Consultant - project manager for knowledge management systems

Summary

This document summarizes the tasks to be performed under a consultancy (hereto referred to as “project manager”) to assess, analyze, research, and provide recommendations to improve LWR’s capacity to manage information and better employ information technology to do so. This project, “Short-term Support for Knowledge Management Systems”, will focus on LWR’s need for state-of-the-art project information management software to enable the agency to better manage its portfolio of projects and technical resources and documents. The end goal of this assignment is for LWR to identify a project information management system software package as a foundation to its growing knowledge management needs, and prepare to allocate the funding needed for the project as part of the FY2013 budget planning process, which begins in June 2012. It is anticipated that the project will take place in three distinct phases:

Needs analysis

•  Assessment of LWR’s current project information system and envisioned needs for an upgraded system.

Industry research

• Review of peer agencies and their use of project information management systems; Review of top-rated software packages available and relevant, including cost. Presentation to LWR of top options.

Consensus recommendation

• Presentation of an expert recommendation as a follow-on to the research phase; Facilitation of the discussion of key LWR staff to arrive at a consensus decision for LWR’s choice for investment in a software system.

Phase 1 will include a critical assessment of LWR’s needs in terms of project management software, including what tools are currently in use, and what staff ideally want and need in order to meet knowledge management needs. The main priorities include LWR's ability to manage basic project information, key project summary information such as dates, donor information, grant amount, and contact info; reports; financial performance; evaluations; and basic results data, in a web-enabled format. Based on a compiled profile of LWR's needs, Phase 2 will entail research of the most relevant software package options, based both on recommendations (or lack thereof) from peer agencies with similar needs, and from an external scan. The project manager should compile complete profiles of the best software package options which match LWR'S  needs from Phase 1, and present them to key LWR staff. Included in this process, Phase 3 requires that the project manager make his/her own expert recommendation on which option LWR should choose, but also will facilitate a discussion and/or process to assist LWR in making its final decision as to which software and/or company it should choose for this future investment in knowledge management.

Background

Founded in 1945 by U.S. Lutherans to respond to the humanitarian needs of post-war Europe, Lutheran World Relief today reaches millions of people around the world through its programs in emergency response and sustainable development. Motivated by faith and grounded in the Lutheran tradition, LWR reaches out to some of the world’s poorest and most marginalized communities, serving people in need regardless of race, religion or ethnicity and does not support religious activities. Driven by local needs and working with local partners, LWR focuses on underserved rural communities, with particular emphasis on improving livelihoods for small-scale farmers and on ensuring sustainability by strengthening local organizations’ capacity. Core sector areas include rural agriculture, disaster risk reduction, water, health and livelihoods, emergency response, and civic participation, with programs implemented in LWR's key regional areas of Africa, Asia and Latin America. LWR holds itself to the highest standards of transparency, accountability and stewardship, testing innovative approaches then seeking ways to bring proven methods to scale. With a staff of approximately 150 employees worldwide and an annual operating budget of over $40 million, LWR works in approximately 25 countries through the support of individual donors, church bodies, U.S. government funding, private foundations, bilateral institutions and private corporations. To date, LWR has been managing its project profile using a somewhat antiquated project management database which has limited ability in terms of report generation and ease of use. The system is not web-enabled, and relies on a shared server located at LWR's headquarters office in Baltimore. Implemented in 2006, the system was designed to track key program related data for both incoming grants from the USG, Foundations, and other funders, as well as outgoing grants to partner organizations. The system tracks key contact information, grant terms and details, deliverables, indicators, project participants/beneficiaries, Material Resource (MR) program data, and other project related data. It also includes basic workflow management tools such as project agreement and MR shipping report generation and financial transfer approvals. In addition the system was designed to capture key financial data related to grants and projects such as obligations, budgets, fund balances, wire-transfers, and related OFAC screening. As both LWR’s international programming, as well as its engagement with US Lutherans, has grown dramatically in the last decade, so have its needs for information management concerning programs and key tools and resources. Staff in the US and abroad need to be able to consistently access key information about LWR's programs overseas, and to be able to organize that information in a searchable manner in order to organize and view LWR's  current and past project portfolio in a number of ways based on key topics or points of information. Furthermore, LWR has the need of updating its document storage system of key organizational tools and resources, for easier use and accessibility. For example, technical documents, program toolkits and guidelines, evaluations, project reports, and policy papers may not be linked directly to an individual project but nonetheless must be easily accessible to all global staff, in a manner that promotes an emerging culture of organizational sharing and learning. LWR does not currently have the appropriate internal staff capacity to advance the project on neither the information technology side nor the knowledge management side. As such LWR looks to engage external support to lead LWR in walking through the process of not only explicating what LWR needs, but researching what is out there, and helping LWR decide on the product which is the best fit for LWR's needs and budget. At this point, LWR envisions this effort to focus on identifying comprehensive project information systems for both incoming and outgoing grants, with the potential to also have a data management component, such as key performance indicator data of each project. Secondary system/module preferences include human resource management related to projects, detailed project-level planning tools (MS Project-style), proposal management, project compliance management, and other types of project or general information management.

