Steering Committee Meeting

Sunflower ProjectStatewide Financial Management System Update

January 16, 2009

2

Today’s Topics

• Project status and activities – Kent

• IV&V - Peggy

• Agency feedback on CRPs – Peggy

• Change control – Peggy

• Summary of Analyze phase – Gary

• Labor distribution analysis – Gary

• System name – Kent

3

Projec

t

Kick-o

ff

Oct 6th

Begin

FMS T

eam

Traini

ng

mid-October mid- November

Begin

Confe

renc

e

Room

Pilo

ts

Analys

is Pha

se C

omple

te

mid-January

Inte

rface

Stand

ards

Com

plete

and

Publis

hed

to A

genc

ies

mid-April

The 1st Six Months of the ProjectWinding Down – End of Analysis Phase

Build-

out o

f Dat

a Cen

ter

Inclu

ding

SHARP II

mid-Marchmid-February

4

• Staffing:• Filled 2 of 3 training positions• Filled remaining position for Agency Readiness team• Last developer on-board• One position open for security analyst

• Conference Room Pilots – complete• Surveyed participants for feedback

• KITO Reporting• Pre-Implementation – final submittal• Implementation – quarterly filing

• QA Plan - complete

Project Activities

5

• Twenty-seven (27) deliverables scheduled to be submitted as of 01/15/09

• Twenty-three (23) deliverables have been submitted to-date (remaining 4 deliverables are in final review and will be submitted early next week

• Deliverables encompass the following areas:• Project Controls• Functional• Technical• Enterprise Readiness• Special scope sections

• KDOT• FARMS & Central Cashier• BMS• State Treasurer Systems• SHARP Integration• Labor Distribution

Project Activities – Deliverables

6

• Continuing build-out of data center for Development and Testing environments – February 1st

• Published 1st electronic newsletter

• Forming a data warehouse advisory group (data experts from large agencies, Legislative post-audit, KU)

• Oracle demonstration (today) of five non-core Purchasing-related modules; Chris Howe and FMS team to decide which modules to implement for the July 2010 “big bang”; will inform Steering Committee at February meeting of final decision

Project Activities – Miscellaneous

7

• Number of GL business units

• Finalize chart of accounts

• Method for Interfund processing

• Auto-numbering vs. smart numbering

• Encumbrances

• Strategy to capture greater percentage of spend data

Most of these decisions will be made in next 2 months during

the Design phase

Pending Design Decisions

8

• On-site all week

• Attended meetings

• Reviewed documents (SOW, Project Charter, Project schedule, Change Control Process)

• Interviewed 16 project team members (State and Accenture)

• Draft report due January 23rd

Independent Validation & Verification Review

9

• Orient change agents to the Sunflower Project and their roles

• Agency Change Agents include the Agency Primary Contact, Technical Contact, Training Contact and subject matter experts (SMEs)

• Agency Change Agents will be the primary point of contact between the Project and the agency

• Agency change agents will be responsible for:

• Disseminating relevant project information

• Ensuring agency personnel are adequately trained

• Advocate the Sunflower Project and champion change throughout the agency

Change Agent Network Launch

10

About Survey

• Sent to all CRP participants on December 19– One survey per person

• Ex: 1 CRP attended = 1 Survey, 10 CRPs attended = 1 Survey

– 130 – CRP Participants Surveyed– Email sent to primary contact for each agency advising

them of the survey

• Responses:– 68 Total Responses through January 8, 2009

• 52% Response Rate

11

CRPs Respondents Participated In:

12

Reactions to CRPs

• Clearly described purposes of the CRP session:– 4.25 out of 5 (85.0%)

• Interact about session content with Sunflower Project Team Members at an appropriate level of detail:– 4.08 out of 5 (81.6%)

• My agency's business requirements were adequately captured during the CRPs:– 3.44 out of 5 (68.8%)

• The CRP format was an effective way for me to participate in the Sunflower Project:– 3.97 out of 5 (79.4%)

