Steering Committee Meeting

Sunflower ProjectStatewide Financial Management System Update

September 11, 2009

2

Today’s Topics

• Project status and activities – Kent

• IV&V Report – Peggy

• Change control – Peggy

• Agency Interactions, Timelines & Upcoming Events – Gary

• Agency Reporting Strategy and Approach – Gary

• Measuring Progress – Gary

• Remaining Issues and Challenges – Gary

3

Project Timeline

August September October November December January February March

Config

ure

Syste

m, D

evelo

p M

ods

Develo

p Rep

orts,

Buil

d an

d Tes

t

Inte

rface

s, R

un D

ata

Conve

rsion

s

Begin

Syste

m T

estin

g

Agenc

y Role

Map

ping

Build Phase Test Phase

Busine

ss P

roce

ss W

orks

hops

Inte

rface

Tes

ting

Begin

User A

ccep

tanc

e

Testin

g

4

Completing:• defining and loading configuration values• change requests for remaining software mods• data conversion templates• security role definitions• functional designs for modifications

Continuing:• functional designs for reports • formulating preliminary cutover plan• support for training development and BPWs

Project Status & Activities – Finance Team

5

• Completed demos to facilitate agency decisions on de-commissioning systems (KDOR, SRS, KWP, Aging)

• Monitoring progress of agencies and completion of assignments• Five agencies are of concern; meeting with agencies’

leadership to resolve

• Conducted 12 of 18 business process workshops with agencies

• Developing training materials

• Continuing to recruit trainers, facilitators and facilities

• Evaluating help desk software and developing support processes

Project Status & Activities – Enterprise Readiness Team

6

• Developing technical designs and coding mods

• Developing remaining interfaces (mostly internal)

• Developing technical designs and coding reports

• Building and maintaining environments

• Implementing data warehouse including security based on requirements provided by functional team and agencies

• Beginning work on disaster recovery plan – will be working closely with DISC and A&R

Project Status & Activities – Tech Team

7

• A&R/DISC performing modifications to SHARP including data conversion – saving State approximately $200K

• Working with IBARS vendor to design modifications to support new chart of accounts

• Developing options for SHARP performance testing

Project Status & Activities – Central Systems

8

• Monthly forums to address issues and communicate with agencies for interfaces and conversions

• Continuing to review project plans to assess agencies’ progress and communicate early identification of problems

• Provided three briefings to DoA personnel

• Finalizing logistics with Washburn for remedial accounting course for agency personnel

• Determining the funding mechanism to support the services provided by the Service Center

• State “all hands” meeting held on August 28th

Project Status & Activities – Miscellaneous

9

• 3rd scheduled IV&V project review (Sys Test Labs – Denver)

• One week prep, one week on-site, one week to draft report

• Interviewed 32 project and non-project personnel

• Reviewed 35 documents (deliverables, risk log, issue log, project plan, status reports, requirements matrix, test scripts, etc.)

• Overall project health rated as “very good”

• Several recommendations provided:• Finalize status of remaining requirements prior to testing (7 out of 3,056

need to be to be approved and 72 out of 3,056 waiting approval)• Need to freeze agency-specific requirements• Improve configuration management plan for code migrations

IV&V Review, Findings and Recommendations

10

Change orders approved since last Steering Committee meeting

Change Control

No change requests over $50K since last meeting

Credits of $124K for change orders since last meeting

Change Request Tracking Report/Enhancement and Mod Effort vs Cost

Approval Date by CCB

Steering Comm.

