1 / 10

Kuali Assessment

Kuali Assessment. Recap of rSmart Group’s UH Visit (03/17 – 03/20/2008). General Assessment. KFS will be a good fit for UH to replace FMIS, benefits include Modern technology environment Workflow (electronic routing & approval of docs) Electronic transaction documents

mauve
Télécharger la présentation

Kuali Assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Kuali Assessment Recap of rSmart Group’s UH Visit(03/17 – 03/20/2008)

  2. General Assessment • KFS will be a good fit for UH to replace FMIS, benefits include • Modern technology environment • Workflow (electronic routing & approval of docs) • Electronic transaction documents • Ability to attach scanned documents to electronic transactions • Transactions can be imported from Excel spreadsheets • Financial information can be downloaded to Excel spreadsheets • Essentially real-time knowledge, 24x7, of balances including pending entries awaiting approval in Workflow

  3. Observations • Chart of Accounts: • KFS & FMIS have similar COA structures • KFS features sub-accounts & sub-object codes • Allow for more user flexibility • KFS only has 1 ledger (GL vs GL & SL) • Both have account attributes • KFS also has object code attributes (supports more flexible transaction processing)

  4. Observations • Purchasing: • UH has a decentralized purchasing business model • Limited central vendor negotiated volume pricing • Most institutions of similar size & complexity follow a centralized purchasing business model • Recommend the University analyze & assess if a centralized purchasing model will provide better service and lower costs.

  5. Observations • Budgets: • UH does not require budgets be entered at the account level for general state appropriated funds • This is very unusual for an institution the size & complexity of the UH • Reduces the value of reports because there is no budget-to-actual metrics.

  6. Observations • Organizational Structures: • Organizational structure inconsistencies among budget, financial, and HR org structures • Results in reporting difficulties, e.g., need for xwalk tables

  7. Observations • Labor (Payroll) Encumbrances: • UH does not encumber payroll at the account level • Results in a reduction in the value of accounting reports.

  8. Observations • RCUH: • RCUH provides HR, payroll, & procurement services for sponsored programs using a separate accounting system with daily electronic feeds to FMIS; altho, some transactions are processed directly by UH applications. • Result is 2-systems supporting sponsored programs with different user interfaces. • Adds complexity for users & will make it more difficult to implement labor (payroll) encumbrances.

  9. Observations • InfoEd: • UH plans on implementing InfoEd shortly • Recommend UH also monitor the Kuali Research Administration (KRA) project which will have similar pre-award features to InfoEd & a seamless interface with KFS. • KRA is still 2-years from full-implementation.

  10. Observations • Potential Gaps/Challenges: • Purchasing • RCUH’s separate financial & HR/Payroll systems • Security

More Related