For more free articles and slides visit www.p6academy.com

2. Unifier in Action –
Primavera Unifier Implementation
at the
University of Utah

3. Objectives
 Background
 University of Utah
 Unifier Implementation
 Understand Unifier Processes and Workflows
 Development Steps
 Use in Unifier
 Examine Cost Controls
 Commitment Processes
 Schedule of Values
 Cost Sheet
 Explore the Unifier user environment
 Shell Hierarchy
 Company Workspace
 Dashboards and Reports

4. Background on the U
 Oldest and Largest in State
 State-funded
 560 Active Structures
 Oldest 1890
 Pre 1960 – 82
 1960 – 2000 – 224
 Since 2001 - 50
 32,000 Students
 7,500 Employees (full-time)
 Facilities Management
 Three Divisions
 Campus Planning
 Construction Project Delivery
 Facility Operations
 $200M – Avg. Annual Completions
 $1B – Ongoing Projects
 Project Funding Sources
 Legislative Appropriations
 Grants, Gifts, and Donations
 Departmental Expenditures

5. Unifier Implementation
 Total Users
 Company – 133
 Partner – 119
 Total Projects – 708
 Active – 343
 Complete/Archived – 365
 Project Size/Value
 Smallest - $1,192
 Largest - $156M
 Projects with Collaboration
 21
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Count
Value
Large
Medium
Small

6. Modules In Use
 Shell Manager
 Cost Manager
 Cost Sheet
 Funding Sheet
 SOV
 General Spends
 Payment Applications
 Document Manager
 Schedule Manager – Limited

7. Planned Modules
 Schedule Manager – expand usage
 Planning Manager
 Earned Value
 Cash Flow
 Project Gates
 Expanded Web Services

8. Implementation
Product Acquisition-
March 2006
Initial Process Review
Develop and test initial BPs
Configure Basic Cost Processes
Program WebServices Interface to
PeopleSoft
Initial PM Training
Production Deployment
August 2007
Initial Focus – Financial Controls
• Cost Commits
• Budget Change
• Cost Sheet
• Action Item & Transmittals
• Document Manager
December 2007 – First Payment
Integration with People Soft
EOY 2007
• 9 Projects Created
EOY 2008
• 117 Projects Created
Project Collaboration
Fall 2008 - Begin Development
Identify Processes
• Request for Information
• Architect Supplemental Instruction
• Proposed Change Order
• Change Order - Collaborative
• Submittals
Spring 2009 - Review Processes
with Project Teams
August 2009 – First Collaboration
Project $105M Hospital Expansion

9. Implementation
DFCM Processes
2009
State Division of Facilities
Construction and Management
(DFCM)
Integrate DFCM Processes
Record all project costs
• DFCM commitments
• University commitments
Capture University’s obligation on
the project
Track payments to DFCM on
University’s obligation
Generate accurate client billings
Bill DFCM for timely reimbursements
Record receipts from client and
DFCM
Shell Migration
2010
Improved navigational structure
Ability to archive projects
Dashboards and Reporting
2011
Identifying key performance
indicators (KPIs)
Establishing benchmarks and
expectations
Developing consistent use patterns
Moving Forward
2013 –
Incorporate University Hospital
Projects into Unifier
Integration points between Unifier
and AiM, Unifier and Maximo, and
Unifier and Peoplesoft
Expand collaboration on projects
across University
Develop Portfolio and Project
Management
Improved client access and reporting

10. Product Acquisition
 Initial stages of product development
 Limited out-of-the-box support
 Minimal documentation of existing of practices
 Resistance to financial controls
 Budget requirements
 Change control
 Approvals
 Oversold benefits to users and management
 Too few resources assigned to development

11. Production Deployment
 Improved tracking of contracts and costs
 Controlled updates to budgets
 Performance and network issues
 Interface and underlying DB changes
 Parallel systems – AREV and Unifier
 Increased level of detail – time consuming
 Consistency and Scope of SOV detail
 Resistance to change

12. Schedule of Values

13. Cost Sheet

14. Project Collaboration
 Creating common terminology among user groups
 Increased training and support load
 Reduced Time to Respond, Time to Complete on
 RFI
 ASI
 PCO
 Submittals
 Reduced effort on PM for
 Project documentation
 Approvals

15. DFCM Projects
 Organizational Challenges
 DFCM users not operating in the Unifier system
 DFCM contractors/consultants not contractually
obligated to utilize Unifier for University projects
 Duplication of efforts as DFCM-managed commits
must be entered into two different systems
 Limited workflow routing capabilities on DFCM-
managed commits.
 University PMs do not always receive DFCM Contract,
Change Order, and Payment information
 Long delays in receiving billing activity from DFCM

16. Shell Migration
 New Functionality in Unifier
 Prior structure provided single list of projects
 Ability to ‘Archive’ projects
 Logical grouping of projects
 Improved reporting
 Initial hierarchy was too deep
 Unable to place a single project in many shells
 Lacks cost roll-up within shell hierarchy

17. Dashboards/Reports
 Reports
 User versus Custom
 Custom…
 Provides flexibility
 Requires data views
 And significant planning
 Dashboards
 Challenges in identifying requirements
 Performance issues on large data sets
 Lack of use/feedback

18. Reorganization

19. Moving Forward
 Incorporate University Hospital Projects into Unifier
 Integration points between
 Unifier and AiM
 Unifier and Maximo
 Unifier and Peoplesoft
 Expand collaboration on projects across University
 Develop Portfolio and Project Management
 Improved client access and reporting

20. Questions