Purpose, Components & Methodology

Phase 1

Needs analysis

Assessment of LWR’s current project information system and envisioned needs for an upgraded system. Purpose: In order to help LWR select an appropriate and cost effective project management and information software system, it is important that the project manager have a clear understanding of what LWR needs and wants. While the general idea is clear, the details of what functionalities the system needs to have are less so, partially because many staff are unaware as to all the options available, partially because not all staff have taken the time yet to think through the question thoroughly, and also because there may be some diversity of ideas among the team. A comprehensive needs-analysis will need to be conducted with a final scope of work and business case developed, for which key LWR leadership can sign off on before moving to

Phase 2

Components

The project manager will need to review LWR's current system and workflow, interview staff and/or conduct focus groups in order to gain a solid understanding of LWR’s needs.

Proposed activities

• Over view of LWR’s general history, organizational structure, and project portfolio, in order to understand what LWR will do and how. 
• Orientation to PPOD, LWR’s current project database.
• Orientation to LWR’s shared drive system and other electronic tools, such as LWR's  intranet and POM site.
• Interviews and/or focus groups with key LWR staff, especially members of the International Programs Department (HQ and abroad), Finance & Administration, and New Business Development who will be the primary users, but also with teams such as External Relations, who may be secondary users of the system. Extensive interviews will also be needed with LWR’s IT support team, to understand LWR's current technology platform and LWR's potential capacity in-house to manage and maintain any type of new system (vs. SaaS or externally hosted solutions).
• Draft a Business Case and related Scope of Work for the project information management system which reflects a consensus from the LWR team, as a result of the needs analysis. The SOW will be shared with potential software companies and designers, and must be signed off on by the Vice-president for Finance and Administration, who will secure internal approvals. Because of the diversity of ideas that the project manager may encounter, it is acceptable to have a SOW which presents a few scenarios of varying complexity.

Timeline: 3-5 weeks.

Phase 2

Industry research

Review of peer agencies and their use of project management information systems; Review of top-rated software packages available and relevant, including cost. Presentation to LWR of top options.

Purpose

The project manager will need to survey the software field to identify what packages are available and appropriate for LWR’s needs. He/she will need to focus on systems designed for international humanitarian and development agencies, so that LWR is confident that the provider understands LWR's working environment and can ensure LWR's system works well in that context. LWR's expectation is that the person hired for this terms of reference will already be familiar with many software packages in existence, so would have an idea how to direct and prioritize his/her research. Additionally, if not already familiar, LWR would expect the project manager to contact LWR peer agencies to inquire about their systems as comparison research. The project manager’s role should be to research a wide net of options but to narrow them down to the top 3 or so, based on those which best match LWR’s SOW developed in Phase 1. The project manager should facilitate presentations of each system under consideration to LWR key staff, to keep LWR involved in the process and to coordinate a well-informed decision. Components: Below are suggested activities for industry research to help LWR identify the best software package to fit LWR's needs. However, this set of proposed activities is illustrative and thus flexible based on the expressed ideas proposed by the project manager as to how to best go about this type of research.

Proposed activities

• Review of project information management software packages available for an organization like LWR, based on the needs identified in the SOW from Phase 1. This may include website research, calls and meetings with software companies, and perhaps interactive software trials. Part of this step would include costing reviews and/or obtaining general quotes, though LWR recognizes that more formal quotes may be done at a later stage, once LWR has a short list narrowed down.
• Review of peer agencies’ use of similar systems, specifically
- What systems are they using?
- What functionalities do they have with these systems?
- How do they rate their system in terms of it meeting their needs?
- Are staff using it regularly, and if so, in what ways?
- How do they rate their system in terms of its functionality and service provided (where relevant) by the software company? And/or ease of maintaining/updating the technology?
- How do they rate their system from a cost/benefit perspective?
- Are the systems being used in the organization’s international offices and what challenges have they faced in terms of connectivity, support, and application.
- Narrowing down of the options to a short list of perhaps a top 3, which can be formally presented to LWR’s key leadership team in a “sales pitch” type of format, but allowing for extensive Q&A by both program and IT staff.

