academic affairs provost’s office business model …...empathy map list of insights from...

Academic Affairs Provost’s Office Business Model Analysis Project

Project Artifacts

P a g e | 1

Business Model Analysis Project - Project Artifacts

Project Team

● Susan Klees, Special Assistant to the Vice President for Finance & Administration, Finance &Administration - Project Lead

● Andria Johnson, Assistant Budget Director, Budget, Finance & Administration● Thuy Vu, Fiscal Officer, University Studies, Academic Affairs● Alison Nimura, BI Team Manager, Office of Information Technology● Hans VanDerSchaaf, Sr. Project Manager, Academic Affairs - Project Manager

List of Artifacts

● Vital few stakeholders

● Interview questions

● Informed consent form used for interviews

● Empathy map

● List of insights from interviews

● Design Criteria - All

● Design Criteria with stakeholder prioritizations

● Project team prioritized list of design criteria

● Informed consent form used for stakeholder engagement sessionsDecision-making illustration●

● Project workplan

● Project photos

P a g e | 2

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6kL1uNn_9nLbFBYTndhT25yTXc

Business Model Analaysis Project, Vital few stakeholders list

Sona Andrews (Provost, Office of Academic Affairs)

Faculty Senate Budget Committee (FSBC)Sukhwant Jhaj (Vice Provost for Academic Innovation and Student Success,Office of Academic Affairs)

Kevin Reynolds (Vice President, Finance & Administration)

Faculty project leads for innovation projects

Department Chairs

Senior Fiscal Officers (SFO) group

Academic Leadership Team (ALT)

Office of Information TechnologyScott Marshall (Vice Provost for Academic and Fiscal Planning, Office ofAcademic Affairs)

Business Model Analysis Project - SUPPORTER Interview Questions - TEMPLATE

Informational questions for sorting and organizing responses:

● What is your role in developing and/or supporting software applications at PSU?

● Do you or does your team support the current RCAT Planner tool?

○ If yes, in what capacity?

● Do you or your team currently support data within Datamaster?

○ If yes, in what capacity?

Basic interview questions

● What technologies are currently maintained/supported within your department?

● What kinds of technologies/applications could you/your team support?

● How long does it usually take to develop a new enterprise application (e.g. OnBase,

Datamaster)?

● Have enterprise solutions been developed internally and/or externally? What insights might

be helpful for us to know about internal or external builds like this?

● What suggestions or ideas would be helpful for us to consider in this project, in light of this

possibly developing into some kind of enterprise application?

Questions related to TM1 support

● What are aspects of the TM1 technology that make it powerful for planning applications?

● What are aspects of the TM1 technology that make it challenging to support?

● What kind of investment is required to create a new TM1 application or modify an existing

one?

● What would an ideal enterprise application for this space look like for you? (i.e. outside of a

specific application)

Additional questions

● What kind of support might an enterprise application like this need? What does this look like,

for you and your team, physically and how you/your team might need to spend your team?

● What are we missing?

● We’re thinking about the notion of this project as developing a “service” rather than a “tool” -

what does this mean to you?

● What would an “ideal” service experience look like?

● What might training or support look like for this service?

Deeper questions. These focus on having the person explain why, and give them a forum to explain.

The four techniques we’ve discussed and plan to use so far are:

● Show me: If you are in the interviewee’s environment, ask him/her to show you the things

they interact with (objects, spaces, tools, etc.). Capture pictures and notes to jog your

memory later. (I picture this technique being useful with fiscal officers -- ask them to show

you how they bring up the RCAT Planner and how they gather the information they need.) Use

these questions as the starting place for what the interviewee will show you.

1

● Draw It: Ask participants to visualize their experience through drawings and diagrams. This

can be a good way to debunk assumptions and reveal how people conceive of and order their

activities. (We’ve used this a couple of times with interesting results.) You would use the

questions that follow in a way that asks the interviewee to draw out their process.

● 5 Whys: Ask “Why?” questions in response to five consecutive answers. This forces people to

examine and express the underlying reasons for their behavior and attitudes. The questions

below follow this format.

● Think Aloud: As they perform a process or execute a specific task, ask participants to describe

aloud what they are thinking. This helps uncover users’ motivations, concerns, perceptions,

and reasoning.

Using any of these techniques, frame these questions appropriately for the technique and for the

specific person’s role in the process of developing new programs:

● What makes an application easy to maintain and support for any supporter?

