Anda di halaman 1dari 27

Meeting Agenda

Introductions
Project Governance
Project Overview
Key Activities
Requirements Validation
Business Case Analysis

Upcoming Activities
Questions

Project Governance
Organizational Structure

Project Sponsors
Membership
Duane Goossen
Secretary of Administration

Carol Foreman
Deputy Secretary of Administration

Denise Moore
Executive Branch Chief Information Technology
Officer

Project Sponsors
Roles & Responsibilities
Actively champion the project
Establish and cultivate legislative sponsors

Provide executive level support


Steering Committee and Project Team guidance
Monitor project progress

Provide clear direction


Ensure that the FMS initiative is aligned with the States strategic goals
and objectives

Empower the team


Steering Committee and the Project Team

Assist with issue resolution


Resolve issues in a timely manner per the project issue escalation
policy
Assist in removing obstacles

Secure required resources


Ensure funding/staff necessary to achieve project objectives
4

Steering Committee
Membership

Chair - Carol Foreman, Deputy Secretary of Administration


Mary Blubaugh, Board of Nursing
Alan Conroy, Legislative Research Department
Gary Daniels, Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services
Elaine Frisbie, Department of Administration; Division of Budget
Kathy Greenlee, Department on Aging
Mike Hayden, Department of Wildlife and Parks
Lynn Jenkins, State Treasurer
Deb Miller, Department of Transportation
Reginald Robinson, Board of Regents
Howard Schwartz, Judicial Administrator
Joan Wagnon, Department of Revenue
Roger Werholz, Department of Corrections

Steering Committee
Roles & Responsibilities
Actively participate in Steering Committee meetings
Remove obstacles to project success
Actively champion the project
Communicate project status within respective
agencies
Review and provide input to final report
December 11 December 14

Sponsor/Steering Committee Involvement


Decision Making
Key Decisions
Will be presented during mid October mid November
Impact analysis will be provided (as appropriate) to facilitate
decision making
Documentation and communication of the decision is critical

Examples of Key Decisions


Proposed funding model
Maximizing return on investment
Level of agency participation
User agency shadow systems
Duplicate copies of FMS software

Deployment strategy (phased vs. big bang)


Functional scope
Procurement strategy
7

Project Overview
What is ERP? FMS?
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) A
comprehensive suite of integrated modules
delivered by a single software vendor that
provides end-to-end support for statewide
administrative services
For purposes of this study, we will use the term
Financial Management System (FMS) rather than
ERP since the scope of the project includes
financials and procurement only due to current /
future investment in the SHARP system
FMS is a proposed solution that provides
functionality similar to STARS, SOKI, Central
Setoff System, and other agency administrative
systems, but in a fully integrated manner
8

Project Overview
Why FMS?
Satisfy the needs of the agencies
Eliminate the proliferation of stand-alone agency systems
Avoid the cost associated with new agency administrative
systems
Avoid the cost associated with maintenance/upgrades of
current systems

Significantly improve the quality, quantity, and


timeliness of information
Effective decision-making
Efficient and accurate research capabilities
Enhanced ad hoc reporting and inquiry functionality

Streamline processing and control of electronic


documents through workflow management
Facilitates document routing, review and approval

Project Overview
Why FMS?
Streamline and simplify States business processes

Financial
Budgeting
Procurement
Other administrative operations

Improve operational efficiency


Commercially-available FMS systems include many features
representing best management practices

Support Web-enabled self-service


State employees
Vendors conducting business with the State

10

Project Overview
Why FMS?
Replace existing disparate systems
Costly to maintain
Difficult to administer

Automate and integrate


States financial accounting, procurement, asset management,
and other administrative business processes within a single
database

Provide single point of entry


Eliminate duplicate points of data entry
Eliminate duplicate databases
Simplify reconciliation

Reduce/eliminate paper documents


Reduce paper and handling costs (e.g., vouchers)
Simplify record retention and audit compliance
11

Project Overview
Proposed FMS functionality for consideration
PROCUREMENT

HR / PAYROLL

Solicitations (RFx)
Catalog Procurement
Reverse Auctions
Inventory Management
Commodity Management
Vendor Management

Automated Interfaces
to/from SHARP

Common
Database

CORE FINANCIAL
General Ledger /
Budgetary Control
Accounts Payable
Accounts Receivable
& Cash Receipting
Cash Management
Cost Allocation
Grant Accounting
Project Accounting
Asset Management

BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
INTEGRATION
Appropriation Budget
12

Key Activities
FMS Needs Assessment
Update the system requirements for a new integrated
FMS
Update the business case analysis associated with
implementing a new FMS
Determine whether there is a compelling business
case for procuring/implementing an integrated
statewide FMS
Submit recommendations regarding
Organizational best practices
Implementation best practices

13

Key Activities
Timeline
FMS Needs Assessment
Update
Validate
Functional /
Technical
Requirements

Project
StartUp

Sep
t

Validate the
Business Case

Oct

Nov

Dec

Business Case Analysis


Report

Updated Needs
Assessment

Key Deliverables

Organization /
Implementation
Best Practices

14

Business Case Analysis


Cost versus Benefits
Standard financial analyses will
be performed using dollarquantifiable costs and benefits:
- NPV (Net Present Value)
- IRR (Internal Rate of Return)
- Payback Period

FMS Costs
Software
1
Hardware
Implementation
Upgrades
Ongoing Maint. & Mgmt.
Training

vs.

