good. So it was difficult not only to get the community to buy into in, the actual implementation team was having problems buying into it.
From the Unit C standpoint there was apprehension hum because it was well known that it's going take longer to enter information because there were more forms and it was going to be more timely.
In addition, learning the new SIS was like learning a new language which was intimidating.
And learning SIS speak...I mean...different pronunciation for different forms. I remember going to the first Summit and thinking there's no way we're gonna remember these forms and talk like these people talk!
However, positive feelings were also generated because of new functions and capabilities the new SIS provided.
I think SIS did open the door a little bit for us because it was state wide. There were some disadvantages but having the State involve with it, it does provide impetus with some things that might not have happened like we are moving toward electronic transcripts, the concept of imaging, that all came as a result of, you know, of SIS initially. So there are things that have made or will make our lives a lot easier. Yea, right now, I think, imaging is our greatest.
Staff Attributes Contributed to the Success of the SIS Implementation
Brad worked for Big U for over 5 years before the implementation. As one of the Unit C function directors and the Unit C function implementation sub-team leader, Brad stated that it was frustrated to work with the group because they all have different procedures for the same functions.
From the Unit C function standpoint, it was interesting because in the process of doing this, we realized that we had seven different Unit C departments on campus that did things seven different ways. Using 7 different values for the same thing and trying to get consensus with each college that believed that their way was the right way, it was mind boggling. That was a frustration. It really wasn't bringing one process together but 7 very different processes and get consensus and that was tough. So it took us longer that some of the other teams.
Because of the commitment to the university and the accountability to the team members, despite the initial dislike of the new system, Brad built consensus among all the Unit C departments across campus and the group worked together to put in place best
73 practices and unit function documentation..
It was just a lot of persistence. You just keep banging at it and going through and going through and getting people to finally understand. I mean you have to work at it. People will resist up till the very end. Much like the Congress, you pull people on your side and you build a case around it and documented the procedures and we vote on it. So it was a real exercise in consensus building. Once the team got on board and the group got through building the validation tables were a major undertaking. Then I think it was easier and people became more positive and that helped going out to the colleges and the Unit C offices. The representatives would go back and kind of alleviate some of the fear. Some of the rumors were going on either to confirm or just proved that they were true. It was a process.
Communication
Brad thought that written communication at the implementation stage was not as effective as verbal communication.
I think the face-to-face communication...I'm not sure the written communication were all that effective, newsletter and stuff like that...I'm not sure people really read it because they were not buying into it at that point in the implementation so they weren't really interested in reading. It really took more personal one-on-one and group interactions during the implementation.
Functional Users Support Group
Because the SIS implementation created an overwhelming amount of information that had to be learned, Brad felt the FUSG was beneficial in serving as communication and support tools.
We had a Unit C functional users support group for a short time. Maybe not longer than a year after SIS went live. And then we sort of broke off and then the Unit C Issues group was created. It was a good way to make friends, meet people, it was a good working relationship. Very positive.
Training
The Unit C function implementation sub-team was responsible for learning the system functions for their unit function, documenting new business processes for the new system, and to perform function specific training for their unit function.
Training program was good and I think it was critical particular the initial training that we had for general usage. The individual Unit C function training eventually we came to a point we had trouble writing documentation that would fit each of the colleges but we worked together and we came up with a template and the colleges would then individual tweaked to make it worked with their procedures. And we have one document that we would use in the training and it worked pretty well.
Team
Upon Brad’s reflection, the collaboration from the teamwork that contributed to building personal relationships stood out most for him during the SIS implementation.
I think it brought together people that wouldn't have been brought together otherwise. I remembered my team a couple people had communicated a lot over the years but they never met face-to-face. So when they came to this meeting, they were like we talked all the time but we never met each other so I mean that happened a lot. We were and we still are a big university that people were
working in their own little...dare I use this term because it brings up bad memory, silos, and we just didn't get out. But this way we built personal relationships that really have carried over beyond the SIS project.
Critical Support Contributed to the SIS Adoption Process
In addition, Brad thought that the most important things and the things he liked most in supporting his adoption and use of the SIS was the easy access to both internal and external functional experts for problem solving and troubleshooting as they occurred as well as a project manager to keep the team on tasks.
For some of us, we were really dense, we can keep going back to the consultant and explained this to me again, the repetitiveness that helped, and then the project manager was helpful. But I think that we have to mention that that fact that you were hired as a trainer and you came with SIS experience and training and I think that was critical because we knew nothing about the SIS and we were just getting exposed to it initial by the different consultant and we didn't
understand what was going on. Because you understood it, you gave us training along the way that helped us with alleviating with a lot of our fear and
misunderstanding. I don't think we would have the same success if they brought somebody in as our trainer that knew anymore about the SIS than we do. I think that having 3 experts in the unit function, the vendor consultant with her expertise in the SIS, you having expertise in the SIS and knowing how to do training, and then the project manager with expertise in project management, were really 3
75 critical things.
Leadership
Brad affirmed that leadership support during the SIS implementation was critical. Brad felt that it was crucial that leadership put politics aside for the good of the project.
The one thing that we fought at the time was that Unit C function was supposed to be the first to go but we were the last one to go and there was just no sensitivity to our cycle until the very end which was causing frustration. In the end we got what we wanted, what it should have been but it was a struggle the whole way through. Like Clint said I hated all the politics. It was painfully, I mean, it almost made you ill at times; they get so worked up about some of the stuff.
In addition, Brad appreciated the funding and support leadership provided for the SIS implementation team in order to move the project along.
