ERP Strategic Assessment Update May 2018 5/9/2018 ¢  ERP Strategic Assessment Update. May...

download ERP Strategic Assessment Update May 2018 5/9/2018 ¢  ERP Strategic Assessment Update. May 2018. Hank

of 19

  • date post

  • Category


  • view

  • download


Embed Size (px)

Transcript of ERP Strategic Assessment Update May 2018 5/9/2018 ¢  ERP Strategic Assessment Update. May...

  • ERP Strategic Assessment Update May 2018

    Hank Schottland | ERP Steering Committee |

  • Cabinet requested an assessment of our ERP Strategy in mid-2016. We formed a steering committee later that year and an executive stakeholder committee in 2017. ● Steering committee: Tammy Billick, Jody Potter, Loraine Schmitt,

    Andy Freed, Tonya Booker, Bonny Vosu, Julie Kinney, Samantha Hopf, Cheryl Scott, Dieterich Steinmetz, Mike Arnold, Hank Schottland

    ● Executive stakeholder committee: Sylvia Kelley, Jim Langstraat, Lisa Bledsoe, Mark Goldberg, Eric Blumenthal, Karin Edwards, Rob Steinmetz, Katy Ho, Michael Northover

    ERP Strategic Assessment

  • Goal of the Assessment ● Recommend whether to remain on our decades-old

    “Banner ecosystem” (40+ apps), and invest to modernize it, or initiate an effort to replace it

    ● Assess current state & potential future state ● Consider the business implications (risk/reward, costs,

    organizational impacts) associated with either path ● Outline the high-level path forward

    ERP Strategic Assessment

  • Banner

    Access DB

    Adobe Creatve

    Suite Advisor

    Track Agilys

    AIM Alma /

    Ex Libras Appli-

    cant Tracker


    Asset- works




    D2L (Desire

    to Learn)

    E- Builder

    Enroll- ment

    RX Enterp.

    Sky Equi- tract

    Excel Grad PlanImage-

    NowIn-DesignJump MBS

    Org Sync

    Pay- metric

    Print- shop Pro

    QAS Pro

    Qual- trics


    Resrce 25

    25 Live

    Sales Force



    Symme- try


    Tablea u

    Team Dyna- mics

    Terra- dotta

    Touch- net

    Tutor Track

    Vantose Visio

    Our Ecosystem: Dependencies /

    Integrated Programs

    Over 40 external programs interact with Banner in one way or another

  • Activities during Summer 2017: ● Engagement with PointB consultants ● They conducted district-wide outreach to assess current state

    from the users’ perspective: 46 teams interviewed, ~200 staff ● Asked:

    ○ what was and was not working ○ desired future state ○ concerns about change

    ERP Strategic Assessment

  • ERP Strategic Assessment: Pain Points Challenges % Mention

    Reporting / Analytics 85% Integration 73% Intuitive / ‘Clunky’ 73% Memorization / Depend on Others 69% Not User-Friendly 65% Work flow/Tracking 62% Manual/Paper Processes 54% Training 50% Dependency on IT or IE 46% Customization / Ad Hoc Changes 42% Error Notification 42% Too many steps/screens 38% System Performance / Stability 38%

    Challenges % Mention

    Naming Protocol/Consistency 35% Access/Rights 31% Student Relevance 31% Productivity 27% Work-Arounds 27% Duplication 23% Outdated Technology 23% Processes 23% Multiple Browser Requirements 19% Communications 19% Documentation 19% Real Time data 19%

  • ERP Strategic Assessment: What’s Working; Ideal World; Concerns about Change

    Good % mention

    Data Integrity 31% Custom reports 19% Know how to work the system 8% Portal 8%

    “Perfect World” % mention

    Dashboard / Tabs 35% Modern 31% Mobile 15% Imaging 8% Single sign-on 8%

    Change Concerns % mention Data Conversion 38% Training 38% Won't be better 35% Losing what's working 27% Learning curve 23% Time 19% Culture 15% Resources (lack of) 15%

  • Status Quo • Continue using our existing installation of Banner and supporting

    applications, and build it out with additional “bolt-ons” (NC Registration; CRM; student on-boarding, planning, scheduling; employee on-boarding/off-boarding; budget planning and management; …)

    New ERP • Select a new cloud-based software-as-a-service (SaaS) ERP

    application, plus a new reporting solution.

