1

Challenges in the Implementation Challenges in the Implementation of PeopleSoft HRMSof PeopleSoft HRMS

Steve Daysh The University of Adelaide

Australia

2

Understanding Understanding The University of AdelaideThe University of Adelaide

Established in 1874.14,000 students including over 1,500 international students from 70 countries.Produced 3 Noble Prize winners and many Rhodes Scholars.Ranks high among the top universities in the Asia-Pacific region in winning research funds.One of group of ‘8’ major research institutions in Australia.

3

Project EndeavourProject Endeavour1998 committed to implementing new and improved enterprise-wide management information systems.

Support University of Adelaide strategic business direction

Selected PeopleSoft ERP and partnered with Ernst & Young (now Cap Gemini Ernst & Young (CGEY)) for the implementation.

Project kick off - 2 day retreat.

3 days debating names of project: Endeavour Illumenation MIS2001 Camelot

4

Why PeopleSoft?Why PeopleSoft?

Interlinked Financials, Human Resources and Student Administration.

Partnerships with other suppliers (eg Microsoft).

Commitment to Higher Education

Vendor viability.

International Support Network with other Universities.

Australian Support Network.

5

Meet Project EndeavourMeet Project Endeavour

6

Project Endeavour StructureProject Endeavour Structure

P ro je ct O ffi ce

H R M S T e am F ina n cia ls T e am

S tu de n t A d m in T e am R e s ea rch T e am

T e chn ica l S e rvice s T e am O rg C h an g e M gm t T e am

C G E Y P ro je ct M a n a g er

U o A P ro je ct D ire ctor P ro je ct A u d ito r ( K P M G )

E xe cu tive S te erin g C o m m ittee

7

Scope of PayrollScope of Payroll

Payroll - $135,000,000 per annum.

4,000 employees and scholars per fortnight.

2,600 contract staff.

600 casuals.

800 scholars.

8

The HRMS ChallengeThe HRMS Challenge1970’s legacy payroll system non-Y2K compliant.Limited systems integration with HR.Manual leave processing.Limited reporting capability.PeopleSoft HRMS had to be implemented within 7 months.Time line versus budget.Vanilla implementation! Change business practices and policies wherever sensible

and possible; modify only where absolutely necessary.

9

The HRMS Challenge The HRMS Challenge (cont’d.)

•This is a University environment!

10

HRMS Project StructureHRMS Project Structure

•CGEY team leader responsible for the day-to-day management of the team.

•The University of Adelaide team leader represented the University's interests on the team.

•Team members accountable to CGEY team leader.

H R D e p t R e fe ren ce G ro up E n d U se r T ra in ing

F u nctio na l T e am T e chn ica l T e am O CM

C G E Y T e a m L e a d erC a th e rin e V als ing er

U o A T e a m L e a d erS u e T u rn er

C lie n t S p on s orS te ve D a ysh

11

Role of Client SponsorRole of Client SponsorAdvise the relevant functional Team Leader on matters of University policy, project priorities and scope.Identify and raise with the Project Manager major issues affecting the progress of the project in their functional area,Mobilise University resources to assist the project team to meet its objectives.Resolve issues as requested/recommended by the functional team.Commission working parties to address specific issues.Communicate to the University community the objectives and progress of the project.Support / acknowledge success.Supply refreshments.

12

Proposed HRMS StagesProposed HRMS Stages

Time

Value

Stage 1RecruitmentReportingWorkflowEmployee Self-Service

Stage 0Core HRPayroll

Best Practice

Stage 2Salary PackagingPerformance ManagementTraining & DevCareer/Succession PlanningOH&S

13

HRMS Business ObjectivesHRMS Business ObjectivesHuman Resources will be the best provider of human resource consultancy advice and service to our University clients. Our clients will appreciate that they are the primary focus of our activities.

Vision

Strategy

Operational

Administration

WorkflowWeb

Self Service

Strategy

Operational

AdminStage 0

Stage 1

Stages 2, 3,4 …..

14

Stage OStage OSystem Scope

The following PeopleSoft Student Administration/HRMS Version 7.5 HP Products were implemented:

Human ResourcesBenefitsPayrollLeave

15

Stage O Stage O (cont’d.)