Having the SIS implementation team moved to the same office helped and I think that’s what bonded the team and it's one of the things we do that other schools didn't and that was the difference. And then what Clint said about back filling a lot of the positions that led to people able to devote more time to the
implementation instead of doing a full time job and then doing this in addition to that. So really it really did help. And that I think with those retreats that we had those sessions at times the topics and the materials were a little over the top but it was the other things that took place with the discussions that we had and
personally I think they helped me. And we would talk about the project and the issues that we were having.
Feelings Generated from the SIS Adoption Process
Brad declared that although there were lots of work and lots to learn, the
implementation experience was a positive one due to the collaboration of team members and the building of personal relationships beyond the SIS implementation. The
breakdown of the silos enabled staff from across the university to gain understanding and respect of other units; thus, staff were better able to work together. The implementation was a growing and learning experience that was worth the work.
I think it brought together people that wouldn't have been brought together otherwise. I remembered my team a couple people had communicated a lot over
the years but they never met face-to-face. So when they came to this meeting, they were like we talked all the time but we never met each other so I mean that happened a lot. We were and we still are a big university that people were
working in their own little...dare I use this term because it brings up bad memory, silos, and we just didn't get out. But this way we built personal relationships that really have carried over beyond the SIS implementation.
Overall, Brad reflected the SIS implementation generated a wide range of emotions from feeling like a victim to emerging as a champion.
I think I went into it feeling like a victim and then came out of it feeling like more of a champion!
Brad’s Structural Description
Brad worked at one of the Unit C function offices for Big U for over 5 years before the SIS implementation and was a respected leader of Unit C function offices across the campus at Big U. Thus, Big U benefited from his commitment and
accountability to the university as the Unit C implementation sub-team leader in making the SIS implementation successful despite of his negative feelings toward the SIS. He took ownership in learning the system functions for his unit, building consensus among all the Unit C function offices documenting new business processes for the new system, and performing function specific training for his unit. Although initially he disliked the mandate of a new SIS because of its complexity and the difficulty that compared to learning a new language, upon reflection he felt the SIS was beneficial because it provided new functions and capabilities to improve processes.
Brad believed that the support received from the Unit C FUSG was crucial because of the team work and communication this group provided. Information flowed from the implementation team leaders to their team members. Team members in turn communicated to their units. He also felt that written communication about the
77 implementation from informational website was not effective during the beginning of the implementation because staff were not interested in the SIS and did not want to read about it. Thus, it was better to relate information in face-to-face meetings. After the SIS went live, communication from the FUSG1 meetings and the updates emails about upgrades from the SIS office were very effective.
In addition, the general overview training provided by the SIS office was helpful to staff before attending the unit function specific training. In Brad’s opinion, the three elements that were crucial in order to have a successful implementation were having an internal functional expert that knew the SIS to provide guidance and to put a training program in place; an external functional expert from the vendor to answer questions about the SIS, and a project management to track tasks and milestones to ensure the implementation was on target with the project time line.
Brad appreciated the accessible support and timely responses from the SIS office as well as implementation team leaders when problems occurred during the
implementation which alleviated some of the frustrations. Although there were an overwhelming amount of work and new information to learn, Brad felt the
implementation experience was a positive one due to the collaboration of team members and the gained personal relationships extended beyond the implementation.
Overall, Brad reflected the SIS implementation generated a wide range of emotions from feeling like a victim to emerging as a champion due to the politics and leadership issues at the onset of the implementation. However, his perseverance in building consensus among the Unit C team members resulting in the team presenting a united front to persuade leadership to go along with their proposed go live time line due
to their work cycle. He felt a sense of outstanding accomplishment when the SIS went live successfully and felt positive about the SIS implementation experience despite of all the negative issues that came along the way.
Ivanna’s Textural Description Feelings Generated toward the Mandated Change
At the beginning of the implementation, Ivanna stated she was curious but
apprehensive about the new system. However, as she learned more about the new system, she embraced it.
I previously come from another university where we’ve just gone through a similar transition from one system to another so I kind of knew you know a little bit about what it was going to involve but definitely not on the same scale as it was at Big U. So I think it’s more of a…just curiosity and wonder what the new system is gonna do, what it looks like and then as we learned more, you know, probably a little bit of apprehension but then as we learned more and more we just moved along and embraced it.
However, Ivanna observed that for staff that had been long time employees at Big U within her unit, they were nervous and felt threatened because they perceived that they were no longer the system experts of the unit.
There is a lot of nervousness especially for the staff that had been there for a while, like they were kind of giving up their edge that they had over newer staff. Like their playing field had been leveled, they no longer had this other knowledge that nobody else had and I think some of them maybe felt a little bit threatened by that.
On the other hand, Ivanna noticed that the mandate for implementing the new system did not distress new staff.
I would say just to generalize probably the newer staff were more eager to learn just because everything was so new they didn’t know any different. It was like, so this is just something else we have to learn so they just dealt straight into it whereas some older staff they were like well it looked like that it does this and it was like this in the old system, you know, quick to notice the differences and the short comings of the new system because they knew the old system so well.
79 System Attributes Contributed to the Acceptance or Resistance of SIS
The negative feelings generated toward the mandated change were because of the fear of the unknown when it came to learning the capability of the new SIS. However, as staff learned more about the new SIS and management pointed out its benefits, positive feelings were generated because of the better technology and functions offered by the new SIS.
I think initially there was some hesitation, you know, kind of the unknown, what it will do. I think initially there was probably excitement and then there was a phase where oh how are we going to do all these things that we currently do? But I think that as we learned more about what it could do, we saw the benefits that came