Financial Systems Replacement Initiative Project

1. Financial Systems Replacement Initiative Project Judith Freed Project Director November 6, 2009

2. Project Background • KPMG reviewed financial systems in 1998 and determined that further enhancement of existing systems would be beneficial -- ISTIP • Bearing Point reviewed financial systems in 2007 and determined that the strategy of incremental improvement to legacy systems is nearing end of useful life. Time for a move to an ERP or best of breed

3. Current Systems • Technology includes back-end legacy systems built in COBOL that have been heavily customized over the years • Front-end web applications have been built on top of these legacy systems; some of these are now out of date technologies • System interfaces have helped to automate but have made the technology and the business more complicated

4. Project Proposal • Financial Systems Replacement Project was presented to CITI in Fall 2007 by Sue Abeles with a $7.3M proposed budget and proposed schedule of 5 years for the planning phase • Life cycle replacement issue; legacy systems are 20 to 30 years old and difficult to maintain • Received highest priority ranking among all projects presented • Planning was considered to be key issue to avoiding the usual pitfalls of ERP projects • Opportunity for reengineering of business processes

5. Bearing Point view of Applications

6. More Current, More Detailed View of Applications

7. Project Start • Project was given $700k for 2 years of funding beginning in FY08; additional funding allocated in July 2009 • Project Director was hired November 2008 at 50% time; changed to 100% time October 2009 • Project Control Document v. 3.0 presented in October to Executive Committee • Current timeline 3 ½ years and budget $6.5M • Presentation made to CAO/CFO at quarterly meeting in October • Staffing of core project team is just beginning with several positions posted in October

8. Project Plan • Staff project teamwith functional and technical subject matter experts • Form workgroups with campusdepartmental and central office representatives • Document and verify current business processes from an end to end perspective • Document technical interfaces, issues, transaction volumes, costs and service quality • Determine key performance indicators as current measures of business processes • Assess campus readiness for change

9. Project Plan continued • Review what other universities are doing or lessons learned from prior implementations • Look at offerings and direction of current solution vendors (SAP, Oracle/Peoplesoft, Kuali) • Determine infrastructure readiness for implementation and maintenance of new system • Keep campus engaged and informed • Provide cost/benefit alternatives and recommendations

10. Challenges • We are the only UC that processes business transactions for other campuses (e.g., Merced UCOP, and possibly others) • Our transaction volume (13M annually) going through the General Ledger is the largest among UC’s • We have concurrent replacement/reengineering projects for Payroll (with UCOP) and Research Administration (Huron) that will have an impact on the Financial Systems Replacement Initiative • DACSS and PAN-like requirements are unique, even among universities

11. Next Steps • Set up quarterly Executive Sponsors meetings • Identify membership of Management Steering Committee and schedule meetings • Identify members for process workgroups, schedule meetings and begin documenting the current end to end business processes • Determine what shadow systems are currently being used and why they are needed • Review processes, policies, and unmet campus needs and document requirements • Publish next version of Project Control Document

12. Processes to Review

13. Workgroup Participation

14. Other Universities

15. Questions