Approval CR # CR Description Total Hours

Accenture Hours per

CRState Hours

per CR Total $ Cost

Accenture hours 71%

Contractual

State hours 29%

Contractual Contractual $

due

Overpayment / (Underpayment)

due to State hours

7/14/2009 N/A CR 88 1099 Processing for BPC 90 90 0 $ 17,505.00 64 26 12,428.55$ 5,076.45$ 7/21/2009 N/A CR 85 SHaRP Integration Mods 935 187 748 $ 36,371.50 664 271 129,118.83$ (92,747.33)$

8/4/2009 N/A CR 59 Outbound PO Receipt Interface Identifies 1 contingency interface needed by state hospitals8/4/2009 N/A CR 96 Voucher Origin Approvals 218 218 0 $ 42,401.00 155 63 30,104.71$ 12,296.29$

8/19/2009 N/A CR 53 Wildlife & Parks requirements Add Wildlife & Parks requirements to the RTM and identify 1 contingency interface8/19/2009 N/A CR 89 RTM updates Confirm updates to the RTM8/19/2009 N/A CR 97 Deposit Adjustment Approval 26 26 0 $ 5,057.00 18 8 3,590.47$ 1,466.53$ 8/19/2009 N/A CR 87 Remove Portal (257.07) (257.07) $ (50,000.00)

9/1/2009 N/A CR 8 Amends CR 8 originally approved 3/31/09 - deletes 3 complex and 2 average contingency reports9/1/2009 N/A CR 75 Amends CR 75 originally approved 6/23/09 - deletes 1 complex and 2 average contingency reports

9/1/2009 N/A CR 91 SHARP Conversion support $ 46,680.00

9/8/2009 N/A CR 83 Delivered Reports Identifies 81 delivered reports

9/8/2009 N/A CR102 Addl Interfund Training Design 80 80 0 $ 15,560.00 57 23 11,047.60$ 4,512.40$ 9/8/2009 N/A CR105 Cancel Deliverable 86 $ (73,716.00)

Total Hours/Dollars Used 20,278 16,407 4,089 3,191,161.50$ 14,580 5,955 Total Possible Hours/Dollars 19,130 3,720,785.00$

Remaining Mod Hours/Dollars 2,723 529,623.50$

Reserve created by de-scoped items 1,825 408,135.50$

Use Reserve for Payroll SME & SHARP Conversion (978) (190,190.00)$

Total "Bucket" dollars 847 217,945.50$

Percentage of effort by "team" 81% 20% 72% 29%

includes eGrants analysis, Purchasing modules,decrease in FARMS effort, RE Mgmt, Portal, Directory Interface, Portal Pack. Treasury Build/Unit Test

240 hours max for mock conversions, dry run testing & deployment

11

Change Control – Remaining Balance

• Balance of hours for customizations (including all customizations discussed today)

• Total Accenture hrs used = 16,407 (15,806 July)

• Total available contract hrs = 19,130

• % Used = 86% (83% last month)

• % Remaining = 14% (2,723 hours)

12

CR Req’d Estimated Cost

• Interfund Process – creating groups for notifications Yes < $30K

• Travel and Expense – payment method Yes $10K

• Travel and Expense - decentralizing Travel and Expense set up for traveler and approval Yes $40K

Data Warehouse• SHARP HR/Payroll data Yes TBD• Financial data Yes TBD

Note: May need additional CRs to address new or previously unidentified requirements that don’t surface until testing

Change Control – Remaining CRs

13

• Meetings held with agencies:• Health Policy Authority

• Department of Revenue

• State Treasurer

• KU and KUMC (separately)

• Regents (collectively)

• SRS & State Hospitals

• Wildlife and Parks

• Corrections

• KPERS

• and many others

Agency Interactions

14

Conversion and Interface Timelines

2009Apr/May/Jun Jul/Aug/Sep Oct/Nov/Dec

Agency Interface/System Modifications

Connectivity Testing

Conversion Build and Unit TestConversion Build and Unit Test

Conversion Assembly Test

Conversion Assembly Test

Mock 1 Conversion Test

Mock 1 Conversion Test

Extract Conversion DataExtract Conversion Data

Conversion Data CleansingConversion Data Cleansing

InterfaceTesting Cycles

15

Upcoming Events

September Monthly Conversion Technical Meeting

Business Process Workshops

Change Agent Network Meeting #5 – 09/30

Data Warehouse Advisory Group – 09/26

October Monthly Interface Technical Meeting

16

Agency Reporting Strategy & Approach

Objective: Identify and resolve critical agency reporting gaps

• Background • Over 150 reports will be available for agency use at go-live

• However, some agencies may have reports or data feeds that will not be fully replaced by the new reports

