pmi honolulu hawai‘i chapter 2018 annual awards · analyzing the feasibility of 1) an upgrade of...

41

PMI Honolulu Hawai‘i Chapter2018 Annual Awards

42

PRIMARY PROJECT OBJECTIVES• Address Legacy System and Vendor Risk• Create an integrated system of record for our resources (e.g. people and money), work and our assets• Leverage that integrated system of record to improve business process efficiency and planning

PROJECT RESULTS• On-time, On-budget, On-scope and quality

PROJECT PARTNERS

PROJECT FACTS• Budget = $82.4• Duration = 24 months• Team = at max ~120 FTEs onsite/off-

shore/near-shore• Scope – Integrated SAP Platform

o Finance/Budget/Property Accounting/Taxo Regulatory conversion to FERCo Human Capital Mgmto Supply Chain Mgmto Work Mgmt / Mobilityo Asset Managemento Governance, Regulatory & Complianceo Business Intelligenceo Re-platform existing Customer Information

System

44

Challenges• Huge change management – people project

versus technology project• Budget capped by the Hawaii Public

Commission• 200+ silo systems migrated to an integrated

platform• Coordination to re-platform with existing live

Customer Information System• One of the broadest implementation scope in a

single go-live• Hybrid Cloud and On-premise architecture• Hurricane Lane• Enable realization of $244 million over 12 years• Long hours and late nights – sustaining the

team for a 24 month marathon• Setting up the support organization beyond the

project – business journey has just begun• The organization’s expectation that must get

everything now, else we will never get it here after.

• Analysis paralysis – making decisions

Lessons Learned• Organization Change Management is not easy

nor fast – be aligned and persistent• Have firm executive sponsorship and open

honest dialog with mid management• Have great partners – give and take• Handle teaming issues quickly and respectfully• Create an environment for learning and not

blaming – fail fast• Dedicate resources – pick your best &

brightest; it should be painful to the base business

• Fly by instrument – use measurements to focus• Have humor – gut busting laughter• Have food – feed the soul especially when

stressed out• Enjoy the diversity• Communicate, communicate, communicate –

multi-channel and timely• Hypercare period is critical – send project folks

to the frontline

PMI Honolulu 2018 Awards Project of the Year

Application

Form

PROJECT OF THE YEAR AWARD 2018 Candidate Form

PMI Honolulu chapter Project of the Year candidate Page 1 of 6

PMI Honolulu’s Project of the Year award represents a project manager’s exemplary application of leadership skills and management practices in guiding a difficult project to successful completion within the previous 12 months.

PROJECT MANAGER

First Name Last Name Honorific

Employer Job Title Phone

Email City/State

PROJECT BASICS

Project Name

Overview Briefly summarize project objectives, challenges, practices, and outcomes. [150 words max]

Scope Describe the initial scope, major changes, and final deliverables. [150 words max]

Schedule Describe the initial timeline, major changes, and actual milestone dates. [150 words max]

Cost Describe the initial budget, rebaselines, and final costs. [150 words max]



I. MISSION ACCOMPLISHEDDescribe what made this project particularly significant, complex, and/or noteworthy, as well as the project outcomes such as product quality, stakeholder satisfaction, and benefits realized. [500 words max]



II. INTEGRATION ACHIEVED Describe how the project was chartered, documented, executed, controlled, and closed. [500 words max]



III. CHALLENGES OVERCOMEDescribe project risks and issues, including practices used and key challenges encountered. [500 words max]



IV. PRACTICES EMPLOYEDDescribe project practices regarding procurement, resourcing, communications, stakeholder management, and quality. [500 words max]



V. DOCUMENTATION

Required: Project charter, project schedule, risk register, lessons learned

Optional: Project management plan or related components, kickoff presentation, and/or issue register. [Max 50 pages]

For all documentation, candidates are expected to redact any sensitive information, including market data, corporate strategy, or financials.

All submitted files should be in PDF format and use the following naming convention:

POY-[ProjectName]-[BriefDocumentDescription].pdf

PROJECT SPONSOR

First Name Last Name Honorific

Employer Job Title Phone

Signature

Date

Sponsor signature affirms this project was conducted as described, that it achieved desired quality and benefits in a satisfactory time and cost, and that this application plus documentation does not disclose corporate information that should be withheld or redacted.