Timeline: 3-4 weeks

Phase 3

Consensus recommendation

Presentation of an expert recommendation as a follow-on to the research phase; Facilitation of the discussion of key LWR staff to arrive at a consensus decision for LWR’s choice for investment in a software system. Purpose: After getting to know LWR’s work flow and needs, as well as the options available for software packages, and the feedback that LWR key staff have provided on the top packages presented to them, the Project Manager should be prepared to put together his/her expert recommendation as to which software package would be the best fit for LWR, based on LWR's needs, the software functionality and management, and cost. Although characterized as a third phase, this step may actually be a logical, streamlined part of the review and feedback process in Phase 2. LWR does, however, look to the project manager for his/her recommendation. As with Phase 1, it is acceptable that the recommendation could include multiple scenarios based on functionality and cost. The recommendation should contain a budget for procurement, training and implementation. The Project Manager will also update the Business Case drafted in Phase 1 to reflect the final recommendation and estimated costs. Additionally, when the project manager presents his/her recommendation, he/she will be expected to facilitate a discussion, and if needed, a more extensive process, for LWR to take the research and recommendation into consideration, and to make a final decision. It is expected that a deliverable of this Terms of Reference is to ensure that LWR does indeed come to a discrete, final decision, one way or another.

Proposed activities

• Drafting and presentation of the project manager’s recommendation of a project information management system to key LWR staff.
• Facilitated discussion with key LWR staff to discuss the project manager’s recommendation and any other options.
• If needed, organize and facilitate a further process, such as follow-on meetings, to assist LWR in coming to a final decision. Solicit presentations from software design companies for further questions or negotiations, research additional questions posed by LWR key staff, solicit more formal quotes, or generally ensure that the discussion at LWR continues to move forward until a decision has been reached.

Timeline: 2-3 Weeks

Deliverables

Progress reports due date

• Bi-weekly for the entire project period.

• Progress reports should be 1-2 pages in length or longer if necessary, and will outline work done over the 2 week period, including progress made toward deliverables.
• Reports should include note of any challenges encountered and suggestions to LWR key leadership.
• Reports should be submitted to the Vice-president of Finance and Administration. See Appendix 2 for a reporting schedule.

Business case (initial draft) due date

• Not later than Friday, April 13, 2012 At least three page business case highlighting the need, scope, and projected benefits of the project. This should include a problem statement/situational assessment, project description/scope of work summary, financial assumptions, projected benefits and measures of success, and recommendations.
• The business case will serve as a working document throughout the project period to fully document the project and support its approval.

Scope of work (based on LWR needs analysis) due date

• Not later than Friday, April 13, 2012
• At least three page written scope of work which details the specifications of LWR’s desired project information management system solution.
• The scope will both serve as a key document for LWR and as a document that can be shared with potential software companies. 

Industry research summary due date

• Friday May 11, 2012 A 2-part document
• The first part can be a basic table or formalized notes documenting all of the software packages considered with commentary as to their appropriateness for LWR.
• The core piece of the document should be at least 5 pages and summarizes the top 3 options of software packages in a consistent manner, detailing the software’s capability, service package and/or ability for LWR to manage it, general cost considerations, and the pros and cons vis-à-vis LWR’s needs.
• While an additional number of vendor solutions may be reviewed during this research phase, the detailed analysis of up to 3 vendors is recommended for this summary

Presentation of options and recommendations due date

• Friday, May 25, 2012
• PowerPoint presentation summarizing work completed in the Industry Research Summary document and also including the Project Manager’s recommendation. This step can be split into two parts if needed.

Final decision summary due date

• Thursday, May 31st, 2012
• Once LWR has reached a final decision and is able to move forward with a choice for a project information management software package for FY2013 budgeting purposes, the project manager should draft a summary document for both LWR’s archives and for all staff’s communication purposes, which summarizes the entire process and finishes with a justification of the final decision. This summary can either be drafted separately or incorporated in the final business case edition.