• Developed an approach to address and resolve go-live agency reporting gaps

• Piloting this approach with several large agencies (SRS, KDOR, DOL) prior to rolling out Statewide

17

Step 1 – Agencies list reports that are critical to perform the agency’s Day 1, go-live business processes

Step 2 – Agencies compare reports identified in Step 1 with list of reports available in SMART and identify reporting gaps

Step 3 – Sunflower Project Team reviews agencies’ high priority reporting gaps to determine if:

• A delivered report meets the reporting need• If a report can be built by the agency in the data warehouse• If a report is not available in the data warehouse and will need to be developed

by the Project Team• Team will document their determination for each reporting gap and return the

information to the agency

Note: Medium and low priority reporting gaps will be addressed after go-live using a process to be determined

Agency Reporting Strategy & Approach

18

If a report can be built by the agency in the data warehouse:

• Agency identifies at least one agency person to build and test these reports prior to go-live

• Agency report developer attends mandatory training on the data warehouse and the reporting tool

• Agency report developer will have access to a report development lab to create and test their reports

• Agency must have sufficient data in the system to develop their reports (interface testing, conversion, on-line entry)

• Agency develops lower priority reports after go-live

Agency Reporting Strategy & Approach

19

Measuring Progress

• Tech Team (Accenture and State) are working OT

• No impact on key milestones or the “go-live” date

Scope Element07/09Status

09/09Status Detailed Status/Corrective Actions

Test Scripts Cycles 1 and 2 Yellow Complete

Configuration Data Entry Green Yellow Finance Team is approximately 60% complete vs. 80% planned. Finance Team is dedicating time to complete remaining tasks over next 2 weeks.

Functional Design Reports Yellow Yellow Finance Team is approximately 50% complete vs. 80% planned. Finance Team continuing to work on report designs, but focus is on mod designs due to impact on testing. Additional reports added to queue (not included in stats). Report design and development will be an on-going challenge.

Functional Design Modifications

Green Green Finance Team has been focusing on designs for mods for past 1.5 months – 95% complete vs. 98% planned. This activity was falling behind schedule since last SC meeting but corrective action was taken to regain the schedule.

Interface Design Phase 1 Green Complete

Interface Design Phase 2 Red Yellow Tech Team is approximately 75% complete vs. 85% planned.

Data Conversion Yellow Yellow Tech Team is approximately 35% complete vs. 82% planned. There are 9 conversion programs: 3 in review, 5 in development, 1 not started. Testing schedule is staggered to accommodate staggered development

Business Process Workshops

Green Green

Training Phase 1 Green Complete

Training Phase 2 Green Green

20

Remaining Issues and Challenges

• Technical resources barely adequate to complete remaining development work in scheduled timeframe

– Accenture brining on additional technical resources– State re-assigning team member from coordinator role to developer role– Making minor changes to testing schedule to accommodate late mods

• Finance Team continues to be stretched and will remain very busy for next 6-8 months

• In general, most agencies continue to be good partners – complete assignments, provide feedback and attend meetings and workshops

– Small number of agencies consume inordinate amount of time– Review status reports each month and follow-up on issues– Large interfacing agencies (KDOT, SRS, KDOR and KHPA) are making good

progress on system modifications and interface development– Approximately 50% of agencies are behind schedule in asset conversions

• Continue to retain 2 months of schedule contingency for disaster recovery testing and operational readiness testing

21

Recently Resolved Issues and Challenges

• Data warehouse team lacked project management, technical resources and functional support

• Corrective actions taken over past two months:– Replaced key consultant– Brought in a senior manager and developed detailed project plan– Reviewed resource requirements– Adding additional data modeler and Business Intelligence consultant– State coordinating scope definition and security requirements

22

Questions and Answers

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

23

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