2018 submission deadline: October 26, 2018. • All forms and documents should be submitted in PDF form.• Send completed application and documents in a single email to [email protected]

with subject line “PMI HNL Project of the Year candidate: [put project name here].”• Candidates are strongly encouraged to submit early to mitigate against the risk of missing or lost information.

Our judging panel will be comprised of experienced PMPs outside Hawaii, each agreeing to a Code of Ethics and formally promising impartiality regarding candidates, companies, industries, and project types.

Projects will be judged against the following criteria.

Criteria Weight Components Mission Accomplished

25% Project significance (mission), complexity (technical, stakeholders), and/or notability (unique, significant) and performance in terms of baselines, benefits, and stakeholder satisfaction

Integration Achieved

25% Project initiation, documentation, coordination, controls, and closure, including project charter, schedule, and management plan

Challenges Overcome

25% Project obstacles encountered, particularly as relate to identifications, analyses, and responses to project risks and issues

Practices Employed

25% Project best practices employed or developed around key areas such as procurements, resources, quality, and communications

mailto:[email protected]?subject=PMI%20HNL%20Project%20of%20the%20Year%20candidate:%20[put%20project%20name%20here]


Project Charter

ERP/EAM Implementation Project PROJECT CHARTER

Filename: ERP-EAM Implementation Project Charter.docx Modified: 4/28/2017 Page: 1 of 15

Classification: Internal Steward(s): ERP-EAM Implementation Project

ERP/EAM IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT CHARTER Table of Contents 1. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................... 2 2. BUSINESS CASE OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 BUSINESS NEED: BACKGROUND, CURRENT SITUATION & PROJECT JUSTIFICATION ........................................................... 2 2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 PROJECT APPROACH & PROPOSED SOLUTIONS ......................................................................................................... 3 2.5 EXPECTED BENEFITS ............................................................................................................................................ 4

3. PRELIMINARY SCOPE .................................................................................................................................. 4 3.1 SCOPE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................ 4 3.2 MAJOR DELIVERABLES ......................................................................................................................................... 5 3.3 OUT OF SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 6 3.5 PROJECT CONSTRAINTS ........................................................................................................................................ 7

4. TIME FRAMES & MAJOR MILESTONES ......................................................................................................... 7 5. PROJECT COST ESTIMATES .......................................................................................................................... 7

5.1 PUC EXPECTATIONS AND RECOVERY OF COSTS ......................................................................................................... 7 6. INITIAL RISK ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................................... 7 7. QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 8. PROJECT TEAM & LABOR RESOURCE .......................................................................................................... 10

8.1 PROJECT GOVERNANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 10 8.2 LABOR RESOURCE EXPECTATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 14

9. MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................................................. 14 10. PROCUREMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 14 11. APPROVAL SIGNATURES OF PROJECT CHARTER .......................................................................................... 15




1. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

Project Name Project Numbers

ERP-EAM Implementation Project

Project Description The ERP-EAM implementation project is designed to address the following key deliverables:

Resolve the technical end of life issues associated with the existing Ellipse System Enable the Companies’ transformation via the strategic alignment and standardization of

processes across the three companies through adoption of relevant best practices as provided by a single integrated SAP Platform modelled after the KPIT Utilities Edge solution

Enable the Companies to increase productivity and efficiency resulting in quantifiable minimum benefits of $244M over 12 years as committed to the customers/PUC

Project Manager Target In-Service Date

Curt Ruotola / Ajay Tiwari (KPIT) October 1, 2018

Project Sponsor Title Project Sponsor Representative (if any)

Title

Jason Benn

Tayne Sekimura

Ron Cox

VP, CIO

SVP, CFO

SVP, Operations

Rosemary Peh

George Sayer (KPIT)