FMS Benefits/Avoided Costs


System Savings
2
Replacing current systems
Not implementing planned
systems
Process-Improvement Benefits
3
Value Pocket benefits
15

Business Case Analysis


Information We Need From Agencies
Information
Needed

Data-Gathering
Approach

FMS Costs: Estimated costs of


implementing, maintaining, and
upgrading

System Savings: Estimated cost savings


from:
Replacing existing statewide & agencyspecific systems
Not implementing planned/anticipated
systems

Agency System Survey


Interviews with statewide
administrative systems SMEs

Process-Improvement Benefits: Estimated


cost savings and other benefits that an FMS
system would likely enable/yield

Value Pocket Survey


Interviews with State employees
who are process/functional SMEs

SMEs = Subject Matter Experts

Information provided by vendors


and other statewide ERP projects
STA experience

16

Business Case Analysis


What Are Value Pockets?
Value Pockets
Most likely sources of value (i.e., cost
savings and other benefits) to be found in
each process/functional area within the
scope of an FMS implementation
Provide quantified justification
STAs proprietary formulas and calculations
Used to quantify process-improvement
benefits obtained through the
implementation of a statewide FMS
17

Business Case Analysis


Value Pocket Components
For each Value Pocket in each
process/functional area, we identify:
Specific Nature and Source of the Value
FMS Enabler
Formula for Calculating the Value (i.e., Benefit or
Cost Savings), if applicable
Source of Value for Each Variable in the Formula

18

Update / Validate FMS Requirements

Functional and Technical Requirements Development


Process
Requirements from
2001 Needs
Assessment Study

Project
Team

Baseline
Focus
Requirements Group

Draft
Requirements

End User
Community

Final
Requirements

STA
Requirements
Toolkit

19

Project Scope
FMS Needs Assessment
Functional Components
Procurement
Grants / Projects
Cash Management
General Ledger / Cost Allocation
Accounts Payable / Accounts Receivable
Inventory / Asset Management
Budget Development / Integration
HR / Payroll Integration
Data Warehousing / Reporting
General and Technical

20

Sample Functional Requirements


Reference
Number

PU 19.00

PU 20.00
PU 21.00

PU 22.00

PU 23.00
PU 24.00
PU 25.00

PU 26.00
PU 27.00

PU 28.00
PU 29.00

Business Requirements

Vendor
Response

Comments

Vendor Files
System provides the ability to track and to report/inquire on vendor
performance including delivery, complaints (including complaints about
discrimination allegations) and resolution.
System provides the ability to search for a vendor by commodity
code/number/description and by vendor number/name. (Attach vendor to
commodity).
System can infer default vendor information from the vendor master file
when creating requisitions and purchase orders.
System provides the ability to automatically carry forward a vendor
number to the next transaction (i.e., requisition to PO and PO to invoice),
optional on requisition.
System provides the ability to assign status codes to vendors (i.e.,
inactive) and this status can vary by agency or facility (i.e., a vendor can
be blocked from use by certain agencys/facilities but not blocked for
other agencys/facilities).
System maintains pricing information, quantity breaks, freight terms and
shipping information for each vendor.
System tracks vendor by performance / history, date added / deleted or
inactivated and reason.
System provides the ability to classify one-time vendors and to check
whether already on file based on multiple criteria (e.g., FEIN, SSN, etc.).
System can delete or deactivate vendor from vendor listing by date with
reason. Historical data would be retained.
System rates vendor at each event point based on user-defined criteria
and these ratings are displayed at each point in the procurement
process.
Vendor numbers (numeric and alphanumeric) can be system generated
or assigned manually.

21

Obtain Agency (Stakeholder) Input


Sixteen agencies have been identified as stakeholder agencies

Adjutant General
Department on Aging
Department of Agriculture
Department of Administration
Department of Health and Environment
Department of Transportation
Highway Patrol
Department of Labor
Department of Commerce
Juvenile Justice Authority
Department of Corrections
Department of Revenue
Social and Rehabilitation Services
State Treasurer
Judicial Branch
Department of Wildlife and Parks

22

Conduct Agency Outreach Sessions


Agencies are invited to participate!
Fifty-eight individuals representing twenty-three
(23) agencies are participating in our focus group
sessions
Sixteen (16) large agencies are participating in
stakeholder meetings
All agencies are invited to review and comment
on the draft requirements
Posted to the project website

All agencies are invited to participate in the Cost


Benefit Survey
All agencies are invited to participate in the final
Agency Briefings
23

Project Risks
Specifically related to the FMS Needs Assessment

Executive Level Sponsorship/Involvement


Appropriate Level of Agency Participation
Timeliness of survey response
Focus Group subject matter expert (SME)
participation

Decision Making Process


Impact of key decisions

24

Upcoming Activities
Validate Functional &Technical
Requirements
October 2 November 21

Perform Business Case Analysis


Business Case Report
November 30

Obtain Stakeholder Input and


Approval
November 30 December 7

Conduct Agency Outreach


Sessions
December 7 December 14

Updated Needs Assessment


December 11
25

Future Meetings
October Meeting
October 25
2:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m.

November Meeting
November 16
2:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m.

26

Questions?

27

Anda mungkin juga menyukai