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree

13

Summary of CRP Feedback

• Agencies want more:– More one on one time with Project staff

– More knowledge of PeopleSoft functionality

– More knowledge of PeopleSoft integration

– More communication on decisions like SHaRP, Time and Labor, COA, Program Codes

– How the FMS will work for their agencies

14

Summary of CRP Feedback

• Finance Team take-a-ways:– Provide future meeting information in advance if

possible

– Be respectful of agency staff time

– Provide follow up information

– More sessions

– More participants

– Smaller groups

15

• Pending change orders:• Set-off interfaces• Warrant reconciliation process

Project Activities – Change Control Log

16

• Continuing weekly meetings to assess software gaps (from CRPs)

• Gaps become candidates for mods based on benefit

• Candidate mods are costed

• Final decision go/no-go on each mod

• Mods going forward follow the change control process

• Process: design => build => test => deploy

• 1st group of mods will be presented at February Steering Committee meeting

Change Control – Software Enhancements & Mods

17

• Surprisingly few mods, so far; more on this topic next month…

• FARMS and Central Cashier replacement functionality does not appear to involve the level of mods/customizations originally anticipated

• KDOT analysis confirmed replacement of IFIS and VES and interfacing specific KDOT systems to specific PeopleSoft modules; analysis also included an approach to transition additional KDOT systems to the FMS over time

Summary of Analyze Phase

18

• Draft Analysis document distributed to Steering Committee for review

• Analysis team included FMS, A&R, DPS and DISC

• Three options were evaluated:

1.   No central time and labor solution

2. Implement Time and Labor for select agencies

3.   Modifications to SHARP custom Time and Leave

• Option 2 had several variations in areas such as on-line time entry into PS Time and Labor, employee self-service, workflow approvals and architecture

Labor Distribution Analysis

19

Guiding Principles

1. Agencies should be able retain their current level of functionality in terms of electronic approvals, workflow, employee self-service capabilities; agencies should not have to “take a step” backward to use the central labor distribution solution.

2. The solution will minimize additional modifications to SHARP and use delivered functionality wherever possible.

3. The solution will move the State towards its stated vision of employee self-service and electronic workflow for leave requests and time approval.

4. The solution will not add significant risk to the overall Sunflower Project.

5. The solution will minimize the amount of on-going support required by DISC, A&R and DPS by minimizing the number of interfaces from agency time capture systems to SHARP, the number of rule sets and other areas of complexity and the amount of periodic maintenance required.

6. Don’t force agencies to use more than one time capture system.

20

Central Labor Distribution – Other Considerations

• Timekeepers vs. self-service, i.e. number of users

• Three agencies would like to retain their current time capture systems and interface to PS Time and Labor

• Resources needed during implementation from DPS, DISC and A&R

• Involvement of agencies in Analyze, Build and Test, Deploy phases

• Training required for administrators, supervisors, staff

• Impact on SHARP Integration and SHARP changes

• Overall risk to the project

• Resources needed for post go-live support

21

Options and Recommended Option

• Option 1 does not meet agencies’ needs and will require agencies to maintain legacy and “shadow” systems . Option 1 runs counter to the objectives of the Sunflower Project, i.e. to move agencies to single platform/application

• Option 2 meets the agencies’ needs, supports the strategic direction for SHARP and aligns with the guiding principles; it provides the platform to easily bring on other agencies and move towards employee self-service

• Option 3 does not support the strategic direction for SHARP and does not align with the guiding principles (for these reasons in-depth analysis of Option 3 was not performed)

• Several variations on Option 2 were analyzed by the team in subsequent sessions

22

Option 2 – Architecture

Alternative #1High risk• Impacts all employees• More implementation effort

and less maintenance

Alternative #2Less risk• No impact on SHARP for 95%

of State employees who do not need labor distribution

• Less implementation effort more maintenance effort

• Mods required

Agencies that do not need a central labor distribution solution

Group 1 – Agencies that will continue to input directly into SHARP Time & Leave

Group 1 – Agencies that will continue to input directly into SHARP Time & Leave

SHARPTime & Leave

Customization

SHARPTime & Leave

CustomizationGroup 2 – Agencies that will keep their time capture systems whichInterface to SHARP Time & Leave

Group 2 – Agencies that will keep their time capture systems whichInterface to SHARP Time & Leave

EducationKPERSRevenueSRSOthers

KDOTInsurance

Group 3 – Agencies that would like to keep their time capture systems and need to interface w/ SHARP

Group 3 – Agencies that would like to keep their time capture systems and need to interface w/ SHARP