● What makes an application easy for the end user to use?

● How do you evaluate requests for development of new applications?

● What are the challenges when tasked with developing new enterprise applications?

● What are the challenges when providing support for enterprise applications?

2

Business Model Analysis Project - USER Interview Questions - TEMPLATE


● What is your role in developing new programs at PSU?

● Have you personally proposed a new degree or other program that was required to go

through an approval process within and outside of your school/college?

○ If so, what was this experience like? Where was it easy, where was it challenging?

● Does your school/college have any special tools, aside from the RCAT Planner, used to model

the financial impact of a new program or changes to existing ones?

● Have you ever used the RCAT Planner yourself or assisted someone else in using it?

○ If not, why not and what tools/other means have you used to get the job done?

○ If yes, what was it like using it?


● Please tell us about your school/college: how do you differ from other schools/colleges? In

what ways are you similar?

● Please tell us about your department: how do you differ from other departments? In what

ways are you similar?

● In general, how does your school/college and/or department generate ideas for new

programs and/or degrees?

● In your school/college and/or department, at what point in the conversation about a new

program does the issue of financial viability come up?

● Do you think that financial viability is important for faculty proposing programs to consider?

Why/why not?

● What kinds of questions are you asked about a new program’s financial viability?

● Do you feel adequately prepared to answer those questions with tools available to you now?

● The RCAT Planner, and other tools used by some schools/colleges, typically ask about the

number of student credit hours to be generated, what the direct cost of instruction will be,

student headcount expected, etc. What questions are missing from the tools you are aware of

or have used?

● We’re thinking about the notion of this project as developing a “service” rather than a “tool” -

what does this mean to you? Possible follow-up - what kinds of offerings would you want in a

service that helps stakeholders understand financial viability?

● What might training or support look like for this “service”?








1










and reasoning.



● How long does it take to get a new program, degree or certificate launched from the initiation

of the idea to teaching students? Do you think this is the right amount of time?

○ Why is this, or is it not, the right timing?

○ This could be a good question for drawing

● What do you feel are the most important data points in evaluating the financial viability of a

new program (i.e., amount of revenue relative to cost, impact on the school/college RCAT

ratio, accreditation related issues, cost to students, etc.)?

○ Why are these the points you chose?

● How do you determine how popular you think a new program will be, and how many students

to assume will be enrolled when it has fully ramped up?

○ Is that the best method or the only method, in your opinion?

● How much weight do you think financial viability should be given in evaluating new programs?

○ Why?

● Do you think there’s value in creating a tool that might be easier to use and more intuitive?

○ Why or why not?

● Is there anything else you would like to share about tools, the process we’re undertaking to

develop a new tool, or financial analysis of programs in general?

2

Business Model Analysis Project - FISCAL OFFICER Interview Questions - TEMPLATE


● What is your role in developing new programs at PSU?

○ The answer to this might be: faculty who proposes new programs; department chair

who works with faculty on new program development; member of faculty who

evaluates new degrees/programs as a part of the school/college curriculum

committee; dean or associate dean who will approve; Faculty Senate Budget

Committee, or other committee, who will approve; etc.

● Have you personally proposed a new degree or other program that was required to go

through an approval process within and outside of your school/college?

● Does your school/college have any special tools, aside from the RCAT Planner, used to model

the financial impact of a new program or changes to existing ones?

● Have you ever used the RCAT Planner yourself or assisted someone else in using it?

○ If not, why not and what tools/other means have you used to get the job done?

● Have you used the RCAT to determine if a new program will generate revenue or did you use a different tool? If you used the RCAT, how close was the forecast data to actual performance?

● As a fiscal officer, how often do you use the RCAT to forecast any changes during the year? How much time do you spend per term on average?


● Please tell us about your school/college: how do you differ from other schools/colleges? In

what ways are you similar?

● In general, how does your school/college generate ideas for new programs and/or degrees?

● In your school/college, at what point in the conversation about a new program does the issue

of financial viability come up?

● What kinds of questions are you asked about a new program’s financial viability?

● Do you feel adequately prepared to answer those questions with tools available to you now?

● The RCAT Planner, and other tools used by some schools/colleges, typically ask about the

number of student credit hours to be generated, what the direct cost of instruction will be,

student headcount expected, etc. What questions are missing from the tools you are aware of

or have used?