Functionality Scope

Position Management

Workforce Administration

Benefit Administration

Leave Management

Payroll

Management Reporting

16

HRMS CornerstoneHRMS Cornerstone

PeopleSoft HRMS

• Bonding

• Planning

• Scoping

• Leveraging Staff

• Communication

Tax

DEETYA

Staff

SuperannuationStudents

Managers

ABS

Suppliers

AuditorGeneral

UnionIntranet ……………Research

Financials

StudentAdministration

CampusComm

SmartCard

EB

• Staff Plan• BPR• Org Structure• Training• etc

GL

Superannuation

17

HRMS Critical Success FactorsHRMS Critical Success Factors

Relationship with implementation partner.

Implementation complete by early November 1999.

All employees are paid correctly.

HR, Leave and Payroll systems are integrated.

Ability to create ad-hoc management reports.

Vanilla implementation.

Changes accepted across the University.

18

Threats to ImplementationThreats to ImplementationEnergy may decline.Team operation fails.Stress or decline in performance of some individuals resulting from workload.Staff turnover.The technology infrastructure is new to the University.Setting process improvements which are not attainable in the timeframe and with the resources available.Failure to obtain prompt decisions at various stages of the project would impact the critical path.Union agreement eg. PeopleSoft algorithm versus the University of Adelaide algorithm.

19

Steps in the ImplementationSteps in the Implementation

Current state assessmentFuture state solutionData conversion requirementsInterface development requirementsConference Room PilotParallel Testing 1 and 2Acceptance Test ReportingApproval to Go LiveGo Live

20

The Implementation ApproachThe Implementation Approach

Current State Analysis

People

Solution Definition

Process Technology

Package BasedProcess Model

Visioning

21

The Implementation ApproachThe Implementation Approach

Future State Analysis

CRP

Solution Design

22

The Implementation ApproachThe Implementation Approach

Base Package

Solution Development

Interfaces

Modifications

Extensions

Configuration

23

The Implementation ApproachThe Implementation Approach

USER-ACCEPTANCE TESTING

System Implementation

APPLICATION SUPPORT

PRODUCTIONCUTOVER

24

So How Did it Go?So How Did it Go?Project plan was visible and under constant review and revision.Lack of University of Adelaide technical resources created ‘dependencies’ on CGEY.Unhealthy reliance on project payroll manager.Finance were implementing new chart of accounts at the same time.Project delivered within budget and under time (further GL work done after go live).Almost drowned in bureaucracy.Team meetings kept everyone on track.Other teams weren’t in synch with our plan and critical paths, e.g. GL interface.

25

(cont’d.)Well supported by University of Adelaide HR staff.“Failure is not an option” drilled into team.SUMO ... ‘Shut up and move on!’OCM too much and too late and needed to be driven by University of Adelaide not CGEY.Training effective due to project team involvement.Communications between Project Team and University IT almost non-existent.Program office sometimes delayed things, i.e. templates for deliverables.Post go live support not adequate.Skills transfer to University of Adelaide IT not as effective.Project delivered within budget, however work was done after implementation CGL interface, chart of accounts.

26

Lessons LearnedLessons Learned

Project team:Best staff selected.Small team sizes:

Better transfer of knowledgeBetter team understanding of critical issues and

timingsKept staff managing staff to a minimum

Perfectly sized (finely tuned) project teams but can be disadvantaged if staff lost due to unexpected leave.

27

Lessons Learned Lessons Learned (cont’d.)

Project team:Provide challenges but make it as much

fun as possible.Essential to recognise and manage staff

stress quickly.Rewards:

Bonus paymentsCelebration of milestones

28

Lessons Learned Lessons Learned (cont’d.)

Consultants:Must be the right people for the team.Must transfer knowledge.Not accepted (sent back) if work or person

unsatisfactory.

29

Lessons Learned Lessons Learned (cont’d.)

Change management:Reversion to old business practices when

under stress.Never enough training and support.Best to use own staff rather than

consultants.

30

Team BondingTeam Bonding

Dinner at the local...Dinner at the local...

Partner & Sponsor get friendly...Partner & Sponsor get friendly...

31

Go Live Day... Go Live Day... …and we’re still smiling!!…and we’re still smiling!!

32

Lessons Learned Lessons Learned (cont’d.)

‘Go Live’:There is never enough time.Anticlimax for project team.Going live is only the beginning!Keep post-implementation task list as short

as possible.