MyFloridaMarketPlace

1. MyFloridaMarketPlace MyFloridaMarketPlace Change Review Board March 19, 2008

2. Agenda • Welcome / Introduction • Review and Vote on the Top 5 Prioritized Change Request Estimate Analysis • ‘CFO Received Date’- Changes Currently Being Discussed • CRB Chair Vote • Wrap-Up!

3. Agenda • Welcome / Introduction • Review and Vote on the Top 5 Prioritized Change Request Estimate Analysis • ‘CFO Received Date’- Changes Currently Being Discussed • Choose CRB Chair • Wrap-Up!

4. Review Prioritized Change Requests Estimate Analysis

5. Review Prioritized Change Requests Estimate Analysis • CR 37: Mass edit for Purchasing Code and Method of Procurement fields • Current Challenge:Currently, the Purchasing Code and Method of Procurement fields must be updated individually on each requisition line item. This causes a significant time commitment from the Purchasing staff and can dramatically affects their workload. • Proposed Solution: Changes will be made to the mass edit functionality for requisitions so that the Purchasing Code (labeled “Buyer Code” in MyFloridaMarketPlace) and Method of Procurement fields can be updated for multiple line items.

6. Review Prioritized Change Requests Estimate Analysis • CR 40: Invoice Reconciliation Accounting Validation • Current Challenge: Currently if a customer is rejecting an IR, all of the accounting must be validated to get the IR in ‘Rejected’ status. Additionally, if a customer is disputing a line item, you also must validate the accounting before continuing. This creates additional work and time to a simple process. Agencies are requesting the following changes: • (1) when rejecting an IR, do not require that the accounting be validated, and; • (2) when disputing a line item, do not require that the accounting be validated. • Proposed Solution: Changes will be made so that accounting fields are not validated when a line item is disputed. These same changes will also impact the validation logic for a rejected IR (since the reject action disputes all line items). If a customer later selects to cancel a rejection or accept a previously disputed line item, then the accounting fields will required to be valid.

7. Review Prioritized Change Requests Estimate Analysis • CR 36: Make the encumbrance number the direct order (DO) number • Current Challenge: Currently, the system assigns an encumbrance number just before an encumbered requisition is sent to FLAIR. Once the requisition is fully approved, a direct order (DO) number is assigned. As a result, there are two identifiers for an encumbered requisition and order: (1) a DO number or MA number and (2) an encumbrance number. In FLAIR, the encumbrance number is used for research. The DO or MA number is sent to the vendor and used in MyFloridaMarketPlace (MFMP) but is not maintained in FLAIR. • Proposed Solution: Encumbrance numbers are required to be six characters. Once this change request is implemented, the first encumbrance number assigned must be greater than the last DO number assigned (that is currently expected to be greater than 800000) so that DO numbers will not be duplicated. Once the encumbrance number reaches 999999, alpha characters will be assigned (for example: A00000, A00001, A00002, ….). • When the encumbered requisition is fully approved and an order is generated, a DO number will be assigned starting with “DO” and then appended with the encumbrance number. • Encumbered and unencumbered requisitions will use the same incremental counter to reduce the frequency of creating duplicate DO numbers.

8. Review Prioritized Change Requests Estimate Analysis • CR 42: Add Accounting Fields to Analysis • Current Challenge: Agencies are requesting to have searchable accounting data fields added in Analysis. Finance and Accounting need analysis reports to utilize fields such as object code, organization code and the category that requisitions and invoices are coded in order to track spending history and to accurately track the agency’s budget allotments. • Proposed Solution: Changes will be made so specific accounting fields are exported into Analysis for requisitions, purchase orders and invoices. Several fields will be available upon the implementation of this change request. Customers will have the ability to run reports in Analysis with the above accounting fields displayed on the page, row or column.