● Have you found the data from the RCAT relevant to your planning activities? ● Do you find the RCAT result is fairly representative of your actual outcome? ● Does the RCAT need any further modification to more accurately reflect the types of

programs that you offer? ● Do you have any suggestion to make the RCAT more user friendly?

1

















and reasoning.

● If you have a choice either to continue using the RCAT or to develop a new tool, which would you prefer?

● When considering your sources of data, what percentage weight do you give to the RCAT data when making final budget decisions?

● How widely public is the RCAT to your component units? ● If you have to introduce the RCAT to a new staff member, how long do you think it will

take for them to become comfortable if: a) they have a financial background or b) nonfinancial background?

● Do you think SCH adjustments between your unit and UNST are fairly represented? Do you understand that SCH are kept in UNST but revenues are distributed to your school/colleges?

● Until RCAT can pick up the SCH distribution between your unit and UNST, it is a manual process to look up each course one by one to distribute to the appropriate unit. Do you have any suggestions how we can automate that process?

● Do you think the RCAT needs fine tuning in determining residency status within your individual units/programs?

● What sort of adjustments could help the RCAT handle differential tuition better? ● If you have to go back three years ago and compare, do you think the implementation of

the RCAT improved the budget forecasting process? ● What components of the RCAT could be more transparent and connected the SEM plan?

2



● How long does it take to get a new program, degree or certificate launched from the initiation

of the idea to teaching students? Do you think this is the right amount of time?

○ Why is this, or is it not, the right timing?

● What do you feel are the most important data points in evaluating the financial viability of a

new program (i.e., amount of revenue relative to cost, impact on the school/college RCAT

ratio, accreditation related issues, cost to students, etc.)?

○ Why are these the points you chose?

● How do you determine how popular you think a new program will be, and how many students

to assume will be enrolled when it has fully ramped up?

○ Is that the best method or the only method, in your opinion?

● How much weight do you think financial viability should be given in evaluating new programs?

○ Why?

● Do you think there’s value in creating a tool that might be easier to use and more intuitive?

○ Why or why not?

● Is there anything else you would like to share about tools, the process we’re undertaking to

develop a new tool, or financial analysis of programs in general?

3

Informed Consent email language Thank you so much for agreeing to participate in an interview regarding the University’s process and tools for evaluating the financial viability of new programs. We expect to have similar conversations with people involved in all phases of program and degree evaluation, including faculty and department chairs, deans and associate deans, as well as the Provost and members of the Faculty Senate Budget Committee. We’re very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts on some existing tools, how you approach questions about the financial viability of new programs, and what improvements you would like to see. We expect to use the comments and suggestions gathered in this process to make a recommendation to the University regarding refinement of our existing financial evaluation tools, or potentially the development of a new tool. We respect your privacy and will not quote you directly in our report without your explicit permission, but we do hope to share some of the consistent concerns or ideas that emerge from our conversations. If you are not comfortable having us reference your thoughts even in very broad terms, please let us know. Thank you again for your assistance and we’ll see you ________.

Business Model Analysis Project - Empathy Map

1

Business Model Project - Insights from Interviews

● High quality data about new/existing students is important

● Transparency around who owns decisions about assumptions

● Decision-making is not part of the tool

● Stakes are high when creating a new program

● It will be important to communication assumptions made by the tool

● Importance of showing impact on students

● Tool that faculty can play with before reaching out to Chairs/Deans

● There is a need for trust in the budgeting and program approval processes across campus

● There are large gaps in our abilities to assess market potential

● Lingering sentiments toward the RCAT could affect perceptions of this tool as well

● Streamlined tool

● Importance of training when rolling out the tool

● People feel left out of the budgeting process.

● Distrust in PBB process.

● New program process is too complicated and lengthy

● Think globally at the institutional level rather than at the department level

● Consider retention rates and financial impact of these on a program.

● Communicating the reliability of the tool’s predictions

● Should faculty be involved in inputting and understanding financial data?

● Will be able to trust the data and the assumptions in the tool?

● RCAT - always vs. only significant changes

● How do you account for sunk costs? (Such as Dean’s Office - for both old and new programs)

● Decision-making authority - Deans vs. FS/FSBC

● Disconnect - we say SCH is not important but it’s what is measured

● Risk - have to take risks, but no space for risk-taking

● Recruiting out-of-state students vs. serving our residents

● Numbers are everything vs. numbers are not everything

● How important is market data as an input?

