This document outlines a methodology for defining requirements for an EPPM software implementation project in order to increase the likelihood of success. The methodology involves developing a vision statement, strategic objectives and goals through an executive visioning process. It then defines critical success factors, key performance indicators, and performance measures to align functional needs with strategic goals. Adopting a phased approach by prioritizing and rolling out limited functionality first is also recommended to introduce changes incrementally and reduce risk. The end result is a requirements document to guide the implementation project.

1. COLLABORATE 14 Copyright ©2014 by Monks Project Solutions Page 1
If You Don't Know Where you’re Going, Any Road Will Do; Visioning
for Implementation Success
Robert C. Monks
Monks Project Solutions
Abstract
Many EPPM software implementations fail to achieve the success and return on investment originally
envisioned because they try to do too much and have poorly defined requirements. This presentation
provides real, useful information around initial project visioning and requirements definition that can be
put into practice. It also explores how well-crafted vision and requirements documents will facilitate a
phased approach to the implementation, reducing scope creep and failed implementations.
Introduction
The rapid pace of technological advances in Oracle’s Primavera EPPM software continues to accelerate.
The capability of the software currently exceeds most organization’s process maturity to successfully
implement. Additionally, the software installation and configuration is complex and requires specialized
skills not often found in many organizations wishing to implement the software. Oftentimes, organizations
that have been using Primavera products fail to appreciate the risks inherent in attempting to implement
EPPM software as if it were PM software. This often leads to unrealistic approaches to implementation,
with poorly conceived implementation teams with inadequate leadership and budget. The likely
consequence of this approach is an implementation that is delivered late and over budget. It’s also likely
that it will fail to achieve the anticipated ROI, fail to gain widespread organizational buy-in and require
constant rework.
We have found the following elements to contribute to EPPM implementation failures:
1. Lack of Executive Sponsorship
2. Minimal User Involvement (No dedicated resources)
3. Inexperienced Management & Facilitation
4. No Clearly Defined Business Goals & Objectives
5. Maximized Scope (Not a Phased Approach)
6. Informal, Non-standardized Processes and Procedures
7. Lack of Firm, Defined Functional Requirements
8. Non-Existent EPM Implementation Methodology
9. Unreliable Time and Cost Estimates
10. No Ownership or Buy-in Plan
Strategic Visioning
To address this, we’ve come up with an implementation methodology that focuses on defining strategic
objectives, goals and requirements early in the process. We then work with our clients to define their
processes and model these processes before ever beginning to configure the tool. Implementing an
EPPM system is a project and should be treated as one. Early in the implementation process, executive
leadership must be engaged. This is partially the role of the project sponsor, but an executive steering
committee must be convened to help develop a vision statement, objectives and goals for the
implementation. These should reflect the strategic drivers for the implementation. Input from members of

2. COLLABORATE 14 Copyright ©2014 by Monks Project Solutions Page 2
the functional and tactical teams is important, but should not detract from the strategic focus. A good
vision statement answers questions such as: Why are we doing this? Why now? What do we hope to
accomplish? What will be different when we finish? Ideally, the implementation vision, objectives and
goals should be tied back to corporate strategic goals. During this process detailed requirements may be
identified, which is fine; they should be captured, qualified, quantified and prioritized as they are vetted
out during the visioning process.
At the end of this process, a vision statement should emerge. This is a succinct statement or paragraph
stating what capabilities the implementation will address, what organizational maturity issues or core
competencies it will support and what strategic outcome or benefit the corporation expects to receive.
Constructed correctly, it will guide the implementation team and inform those outside of the
implementation.
Objectives and Goals
In our implementation methodology, we define strategic objectives from the vision statement. These
objectives are qualitative statements that support and further define the vision. They should be more
specific than the vision statement, yet still relate to it. We recommend that clients not limit themselves
when stating objectives, to only those that will be achieved during the initial implementation phase. It may
not even be known at this point what phasing will occur, so it’s best not to second guess where the
priorities will ultimately fall.
Each objective must now be further defined by quantitative goals that can be more easily measured.
Goals define what we hope to attain and should be measurable. Goals often contain numbers or
percentages, which relate to their quantitative nature. Ideally, three or more goals should be developed
from each objective.
Critical Success Factors and Key Performance Indicators
Once objectives and goals have been developed at the strategic level, Critical Success Factors (CSFs)
and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) must be developed at the functional level. These CSFs and KPIs
will exist for each functional department involved or affected by the implementation. CSFs are qualitative
in nature (as are the objectives) but they are specific to the functional level and therefore, more detailed.
CSFs describe who is accountable, how long it should take and what data tracks our success. CSFs
might also state what the system must do or what the system must track.
KPIs are defined for each CSF—typically three or more. KPIs are quantitative in nature and may
describe the data that will be measured to determine success or failure against the CSF. KPIs establish
thresholds that determine whether we are effective at our CSF. Ultimately, they must be a measure of
our effectiveness at achieving our strategic objectives and goals.
Performance Measures
Performance measures are defined at the tactical level for each KPI. As the name implies, a
performance measure is what we measure to calculate our KPI. Where is the quantifiable data required
to attain the KPI? Where is it entered? Who manages it? Who changes it? Who is responsible?
Performance measures are the inputs we monitor to achieve the outputs we desire.

3. COLLABORATE 14 Copyright ©2014 by Monks Project Solutions Page 3
Business Model Results
All performance measures must tie back to the original vision statement. This is typically an iterative
process. KPIs might be identified that don’t seem to fit nicely into any CSF. In this case, the objectives or
goals may need to be revisited. In some cases the vision statement might need revising. It’s essential
that there be alignment from the vision statement through the performance measures. If it’s in the vision
statement, we should have a number of objectives, goals, CSFs, KPIs and performance measures that
support it; if we don’t, it probably doesn’t belong in our vision statement.
This final document containing all of the above described elements acts as our requirements for the
implementation. Once completed, it should be issued to the entire team for review and approval. It will
serve as a guiding document of the implementation.
Adopting a Phased Approach
In our consulting engagements, we advocate for adopting a phased approach to implementations. We
recommend prioritizing the objectives and goals developed during the business modeling phase of the
implementation. Looking for easy-to-implement high-value goals will often provide immediate benefits to
the organization. This potentially affords the opportunity to gain broader acceptance of the
implementation and gain additional supporters. Most organizations find that sustainable change is more
easily accomplished through a series of smaller incremental changes. By phasing the implementation,
long periods with lots of effort yielding no immediate benefit can be avoided.
We find that implementing shallow functionality broadly across the organization is superior to
implementing deep functionality narrowly within the organization. This complements the phased
approach advocated. Implementation teams should recognize that even small changes to processes and
procedures can be difficult or threatening to many targets of the change. Minimizing the apprehension
will serve the organization and its employees.
To that end, going live with the new EPPM system with limited functionality and then continuing to roll out
additional functionality is consistent with this philosophy of change. It supports an organizations desire
for continued improvement, while reinforcing what it’s already doing well.
Conclusion
Implementing an EPPM system is a major endeavor for most organizations. It is a project by definition,
and should be approached as one. Organizations with deep project experience oftentimes fail to fully
recognize the risks in implementing EPPM software without a solid project plan with well-defined
requirements. We have presented a methodology for defining EPPM requirements that begins with a
vision statement, objectives and goals and ends with performance measures supporting KPIs and CSFs.
This structured approach, coupled with a phased implementation of the requirements above, will
significantly increase the likelihood of a successful implementation.