9. Review Prioritized Change Requests Estimate Analysis • CR 26: Mass edit for Invoice Reconciliations • Current Challenge: When modifying an IR, customers are unable to mass edit accounting details on the line items. Customers must edit line items one at a time. Agencies have requested the ability to mass edit IR line items. This will allow modifications to the IR line item accounting information for all line items or the selected line items based on the existing functionality for requisitions. • Proposed Solution: Changes will be made so that customers can mass edit accounting fields on the line items of IRs. The following are defined as accounting fields for the purposes of mass editing (these are the accounting fields currently available for editing on an individual line item): organization code, prefix, expansion option, object code, budget entity, int budget indicator, category, category year, state program standard, external program, grant, other cost accumulator, contract, agency unique, contract year, grant year, project id, ext category, general ledger, ext general ledger, product id, ext object, grouping character, BPIN, certified forward indicator, batch, description, quantity, count, transaction fee exempt, transaction fee exempt reason, sub-vendor, times and units.

10. Review Prioritized Change Requests Estimate Analysis • Risks Associated with Implementing ‘Mass Edit for IRs’: • Modification of core code / files: At least 20% of core files have been identified as being impacted by this customization.  Re-engineering and rewriting of Ariba code could result in unknown impacts/results to the several files this change impacts. Many of those files also support other areas of the application: • requisitions, • receipts, • master agreements, • invoices, • electronic invoices (ASN), • exception handling, • and eForms.

11. Review Prioritized Change Requests Estimate Analysis • Risks (cont.) • Challenges with future upgrades / service packs: No support would be provided by Ariba for any issues experienced during upgrade or service pack activities related to this customization. With each upgrade or service pack the change would have to be re-implemented and this would significantly increase the implementation time. • Complexity, Risk and Potential Performance Implications: Ariba has omitted IR Mass Edit functionality to date due to these concerns. • Many of the system performance issues experienced in the past were related invoicing activities. • Because this modification will impact several areas of Ariba, the investigation to resolve SIRs will be more complex/complicated and potentially increase the resolution time.

12. Agenda • Welcome / Introduction • Review and Vote on the Top 5 Prioritized Change Request Estimate Analysis • ‘CFO Received Date’- Changes Currently Being Discussed • CRB Chair Vote • Wrap-Up!

13. CFO Received Date • Currently, when prompt payment is calculated the CFO Received date is not accurate for MFMP transactions. • DFS uses a date after the DFS auditors have approved the transaction for payment. • The prompt payment report includes the agency’s processing time and the auditor’s processing time as a part of the agency’s 20-day timeframe for invoices audited in MFMP. • The ‘CFO Received Date’ has been a topic of discussion between the MFMP team and DFS. • Currently developing scope and estimate of changes in both MFMP and FLAIR to accommodate a consistent ‘CFO Received Date’.

14. Agenda • Welcome / Introduction • Review and Vote on the Top 5 Prioritized Change Request Designs • ‘CFO Received Date’- Changes Currently Being Discussed • CRB Chair Vote • Wrap-Up!

15. Background of the CRB Chair Position • History since 2006 • When re-established, CRB Chaired by agency • Chairperson moved from agency to State Purchasing • MFMP Operations Manager moved to Chairperson • Moving forward… • Opportunity for Agency CRB member to assume Chairperson role • Minimum requirement for Chairperson • Must be a CRB agency • Must be the at the Purchasing Director or F&A Director level (or equivalent)

16. CRB Chair Vote • The one nomination to date is: • Stacy Arias, Purchasing Director, HSMV – nominated by Tim Ellinor. Stacy has accepted the nomination. • Vote will be for the nominee(s) or the current CRB Chair, Rachael Lieblick, DMS MFMP Operations Manager • CRB vote for new chair

17. Agenda • Welcome / Introduction • Review and Vote on the Top 5 Prioritized Change Request Estimate Analysis • ‘CFO Received Date’- Changes Currently Being Discussed • Choose CRB Chair • Wrap-Up!