Category Name Category #Design Criteria (i.e. post-its)/Requirements Card #

Desirabilitycriteria 1 Maximize focus on institutional level impact 1.1Desirabilitycriteria 1 Maximize focus on department level impact 1.2Desirabilitycriteria 1

Maximize the ability to illustrate the impactsof costs to students 1.3

Desirabilitycriteria 1

Increase the tool's ability to account forchanges in retention rates, time to degree,lower student failure rates, or other student-related metrics that influence revenues orcosts 1.4


Increase tool's flexibility, allowing it to beused for new programs, program review,program prioritization, strategic enrollmentmanagement 1.5


Expand the number of metrics shownbeyond margins to include other measuresof efficiency such as classroom use,improvement in student success rates infuture classes, improvement in keepingstudents on track to graduation, etc. 1.6


Maximize the tool's accuracy by devotingresources to improve the accuracy ofspecific elements of the RCAT, e.g.,revenue attribution, activity-based quality ofspace, costing, etc. 1.7


Increase the number of years reflected tocapture costs such as start-up costs, ramp-up time and optimized operation 1.8


Increase the tool's ability to account forcosts and revenues associated withdifferent modalities, such as online, hybrid,face-to-face, competency-based, and CPL. 1.9


Increase the visibility of the underlyingassumptions of the tool (e.g., definitions ofvarious drivers) 1.10


Decrease the perception that the outputsare accurate to the dollar 1.11

Business Model Design Criteria list


Maximize the transparency of the sourcesof students for new programs to understand"cannibalization" 1.12


Increase the likelihood of identifying howprogram goals relate to institutional goals(e.g., Res vs. Non-Res) 1.13


Maximize user friendly attributes to allow awide range of users access to the tool, e.g.,non-financial users 1.14


Ensure users are provided with adequatetraining and support in using the tool,including improving their understanding ofits limitations 1.15


Improve access to market data to providesomething more than anecdotal experienceto validate student demand 1.16


Optimize the tool's ability to calculate returnon investment, e.g., a $100,000 initialinvestment yields $50,000 in additionalannual revenue 1.17

Feasibility criteria 2

Increase the technical compatibilitybetween the tool and other tools used inSEM planning, PBB and budget 2.1

Feasibility criteria 2Maximize the amount of data acquired fromexisting systems (e.g. Banner, ODS) 2.2


Maximize the reliability of the tool (e.g.minimum downtime, bugs, unexpectedoutages) 2.3

Feasibility criteria 2Minimize intensity of OIT support requiredto maintain tool over time 2.4

Feasibility criteria 2 Minimize the cost of building the tool 2.5


Maximize scenario building capacity so thatchanges are dynamic and immediatelyvisible 2.6

Feasibility criteria 2Increase the tool's ability to incorporatepredictive assumptions 2.7


Increase the likelihood of visual consistencyof the results of the tool (e.g. all results arein the same format - spreadsheet, chart,table, etc) 2.8


Increase the likelihood that the userinterface is easily accessible from anylocation 2.9

Feasibility criteria 2Maximize the ability to customize datainputs 2.10


Maximize the ability to drill down to thedetails (e.g., show what numbers roll upinto a total) 2.11

Feasibility criteria 2Maximize the ability to support the tool overtime 2.12


Minimize the ability to customize datainputs to increase comparability acrossunits 2.13

Category Name Category#

ValueStatements/DesignCriteria (i.e. post-its)

Card # Participant-addedcard?

Priority- July 9

Priority -July 27

Desirability criteria 1 Maximize focus on institutionallevel impact

1.1 S M*

Desirability criteria 1 Maximize focus on departmentlevel impact

1.2 M* S*

Desirability criteria 1 Maximize the ability to illustratethe impacts of costs to students

1.3 S* M*

Desirability criteria 1 Increase the tool's ability toaccount for changes inretention rates, time to degree,lower student failure rates, orother student-related metricsthat influence revenues or costs

1.4 S* M*

Desirability criteria 1 Increase tool's flexibility,allowing it to be used for newprograms, program review,program prioritization, strategicenrollment management

1.5 M* M*

Desirability criteria 1 Expand the number of metricsshown beyond margins toinclude other measures ofefficiency such as classroomuse, improvement in studentsuccess rates in future classes,improvement in keepingstudents on track to graduation,etc.

1.6 S* S*

Desirability criteria 1 Maximize the tool's accuracy bydevoting resources to improvethe accuracy of specificelements of the RCAT, e.g.,revenue attribution, activity-based quality of space, costing,etc.