Director EPE

Practice Director

Company Responsible Process Area / Department / Division

Tri-Company and HEI VP CIO, SVP CFO, SVP COO

2. BUSINESS CASE OVERVIEW 2.1 Business Need: Background, Current Situation & Project Justification

In 2012, Hawaiian Electric (HE – referencing tri-companies) performed a high-level business case analyzing the feasibility of 1) an upgrade of Hawaiian Electric’s current ERP-EAM software – Ellipse Version 5.2.3.8 by Mincom and 2) a replacement and implementation of new ERP-EAM software. The upgrade of Ellipse would require a new implementation of Ellipse. Nine options were considered and the final recommendation was that Hawaiian Electric is to pursue the option to replace the current version of Ellipse with an established, commercially available product. This will enable the organization to remain focused on the urgency of addressing the identified risk of technical obsolescence and loss of vendor support for its existing Ellipse ERP-EAM system software and undertake ERP-EAM software-driven process improvements. In early 2012, HE selected SAP as the replacement platform and selected KPIT as the primary system integrator. Subsequently, the PUC Application for the ERP/EAM Implementation was submitted at the end of 2012. The processing of the application was delayed by two factors: 1) the need to address additional benefits as requested by the Consumer Advocate; and 2) the potential of an impending merger with NextEra Energy. In October 2015, the PUC issued a D&O (1) finding that there is a need to replace the HE’s existing ERP/EAM system, (2) denying HE’s request to defer the costs for the ERP software purchased in 2012 and (3) deferring any ruling on whether it is reasonable




and in the public interest for HE to commence with the project under two options (in consideration of the then potential merger with NEE). As a result, HE expensed the ERP software costs of $4.8 million in the third quarter of 2015 and in April 2016, filed additional information per the two options on the costs and benefits of the project, and the Consumer Advocate subsequently submitted its reply. On August 11, 2016, the PUC issued a second D&O approving HE’s request to commence the ERP/EAM Implementation Project, subject to certain conditions, including a $77.6 million cap on cost recovery as well as a requirement that HE recognizes a minimum of $244 million in savings associated with the system over its 12-year service life. Pursuant to the D&O and subsequent orders, HE is required to file: the proposed methods of passing on to customers the associated estimated monetary savings attributable to the project by March 31, 2017; a bottom-up, low-level analysis of the project’s benefits; performance metrics and tracking mechanism for passing the project’s benefits on to customers by September 2017; and monthly reports on the status and costs of the project.

2.2 Project Objectives Resolve the technical end of life issues associated with the existing Ellipse System Enable the Companies’ transformation via the strategic alignment and standardization of

processes across the three companies through adoption of relevant best practices as provided by a single integrated SAP Platform (ERP/EAM/CIS) modelled after the KPIT Utilities Edge solution

Enable the Companies to increase productivity and efficiency resulting in quantifiable minimum benefits of $244M over 12 years as committed to the customers/PUC

Enhance/Extend PowerPlan (i.e. property accounting and taxation) and UI Planner (i.e., Budgeting) by integrating into the new SAP Platform

Ensure effective ongoing support post go-live by establishing the SAP CCOE Retire associated legacy systems Implement initial data governance

2.3 Strategic Alignment Aligned with the overall intents of the One Company initiative, foundational Employee objectives

to increase capabilities in achieving greater productivity/efficiency, and with the Financial Health objectives of the companies

2.4 Project Approach & Proposed Solutions In general and where applicable, the project will follow SAP’s ASAP (Accelerated SAP) Methodology and leverage KPIT’s Utilities’ Edge Rapid Deployment Solution (RDS), tailored exclusively for utilities and energy industries. Utilities Edge’s proprietary integration accelerators and business blueprints enable faster deployment over traditional methodologies and at lower cost. Overall, HE will be the primary integrator over four solution providers (collectively known as “Provider”) (e.g., KPIT, PowerPlan, Utilities International, and Ernest & Young). In cases where ASAP does not apply, a general waterfall methodology will be utilized.

SAP ASAP Methodology




The ERP-EAM proposed solution consists of the following:

SAP Platform to include respective modules for the following: o Asset Management o Work Management o Financials/Controlling o SuccessFactors/Human Capital Management o Supply Chain Management / Procurement o Customer Relationship & Billing o Business Objects Analytics and Reporting o GRC Access Controls

Enhanced PowerPlan for property accounting and taxation Updated UI Planner for budgeting Integrations via IBM websphere to 3rd party solutions (e.g., banks, payment processors) Click Scheduling and SAP Syclo/Mobility Platform for field workforce management SAP Solution Manager for configuration management

Additionally, there are specific project deliverables that are not solution based, but rather as required in order for the solution to be successful. This includes the following:

Data Management (which includes Data Governance and Framework for standards) Organizational Change Management Train the Trainer and End User Training Post-Go-Live SAP CCOE

2.5 Expected Benefits The new system and the additional automation is expected to provide minimum benefits of $244 million to customers over 12 years, largely in the form of savings from the operational efficiencies, reduced capital expenditures, and tax improvements. Over the life of the project, these benefits will more than cover the estimated $82.4 million total cost of the project. The committed benefits are as follows:

3. PRELIMINARY SCOPE 3.1 Scope Description The ERP-EAM implementation project will replace Ellipse, Oracle HRMS, and up to 100 legacy systems with SAP. In addition, the project will enhance/update PowerPlan and UI Planner to align with the new SAP Platform. The scope of the project includes:

Project Administration, Controls and Support

This includes the daily management of the project, inclusive of financial management, logistics, standard and regulatory reporting, project scheduling and controls.

Process Management

Included in scope are the processes associated with Work Management, Asset Management, Financial Management & Accounting, Human Capital Management, Business Controls (includes security administration and SOX), and Supply Chain Management.

Additionally, processes associated with enterprise reporting and business intelligence are also in scope to be enhanced, particularly in enabling end users to be able to utilize the SAP Business Warehouse to conduct ad hoc reporting.

Technical System Support and Enhancements

Included in scope are the needed activities to support the design, installation, preparation, configuration, testing and “productionalization” of the new SAP Platform. This includes both production and non-




production environments, and the support required to manage and maintain the synchronization of environments via release management throughout the Project’s lifecycle.

Data Management

Included in scope are the following categories of activities: Data Governance: The decision rights associated with making data decisions. This fundamentally

provides guidance on “who decides” on the many data decisions that need to be made. It also includes the governing structure and processes by which such decisions will be made.

Data Migration: The process of identifying source and target systems/data to facilitate the extraction, transformation and loading of data from existing source systems to the new target SAP system. This includes execution of the migration process and various “mock” test runs to ensure that the migration is well tested and the data is validated.

Data Archiving: The means by which data that is not migrated will be archived / stored if deemed necessary for compliance, regulatory and/or legal reasons. It also includes the setting up of the data archiving process for the new SAP target system going forward.

Data Destruction and Legacy System Retirement: The means by which data that is not migrated and/or archived will be destroyed and their corresponding source system retired.

Organizational Change Management

Included in scope is the train the trainer and end user training, the appropriate messaging and change management activities in line with ADKAR to support all personnel as well as specific personnel who jobs may be retired or changed, and knowledge transfer and the preparation of implementation staff who will proceed to roles in the SAP CCOE post go-live.

Test Management

Included in scope are the specific test phases which include system integration testing, end to end testing, user acceptance testing, performance testing and parallel tests.

Application Integration

Included in scope is the enhancement and utilization of IBM WebSphere in order to integrate with 3rd party systems outside of the SAP Platform.

3.2 Major Deliverables The project contains many major deliverables. Below is not meant to depict all major deliverables but rather a high level summary of key deliverables by phase:

Key Deliverables by Phase Phase Key DeliverablesProject Preparation Project Charter

Integrated Project Management Plan Project Mobilization and Kickoff Activities Initial Overall Project Schedule

Blueprint Preliminary Business Process Designs Technical Environment Setup (Non-Production) Data Migration Strategy and Approach Legacy System Retirement Plan Testing Strategy and Approach Organizational Change Management Plan and Readiness Assessment

Realization Finalized Business Process Designs and Business Process Procedures Technical and Functional Specifications Test Plans ( Unit, Integration, User Acceptance, System)




Phase Key Deliverables Configured/Customization/Integration of the system according to Blueprint Data Migration Activities Training Environment & User Roles End User Training Materials

Final Preparation System Validation (Security, Data, Configuration, Development, Technical, Infrastructure)

Production Support Plan (SAP CCOE) Cutover Plan End-User Training Go/No-Go Decision Production System

Post Go-Live Support

Production Support Execution (SAP CCOE live) Go-Live Review (Operations, Security, and Audit) Project Close