    ERP Strategic Assessment: 2 Major Options

  • ERP Strategic Assessment: Risks & Impact Staying w/ the Status Quo: high risk

    • Cannot support strategic initiatives moving forward

    • Knowledge leaving the institution • Expensive to maintain • Significant productivity loss (“50%”) • Vendor support issues • Branding / Student Recruitment • Employee Satisfaction

    Moving to a New ERP: high impact • Massive Change • High Cost • Culture Shift • Process redesign • Perceived loss of power and/or


  • Solution Options & Decision Factors

    Options Capability Cost Strategy Enablement Flexibility


    Vendor Support

    & Viability

    Org Readiness

    Sustainab ility

    Initial Invest.


    Status quo

    New ERP

    Positive Moderate Challenging

  • ERP Strategic Assessment: Costs Annual Costs Licensing, Hosting and Application Support for Each Option

    Option 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Status Quo* low low low low low low

    New ERP high high high high high high

    Implementation Costs

    Option Costs Status Quo low New ERP high

    * Hosting, application support, and disaster recovery costs are not included in Status Quo

    Implementation costs include the vendor’s professional services costs and the cost to bring in full-time temporary PCC staff during the implementation.

    Caveats: • The costs for all three options are high level estimates. They would need to be refined during a formal

    software selection project. • The ‘Status Quo’ option is expected to be much higher than the currently provided estimate, once DR

    and future hardware replacement costs are added in.

  • • Point B’s scoring categories included over a dozen factors (capability, cost, strategy enablement, flexibility, vendor support & viability, user interface, workflow…) for “core ERP” incl. finance, budget, HR, student info, financial aid

    • Evaluated Ellucian, CampusManagement, Jenzibar, Unit4, Workday

    • Workday scored highest, followed by Campus Management, Unit4, Jenzabar, then Ellucian

    ERP Strategic Assessment: Vendor Options

  • PCC Staff: ● We would need to allocate subject-matter experts to the project on a full-time

    basis and backfill them, including SMEs in Finance, HR/Payroll, IT, Academic & Student Affairs, Institutional Effectiveness. Similar to what has been done for Bond projects.

    ● Other PCC staff would need to participate on a part-time basis during key design and business process re-engineering discussions, as well as some validation testing at the end.

    Non-PCC Staff: ● The implementation will require a significant number of non-PCC employees.

    ○ System integrator (SI) - most of the consulting $$ would be spent here ○ 3rd party firm to help manage the project to provide a Change Management,

    Project Manager and other leadership roles if needed - a critical role

    Staffing a New ERP Project

  • PCC Should Adopt a New ERP with a Phased Approach The majority of the challenges with the status quo will not be resolved without re- implementing Banner or spending a significant amount on customizations. Netting out all factors, a new ERP, phased in over multiple years, would best meet PCC’s strategic needs.

    Phase I • Human Capital Management (HCM) – foundational layer and tends to be the most

    mature component of cloud-based ERPs • BI / Analytics

    Phase II • Finance – builds on top of HCM.

    Phase III • Student Information Services (SIS) including Financial Aid – tends to be the least

    mature component at this point in time

    PointB’s Recommendation

  • ✓ ✓ ✓

    2. SCOPE


    PCC leaders aligned around the need, level of investment and vision for success

    ‒ ERP Needs and Implementation Strategy defined

    ‒ Business Case & Level of Investment Understood

    ‒ Alignment on case for change ‒ High Level Roadmap Created

    Functional leaders understand priority areas of scope and the measures used to define success

    ‒ Identification of Functions & Major Processes in Scope

    ‒ Key Successes Measures for Business and Organizational Performance

    ‒ Program Organization Defined

    The enterprise has evaluated products & SIs and made their selection and contracted with vendors

    ‒ Product Selected ‒ SI Selected ‒ Defined ROI ‒ Defined Budget ‒ Detailed Program Plan for all Work

    streams ‒ Deployment Strategy Confirmed

    Business finalizes their design is ready to validate new ways of working across people, process and technology

    ‒ Test Data in Place ‒ Design finalized ‒ System Configured ‒ Training and Audience Specific

    Communication Complete ‒ Go Live Criteria Confirmed

    The business has validated that quality has been achieved in test environments and is ready to transition

    ‒ Test Cases Executed ‒ Go Live Criteria Met ‒ Transition and Training Team


    People and processes are smoothly transitioned to a new platform and new ways of working

    ‒ Go-live plan successfully executed

    ‒ Training Conducted ‒ Go Life Performance Metrics