1.7 S S*

Desirability criteria 1 Increase the number of yearsreflected to capture costs suchas start-up costs, ramp-up timeand optimized operation

1.8 M* M*

Business Model Design Criteria Stakeholder Sessions Data

Key - "M" is must; "S" is should; "C" is could; "W" is won't; an "*" behind a priority rating indicates the card was discussed

Desirability criteria 1 Increase the tool's ability toaccount for costs and revenuesassociated with differentmodalities, such as online,hybrid, face-to-face,competency-based, and CPL.

1.9 M* M*

Desirability criteria 1 Increase the visibility of theunderlying assumptions of thetool (e.g., definitions of variousdrivers)

1.10 M* S*

Desirability criteria 1 Decrease the perception thatthe outputs are accurate to thedollar

1.11 S

Desirability criteria 1 Maximize the transparency ofthe sources of students for newprograms to understand"cannibalization"

1.12 S M*

Desirability criteria 1 Increase the likelihood ofidentifying how program goalsrelate to institutional goals (e.g.,Res vs. Non-Res)

1.13 S* S*

Desirability criteria 1 Maximize user friendlyattributes to allow a wide rangeof users access to the tool, e.g.,non-financial users

1.14 S* S*

Desirability criteria 1 Ensure users are provided withadequate training and supportin using the tool, includingimproving their understandingof its limitations

1.15 M* S*

Desirability criteria 1 Improve access to market datato provide something more thananecdotal experience tovalidate student demand

1.16 S M*

Desirability criteria 1 Optimize the tool's ability tocalculate return on investment,e.g., a $100,000 initialinvestment yields $50,000 inadditional annual revenue

1.17 M* S*

Feasibility criteria 2 Increase the technicalcompatibility between the tooland other tools used in SEMplanning, PBB and budget

2.1 M* M*

Feasibility criteria 2 Maximize the amount of dataacquired from existing systems(e.g. Banner, ODS)

2.2 M* M*

Feasibility criteria 2 Maximize the reliability of thetool (e.g. minimum downtime,bugs, unexpected outages)

2.3 S* M*

Feasibility criteria 2 Minimize intensity of OITsupport required to maintaintool over time

2.4 S* M*

Feasibility criteria 2 Minimize the cost of buildingthe tool

2.5 S S

Feasibility criteria 2 Maximize scenario buildingcapacity so that changes aredynamic and immediatelyvisible

2.6 S* M*

Feasibility criteria 2 Increase the tool's ability toincorporate predictiveassumptions

2.7 M* M

Feasibility criteria 2 Increase the likelihood ofconsistency of the results of thetool (e.g. all results are in thesame format - spreadsheet,chart, table, etc)

2.8 S* S

Feasibility criteria 2 Increase the likelihood that theuser interface is easilyaccessible from any location

2.9 S C*

Feasibility criteria 2 Maximize the ability tocustomize data inputs

2.10 M* S*

Feasibility criteria 2 Maximize the ability to drilldown to the details (e.g., showwhat numbers roll up into atotal)

2.11 M M

Feasibility criteria 2 Maximize the ability to supportthe tool over time

2.12 S M*

Feasibility criteria 2 Minimize the ability tocustomize data inputs toincrease comparability acrossunits

2.13 No cardfor 7-9session

S*

Business Model Analysis Project - Design Criteria - Project Team Final

Recommendations

Desirability Criteria (capture the functional and emotional needs of users)

Prioritization* Design Criteria Criteria #

MUST HAVE

Maximize focus on institutional level impact (in other words, while specific metrics input

into the tool could be department level, e.g., changes in retention rates, the output of the

tool will reflect how the changes impact the institution) 1.1

MUST HAVE

Increase the tool's ability to account for changes in retention rates, time to degree, lower

student failure rates, or other student-related metrics that influence revenues or costs 1.4