3.3 Out of Scope SAP S4 HANA SAP Asset Lifecycle Accounting SAP Business Planning and Consolidation

3.4 Project Assumptions Project official start was January 9, 2017 Decision-making is authorized to the PMO with concurrence from Executive Sponsor Project scope philosophy will be based on the preference to “out of box” functionality Project cannot freeze the CIS Production environment and will have to synchronize the releases

between CIS and ERP/EAM throughout the implementation Automation in the new SAP system of all functionality that is currently automated by the existing

Ellipse system, so that the Ellipse system can be turned off and removed upon completion of the Implementation Project

Retirement of up to 100 other legacy applications whose functionalities are either retired and/or addressed by the new ERP/EAM system

Establishment of a data governance process in order to improve the quality of the data gathered and to be maintained in the new ERP/EAM system

Implementation of a training program for the new SAP system that follows the traditional “train-the-trainer” model, by which a team of community-based trainers are taught to deliver specific functional training to others utilizing the processes within the organization

Standardization of certain other third-party applications and interfaces, and data integration, into an enterprise service that is reusable and sustainable from a long- term perspective

Procurement of outside services from directly-sourced third-party vendors in order to address the following key requirements:

o Backend controls and risk management services related to the Companies’ SOX compliance requirements;

o SAP direct involvement in order to verify that its product is implemented to its required support specifications, and to provide support to the implementation should there be product issues; and

o External professional quality assurance in order to provide unbiased assessments of the implementation process.

The organization will bring to bear the appropriate “A” team members to participate and support the Project

HE will prioritize this project’s activities ahead of other conflicting activities




The KPIT Utilities Edge solution contains “best practices” which will be adopted unless it affects HE’s ability to comply with regulatory requirements or Hawaii State law.

3.5 Project Constraints The project cost recovery is limited to $77.6 million

4. TIME FRAMES & MAJOR MILESTONES The major time frame and milestones are as follows:

ERP-EAM Implementation Time Frame and Milestones

Milestones Description Dates Ramp-Up / Mobilization Pre-Implementation Work Aug. 12, 2016 –

Jan. 8, 2017 Project Implementation Start

ERP/EAM Implementation Project Kick-Off Jan. 9, 2017

Project Preparation Phase Detailed project planning, team mobilization and preparation for the ERP/EAM Implementation Project

Jan. 9, 2017 – Mar. 3, 2017

Blueprint Phase Utilize SAP best practices to support the business requirements of the Companies

Mar. 1, 2017 – Sep. 1, 2017

Realization Phase Implement all the business process configuration decisions based on the Blueprint in the new SAP Platform. Testing and confirmation of design configurations. Data migration and readiness.

Sep. 5, 2017 – Jun. 1, 2018

Final Preparation Phase Finalize user acceptance testing, end-user training, system management and cutover rehearsals activities

Jun. 4, 2018 – Sep. 30, 2018

Go-Live ERP/EAM Implementation Go-Live Oct. 1, 2018 Post Go-Live Support Phase

Live production support to end users Oct. 1, 2018 – Dec. 31, 2018

5. PROJECT COST ESTIMATES The project’s total estimated budget is detailed in the table below.

5.1 PUC Expectations and Recovery of Costs The Decision & Order to proceed with the implementation was granted on August 15, 2016. The PUC capped the cost recovery at $77.6M. The expected cost recovery mechanism is a combination of utilizing a net cost/benefit enterprise systems surcharge starting at go-live until the respective company’s next rate case. Details of this mechanism and the exact execution of it will be defined during the implementation and expected to be delivered to the PUC in Sept of 2017. Monthly reports on the status and cost of the project began in February 2017.

6. INITIAL RISK ASSESSMENT Project Internal Risks

o Complex implementation may be difficult for the companies to consume due to the broad project scope that includes SAP, PowerPlan, UI Planner, and other peripheral systems

o Stakeholder rejection of the new system and the restructured operating environment o Employees who are afraid of or do not want to learn new processes




o Union objects to revised job duties that fall outside of the collective agreement o Limited personnel with SAP expertise within company available to the project o Potential misalignment and inconsistent support for the Leads at home base o Full scope of UI Planner efforts will not be known until Business requirements are identified in

April Cost Accounting and Budget workshops o Competition with other critical projects impacting the same process areas and employees at

the same time External Risks

o Extremely high level of regulatory oversight o Changes to H1-B visas delaying consultant availability

7. QUALITY There are five quality assurance mechanisms identified for this Project. Although each focuses on different components of the Project, they are collectively designed to allow for unbiased, external reviews of the Project and its deliverables with the intent of catching issues early and providing support to manage and mitigate risks. The Project Managers are responsible to ensure good coordination of quality assurance efforts such that they do not interfere with critical Project activities and are productively leveraged throughout the Project.

