1 / 27

Building a Kuali Chart of Accounts

Learn about the key Kuali Financial System (KFS) chart features, organization hierarchies, extended attributes, and how to lay the groundwork for a successful chart of accounts implementation. Explore experiences and challenges faced by Cornell University, UC Santa Barbara, and the University of Arizona.

wayde
Télécharger la présentation

Building a Kuali Chart of Accounts

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. Building a Kuali Chart of Accounts Jim Corkill, University of California, Santa Barbara Mark McGurk, University of Arizona Kim Yeoh, Cornell University

  2. Agenda • Key KFS Chart Features • Laying the Groundwork • Experiences and Challenges - Cornell University - UC Santa Barbara - University of Arizona

  3. Kuali Financial System (KFS)Key Chart Features

  4. KFS Chart Features • Chart • Ability to have multiple charts • Charts are hierarchical • Organization • Hierarchical • Facilitates reporting, workflow, controls • Account/Sub-Account • Report up through organizations • Allows for further division of an account for internal reporting purposes

  5. Organization Hierarchy with Accounts/Sub-Accounts University of California System University Campus University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) College College of Science - 3100 Department Physics - Unit 3102 Program A Program B Astrophysics Account Account 111480 Black Hole Research Sub-Acct 1 Sub-Acct 2 4801 Cost Share

  6. KFS Chart Features Extended Attributes • Can be used throughout Chart (e.g. Orgs, Accounts, Object Codes, etc.) • What is it? • Additional field to “tag” chart objects with a unique identifier • How to use • Use to “link” chart objects that are not naturally linked for reporting purposes – i.e. tool for pre-existing reporting requirements that don't fit neatly into hierarchical structure • Example • Interdepartmental activities, link unrelated organizational units (cross functional teams, etc.), inter-disciplinary activities

  7. Laying the Groundwork

  8. Laying the Groundwork General questions to consider: • Just because it can be changed, should it? • What currently works, what doesn’t? • Implications for historical comparisons • What are the reporting requirements? • Institutional financial reporting (external) • Summarized management reporting • Departmental detail • Ad hoc reporting

  9. Laying the Groundwork Chart questions to consider: • Does the institution need multiple charts? • For separate campuses • For auxiliary operations • For high level institutional financial reporting • Will interfaced systems be able to accommodate multiple charts? • Will it add confusion for users?

  10. Laying the Groundwork Organization questions to consider: • What should be the basis for the organizational hierarchy? • Lines of authority • Lines of business (disciplines, auxiliaries, etc.) • Financial reporting requirements • How should the org structure relate to other administrative systems (e.g. HR)? • Do orgs need to be grouped in a way other than hierarchical? • How narrowly should org attributes (e.g. type) be defined?

  11. Laying the Groundwork Account questions to consider: • Should existing account structure be preserved or should entirely new structure be created? • If new structure is used, can a map from old to new be created? • Should fund/sub-fund attribute perpetuate fund accounting or represent a different way of grouping accounts? • Should accounts be self-balancing, or should the institution use the “flexible claim on cash” option? • How should sub-accounts be used?

  12. Experiences and Challenges

  13. Cornell University Cornell Environment • Decentralized campus • High level and broad support • Varying receptiveness to change • “Homegrown” system on mainframe • Third financial system discussed

  14. Cornell University Campus Involvement • Demos of FIS (Feb – Apr ’05) • KFS Release 1 Demos (Apr – Aug ’06) • Local COA team (Jun ’05 – present) • Kuali Days • Kuali Implementation Team (Jan ’07 – present) • meetings with campus financial leaders • inventory of current business processes, reports, and interfaces (both central and campus)

  15. Cornell University Cornell Chart of Accounts Team • Membership • main KFS implementation group • central financial affairs staff (accounting, reporting, business analysts) • college/unit financial officers • budget and planning office staff • Objectives • compare and contrast the IU/KFS chart structure at a conceptual level with Cornell’s • determine how the chart fields will be used to meet the university’s financial management and reporting needs • identify any gaps that exist

  16. Cornell University Challenges • Thinking “out of the box” • organizational hierarchies • self-balancing accounts vs. flexible offsets (assets and liabilities as object codes, not accounts) • Making sense of current attributes • Standardization vs. flexibility • What rules should be established?

  17. Cornell University Challenges • Meeting reporting requirements • external vs. management reporting • FASB vs. GASB • faculty reporting • “funding year” reporting • Coming to consensus!

  18. University of California, Santa Barbara Challenges • Where do we start? Solutions • Created a UC Kuali Team, consisting of campus project managers, programmers, and controllers, with a shared vision of a UC Kuali

  19. University of California,Santa Barbara Challenges • Will Kuali work for us? Our biggest concern is the Chart of Accounts. Solutions • Document our current Chart of Accounts • Perform a Gap-Fit analysis with our COA and Kuali • Hired rSmart for the analysis

  20. University of California,Santa Barbara Challenge • Our Current Chart of Accounts utilizes a data element called “fund” (different than the Kuali “fund”), which identifies funding source and used by our Office of the President for reporting Solution • Use the “Extended Attribute” in Kuali to accommodate “fund” information

  21. University of California, Santa Barbara Challenge • Each campus has a different Chart of Accounts, yet we rollup as one for financial reporting Solution • Kuali enables multiple charts, which would allows for consolidated reporting.

  22. University of California, Santa Barbara Next Steps • Evaluate Results of the Gap-Fit Analysis • Options for Implementation • Potential for Data Migration • Reviewing one module at a time with the help of campus SMEs and consultants when needed

  23. University of Arizona Starting the Conversation • Meet with campus business leaders • Demo application or mocks • Include campus in KFS SME teams • Develop implementation plan with Central IT group/Administration involvement

  24. University of Arizona 3 Data Conversion Points • Accounts • FRS – Current many to one vs. self balancing • Balance sheet general ledger (assets, liabilities, FB) • Sub-ledgers for income & expense (many accounts) • Vendor File/Purchasing • Fixed Assets

  25. University of Arizona Conversion of Object Codes • Determined we need 2 Charts • Institutional Chart • AHSC • Main Campus • Management or Reporting Chart • Roll-up for Financial Reporting

  26. University of Arizona Unit Hierarchy • Utilize Budget Roll-up Structure • (e.g. Executive – College – Dept.) • Allow creation of sub-units within • (e.g. Dept. – Sub. Dept.) • Prohibit creation of roll-up of units at this time • (e.g. Dept. – Dept. – Dept. = Unit)

  27. Kuali Financial Systems Questions?

More Related