MUST HAVE

Increase tool's flexibility, allowing it to be used for new programs, program review, program

prioritization, strategic enrollment management 1.5

MUST HAVE

Increase the number of years reflected to capture costs such as start-up costs, ramp-up time

and optimized operation 1.8

MUST HAVE

Increase the tool's ability to account for costs and revenues associated with different

modalities, such as online, hybrid, face-to-face, competency-based, and CPL. 1.9

MUST HAVE

Increase the visibility of the underlying assumptions of the tool (e.g., definitions of various

drivers) 1.10

MUST HAVE Create the capability to understand enrollment shifts 1.12

MUST HAVE

Maximize user friendly attributes to allow a wide range of users access to the tool, e.g.,

non-financial users 1.14

MUST HAVE

Optimize the tool's ability to calculate return on investment, e.g., a $100,000 initial

investment yields $50,000 in additional annual revenue 1.17

SHOULD HAVE Maximize focus on department level impact 1.2

SHOULD HAVE Decrease the perception that the outputs are accurate to the dollar 1.11

SHOULD HAVE Ensure users are provided with adequate training and support in using the tool, including

improving their understanding of its limitations 1.15

SHOULD HAVE Increase the likelihood of identifying how program goals relate to institutional goals (e.g.,

Res vs. Non-Res) 1.13

OUT OF SCOPE Maximize the ability to illustrate the impacts of costs to students 1.3

OUT OF SCOPE

Expand the number of metrics shown beyond margins to include other measures of

efficiency such as classroom use, improvement in student success rates in future classes,

improvement in keeping students on track to graduation, etc. 1.6

OUT OF SCOPE

Maximize the tool's accuracy by devoting resources to improve the accuracy of specific

elements of the RCAT, e.g., revenue attribution, activity-based costing, quality of space, etc. 1.7

OUT OF SCOPE Improve access to market data to provide something more than anecdotal experience to

validate student demand 1.16

1

Feasibility Criteria (capture the technology and infrastructure needs of the users and PSU)

Prioritization* Design Criteria Criteria #

MUST HAVE

Increase the technical compatibility between the tool and other tools used in IPEB

(Integrated Planning, Enrollment and Budget) 2.1

MUST HAVE Maximize the amount of data acquired from existing systems (e.g. Banner, ODS) 2.2

MUST HAVE Increase the tool's ability to incorporate predictive assumptions 2.7

MUST HAVE

Maximize the ability to drill down to the details (e.g., show what numbers roll up into a

total) 2.11

SHOULD HAVE Maximize scenario building capacity so that changes are dynamic and immediately visible 2.6

SHOULD HAVE Minimize the cost of building the tool 2.5

SHOULD HAVE Maximize the reliability of the tool (e.g. minimum downtime, bugs, unexpected outages) 2.3

SHOULD HAVE Minimize intensity of OIT support required to maintain tool over time 2.4

COULD HAVE Minimize the ability to customize data inputs to increase comparability across units 2.13

COULD HAVE Maximize the ability to customize data inputs 2.10

COULD HAVE

Increase the likelihood of visual consistency of the results of the tool (e.g. all results are in

the same format - spreadsheet, chart, table, etc) 2.8

COULD HAVE Increase the likelihood that the user interface is easily accessible from any location 2.9

COULD HAVE Maximize the ability to support the tool over time 2.12

* - The “Prioritization” column indicates the project team’s prioritizations of the design criteria. The prioritization refers to

whether the tools “must have” the criteria, “should have” the criteria, etc.

2

Business Model Analysis Project Engagement Session Thank you for agreeing to participate in an engagement session regarding the Business Model Analysis Project. We expect to use the comments and suggestions gathered in this process to inform the creation of a tool that will assist the University with understanding and analyzing the short and longterm financial impacts of reTHINK PSU projects and their ability to integrate with existing systems and technology. We respect your privacy and will not disclose specific comments that you make during the session to the public. We plan to share, in summary form, consistent ideas that emerge from our engagement sessions, including a list of who attended the sessions. Thank you again for your assistance. ______________________ ______________________ Signature Date

Business Model Analysis Project - Ideas for Sponsor Decision-making and Input

Dec 2014 June 30, 2015

Planning

D - Management Plan; timeline; stakeholder analysis

R - Key insights

D - Design criteria

Winter 2016?

D - Adjust RCAT Planner or build new

tool (using internal/external vendor)? budget; timeline; resource allocation

S - Prototype

R - Prototype(s)

R - Pilot results

KeyD - Sponsor decisionR - Sponsor review/inputS - Sponsor sign-off

D - Project success!

Implement

Pilot

Design Criteria

RCAT Planner Analysis

Build the Tool(s)

Insights Gathering

D - (Vendor selection)

Business Model Analysis, Project Workplan_ARTIFACT

Page 1 of 4

academic affairs provost’s office business model …...empathy map list of insights from...

Documents