Company Project Health Checks In addition to the Project management framework outlined above, the EPMO has institutionalized Project and program management improvement through its Project Health Check (“PHC”) process. These health checks are expected to be conducted during the course of the Project.

A PHC includes interviews and provides feedback to Project leadership. It provides information on Project risks as well as recommendations that can be implemented for immediate improvements. PHC interviews and feedback are based on the framework and review data such as: Project plans describing work to be performed and how the Project will operate; procedures to confirm that key tasks are performed in a systematic and transparent manner; the records that management uses to control status and events; the Project management activities that are used to plan, control and react to day-to-day activities; and Project management resources and tools.

The Project will benefit from the frank discussion of issues and actions resulting from the PHC based on the neutral feedback from EPMO external reviewers to the Project. PHC reports will be completed and distributed electronically to the Project Sponsors, Directors and Managers for review and follow up. HE is solely responsible for the cost and management of the resources conducting the PHC. External Company Quality Assurance HE will be employing an external quality assurance expert that reports directly to the CEO as a supportive measure in which third-party feedback and input can be used to help identify potential risks, while providing proactive advice to mitigate issues. Such feedback and/or actions to remediate/prevent issues/risks will be provided to – and as needed, put into action by – HE CEO, Executive Sponsor and Project Leadership Team. HE is solely responsible for the cost and management of the external Company quality assurance expert. SAP Quality Assurance HE may engage SAP to perform quality assurance activities throughout the Project’s lifecycle. The SAP quality assurance services for implementation will include planning, feasibility, technical integration, operations competence and go-live checks. This is to ensure that the implementation results in a quality delivery both from a technical and functional business perspective of the new system. It is expected that Provider will collaborate and work with SAP personnel when needed as outlined by the SAP quality




assurance process. Joint planning of such activities will be conducted and confirmed during the Project Preparation phase of the Project.1 SAP is responsible for the performance of this service, and HE is responsible for the cost and management of this service with SAP. Third‐Party Sarbanes‐Oxley (“SOX”) and General Controls Compliance Audit HE may engage a third party vendor to conduct SOX control evaluations and audits in order to ensure that the Project will conform to required Company SOX and general controls compliance requirements. It is expected that Provider will collaborate and work with the third-party vendor in order to complete this process. Joint planning of such activities will be conducted and confirmed during the Project Preparation phase of the Project. The contracted third party will be responsible for the performance of this service, and HE is responsible for the cost and management of this service with the third-party vendor. Provider Engagement Quality Assurance Provider will fulfill its obligations to HE as outlined in the contract documents by providing an experienced team of people who will be dedicated to providing high quality services and deliverables. As part of Provider’s Quality Policy, oversight will be conducted periodically throughout the lifecycle of the Project by a Provider senior executive who is not part of the Project team. Provider Quality Assurance Process and Activities Besides providing the necessary team, tools, resources, oversight and guidance to deliver a quality system and its supporting documentation to HE, Provider will also provide a Quality Assurance Manager (“QAM”). The QAM will monitor the activities of the Project through all phases. The QAM assigned to the Project will be selected from the Provider’s Senior Management Team and will perform independent reviews on the state of the Project.

The QAM will make periodic on-site visits, conduct off-site reviews, and interview various members of the team from Provider and HE. Some of these interviews and reviews will be included in the Project plan. Others may be conducted randomly, and while not officially part of the Project plan, will be scheduled by taking into account the team members’ availability, recognizing the limitations of the Project Team’s time and the necessity of addressing any issues found in prior assessments. The QAM will: 1) monitor the solution as it is architected; 2) spot-check deliverables; 3) monitor the Project plan; 4) review status reports; 5) review the Requirements Traceability Matrix (“RTM”) ,2 Project Change Requests (“PCRs”), issues and risks; 6) participate in various meetings; and 7) provide prompt feedback to the team. A written report will be provided within five (5) business days of the conclusion of each visit. If the QAM has provided any recommendations, the Project Team will internally make any adjustments as required, and report back to the QAM that these changes have been effected or explain why any changes have not been effected. The Project Team will respond in writing to any recommendations provided by the QAM within the mutually agreed upon response timeframe determined at that time.

