Building a Kuali Chart of Accounts

Jim Corkill, University of California, Santa Barbara

Mark McGurk, University of Arizona

Kim Yeoh, Cornell University

Agenda

I. Key KFS Chart Features

II. Laying the Groundwork

III. Experiences and Challenges- Cornell University

- UC Santa Barbara

- University of Arizona

Kuali Financial System (KFS)Key Chart Features

KFS Chart Features

• Chart– Ability to have multiple charts– Charts are hierarchical

• Organization– Hierarchical– Facilitates reporting, workflow, controls

• Account/Sub-Account– Report up through organizations– Allows for further division of an account for internal

reporting purposes

Organization Hierarchy with Accounts/Sub-Accounts

University

Program A

Sub-Acct 1 Sub-Acct 2

Account

College

Campus

Account

Program B

Department

University of California System

4801 Cost Share

111480 Black Hole Research

Astrophysics

Physics - Unit 3102

College of Science - 3100

University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB)

KFS Chart Features

Extended Attributes

• Can be used throughout Chart (e.g. Orgs, Accounts, Object Codes, etc.)

• What is it? – Additional field to “tag” chart objects with a unique identifier

• How to use– Use to “link” chart objects that are not naturally linked for

reporting purposes – i.e. tool for pre-existing reporting requirements that don't fit neatly into hierarchical structure

• Example– Interdepartmental activities, link unrelated organizational units

(cross functional teams, etc.), inter-disciplinary activities

Laying the Groundwork

Laying the Groundwork

General questions to consider:• Just because it can be changed, should it?

– What currently works, what doesn’t?– Implications for historical comparisons

• What are the reporting requirements?– Institutional financial reporting (external)– Summarized management reporting– Departmental detail– Ad hoc reporting

Laying the Groundwork

Chart questions to consider:• Does the institution need multiple charts?

– For separate campuses– For auxiliary operations– For high level institutional financial reporting

• Will interfaced systems be able to accommodate multiple charts?

• Will it add confusion for users?

Laying the Groundwork

Organization questions to consider:• What should be the basis for the organizational hierarchy?

– Lines of authority– Lines of business (disciplines, auxiliaries, etc.)– Financial reporting requirements

• How should the org structure relate to other administrative systems (e.g. HR)?

• Do orgs need to be grouped in a way other than hierarchical?

• How narrowly should org attributes (e.g. type) be defined?

Laying the Groundwork

Account questions to consider:• Should existing account structure be preserved or should

entirely new structure be created?• If new structure is used, can a map from old to new be

created?• Should fund/sub-fund attribute perpetuate fund

accounting or represent a different way of grouping accounts?

• Should accounts be self-balancing, or should the institution use the “flexible claim on cash” option?

• How should sub-accounts be used?

Experiences and Challenges

Cornell University

Cornell Environment

• Decentralized campus

• High level and broad support

• Varying receptiveness to change

• “Homegrown” system on mainframe

• Third financial system discussed

Cornell University

Campus Involvement• Demos of FIS (Feb – Apr ’05)• KFS Release 1 Demos (Apr – Aug ’06)• Local COA team (Jun ’05 – present)• Kuali Days• Kuali Implementation Team (Jan ’07 – present)

– meetings with campus financial leaders– inventory of current business processes, reports, and

interfaces (both central and campus)

Cornell University

Cornell Chart of Accounts Team• Membership

– main KFS implementation group– central financial affairs staff (accounting, reporting, business

analysts)– college/unit financial officers– budget and planning office staff

• Objectives– compare and contrast the IU/KFS chart structure at a conceptual

level with Cornell’s– determine how the chart fields will be used to meet the

university’s financial management and reporting needs– identify any gaps that exist

Cornell University

Challenges• Thinking “out of the box”

– organizational hierarchies– self-balancing accounts vs. flexible offsets (assets

and liabilities as object codes, not accounts)

• Making sense of current attributes• Standardization vs. flexibility• What rules should be established?

Cornell University

Challenges• Meeting reporting requirements

– external vs. management reporting– FASB vs. GASB– faculty reporting– “funding year” reporting

• Coming to consensus!

University of California, Santa Barbara

Challenges

• Where do we start?

Solutions

• Created a UC Kuali Team, consisting of campus project managers, programmers, and controllers, with a shared vision of a UC Kuali

University of California,Santa Barbara

Challenges

• Will Kuali work for us? Our biggest concern is the Chart of Accounts.

Solutions

• Document our current Chart of Accounts

• Perform a Gap-Fit analysis with our COA and Kuali– Hired rSmart for the analysis

University of California,Santa Barbara

Challenge• Our Current Chart of Accounts utilizes a

data element called “fund” (different than the Kuali “fund”), which identifies funding source and used by our Office of the President for reporting

Solution• Use the “Extended Attribute” in Kuali to

accommodate “fund” information

University of California, Santa Barbara

Challenge

• Each campus has a different Chart of Accounts, yet we rollup as one for financial reporting

Solution

• Kuali enables multiple charts, which would allows for consolidated reporting.

University of California, Santa Barbara

Next Steps

• Evaluate Results of the Gap-Fit Analysis– Options for Implementation– Potential for Data Migration

• Reviewing one module at a time with the help of campus SMEs and consultants when needed

University of Arizona

Starting the Conversation

• Meet with campus business leaders

• Demo application or mocks

• Include campus in KFS SME teams

• Develop implementation plan with Central IT group/Administration involvement

University of Arizona

3 Data Conversion Points

• Accounts– FRS – Current many to one vs. self balancing

• Balance sheet general ledger (assets, liabilities, FB)• Sub-ledgers for income & expense (many accounts)

• Vendor File/Purchasing• Fixed Assets

University of Arizona

Conversion of Object Codes

• Determined we need 2 Charts– Institutional Chart

• AHSC• Main Campus

– Management or Reporting Chart• Roll-up for Financial Reporting

University of Arizona

Unit Hierarchy

• Utilize Budget Roll-up Structure– (e.g. Executive – College – Dept.)

• Allow creation of sub-units within – (e.g. Dept. – Sub. Dept.)

• Prohibit creation of roll-up of units at this time– (e.g. Dept. – Dept. – Dept. = Unit)

Kuali Financial Systems

Questions?