Wildlife & Parks KHPAAging

Group 4 – Agencies that will need a time Capture system

Group 4 – Agencies that will need a time Capture system

AgricultureCommerce KCCLabor Highway Patrol

Time Capture Device

AgencyGroupings

SHARP PeopleSoftTime & Labor

SHARP PeopleSoftTime & Labor

SHARP PayrollandTime & Labor

SHARP PayrollandTime & Labor

Peo

ple

So

ft T

ime

& L

abo

rE

dit

Ch

ecks

& R

ule

s P

roce

ssin

g

Distribution Processing

Option 2 – Alternative #1

Agencies that need a central labor distribution solution

Group 1 – Agencies that will continue to input directly into SHARP Time & Leave

Group 1 – Agencies that will continue to input directly into SHARP Time & Leave

SHARPTime & Leave

Customization

SHARPTime & Leave

CustomizationGroup 2 – Agencies that will keep their time capture systems whichInterface to SHARP Time & Leave

Group 2 – Agencies that will keep their time capture systems whichInterface to SHARP Time & Leave

Group 3 – Agencies that would like to keep their time capture systems and need to interface w/ SHARP

Group 3 – Agencies that would like to keep their time capture systems and need to interface w/ SHARP

Group 4 – Agencies that will need a time Capture system

Group 4 – Agencies that will need a time Capture system

Time Capture Device

AgencyGroupings

SHARP PeopleSoftTime & Labor

SHARP PeopleSoftTime & Labor

Edit Checks & Rules Processing

Distribution Processing

SHARP PayrollandTime & Labor

SHARP PayrollandTime & Labor

Agencies that do not need a central labor distribution solution

EducationKPERSRevenueSRSOthers

KDOTInsuranceOthers

Wildlife & Parks KHPAAging

AgricultureCommerce KCCLabor Highway Patrol

Agencies that need a central labor distribution solution

Option 2 – Alternative #2

RecommendedArchitecture

23

Central Labor Distribution – Recommendation

• Project is in good shape, i.e. scope control, on-schedule and w/i budget

• Team is doing a very good job of vetting and controlling potential mods

• Agencies are on-board and need this functionality

• Strong and capable State leadership for Central Systems Integration – Pam Fink

• Knowledgeable functional consultant provided by Accenture

• Central agency resource needs (A&R and DPS) have been addressed

• Positions the State for the future – 25 add’l agencies have a need for labor distribution and would be brought on after “go-live”

• Project has the resources and the momentum

Recommendation: proceed with implementation

24

System Name

Shortlist of candidate names:

• SOLAR – Statewide On-Line Accounting & Reporting System• KARMS – Kansas Accounting, Reporting & Management System• KIFS – Kansas Integrated Financial System • SMART – Statewide Management Accounting Reports Technology• KFIS – Kansas Financial Information System• ASTRA – Automated Statewide Reporting & Accounting System

Finalists:

1. KSMART – Kansas Statewide Management Accounting and Reporting Tools

2. SMART – Statewide Management Accounting and Reporting Tools

3. SMARTK – Statewide Management Accounting and Reporting Tools for Kansas

25

Questions and Answers

??For additional information on the project, please seethe project website: http://www.da.ks.gov/ar/fms/

26

Authority for Change Requests

Change Request

Authority Cost Impact Scope Impact Impact on PS Code

Base

Schedule Impact Agency Impact Law, Reg, Policy Impact

Level 1Executive Sponsors TBD TBD Any change affecting

the “Go-live” dateTBD Any changes affecting

laws, regulations or other non-A&R policies

Level 2Steering Committee Changes over $50K “Significant” impact on

project scope (+/-)TBD Recommends changes

to Executive Sponsors

Level 3FMS Mgmt Team (CCB) Changes under

$50K“Moderate” impact on project scope (+/-)

All mods approved by FMS Mgmt Team

Any change affecting KITO milestones or other key (internal management) milestones

Any decisions/ changes “adversely” affecting agencies

Any changes affecting A&R policies and procedures

Level 4 ManagersAll changes affecting cost (+/-) approved by FMS Mgmt Team

“Minor” impact on project scope (+/-)

“Minor” impact on project activities that do not adversely impact a milestone

Configuration decisions benefiting agencies that do not impact cost or do not impact a milestone