1 The Project Preparation Phase begins once the Project is officially kicked‐off. It is currently planned to run from January

9th through March 3rd, 2017. 2 The RTM is a tracking mechanism, listing all agreed‐upon, in‐scope articles and deliverables as stated in the particular

Provider contract documents that will be tracked throughout the life of the Project and signed off when complete by both HE and Provider. This document provides the traceability of each deliverable to the specific requirement identified to be met. It will be used to help control the status of deliverables, as well as scope.




Provider Quality Assurance Assessments An official Quality Assurance Assessment report will be provided to HE at approximately two month intervals as warranted by previous findings, or at minimum, at the end of a phase, not to exceed four months from the previous assessment. There will be no Quality Assurance Assessment performed during the Project Preparation Phase. Each assessment will include risk indicators, recommendations, trends, and comments from the QAM in the following areas:

Executive sponsorship support Adherence to Project governance Productivity and knowledge of the resources Overall compliance to the Project plan schedule Compliance to the contract documents, including Scope Quality and completeness of Deliverables Workstream Reviews – at point in time:

o Overall effectiveness of the Project Management Team o Organizational Change Management effectiveness o Productivity and supportiveness of the Technology Teams o Productivity and effectiveness of the other Workstreams

The Provider Project resources will be assessed on their performance. They will read, react and take corrective measures to ensure that the Project stays on track to be delivered on time, scope, quality and budget. If the Provider team members do not agree with the Quality Assurance Assessment provided by the QAM, they can arrange for a meeting with the QAM, and/or provide a written response to the assessment. If an issue is not resolved after such meeting or written response, then it will be submitted to the Provider PLT requesting resolution.

For any specific risks, comments, recommendations and/or trends the QAM has provided that are solely the responsibility of HE or the Provider, HE or Provider will respond in writing to QAM as provided above if they do not agree with the assessment or cannot remedy the situation without an impact to the Project timeline or cost.

If a report contains a high risk indicator and/or recommends corrective actions, the QAM will follow up with interim assessments targeting the area of concern and will include in subsequent reports the status of all such items, until all risks are addressed, corrective actions taken, and/or disagreement with the finding and acceptance of the risk is documented.

8. PROJECT TEAM & LABOR RESOURCE 8.1 Project Governance The following table defines the key project roles and responsibilities as needed in order to engage the Project’s governance process.

Key Project Roles and Responsibilities (Company and Provider)

Role High Level Description Responsibilities Executive Sponsor/s

Primary executives in charge of the Project.

Sets the overall executive direction and tone of the Project. Primary executives decision maker on strategic and policy level issues.




Role High Level Description Responsibilities Implementation Manager

Overall implementation manager Primary leader representative to ensure that the overall project executes well and is accepted by the organization

Represents the delegated executive sponsor(s) decision maker who is on the ground and helping to lead and coordinate the daily operations of the project.

Project Director Primary functional leader of the Project.

Responsible for the financial, regulatory and executive management of the project.

Primary decision maker on overall management issues. Project Manager

Primary project management leader of the Project.

Responsible for the daily execution of the project. Manages the scope, cost, time and quality aspects of the Project through the assigned Project resources.

Coordinates activities with other Project managers to ensure project cohesion and aligned focus on successful execution of deliverables and quick escalation/resolution of potential issues.

He Architects Provide functional and technical solution architecture direction and resolution.

Responsible for ensuring that the solution implemented meets the overall cohesive functional and technical requirements.

Provide guidance and leadership to ensure that the automation provided fits into the overall enterprise processes and technical architecture.

Leads Provide work stream level leadership (e.g., asset management, finance, human resource).

Responsible for facilitating and coordinating all assigned work stream tasks, activities and deliverables.

Responsible for managing and completing the assigned identified work stream deliverables.

Provide knowledge transfer and institutionalizes new capabilities.

Ensure that the identified benefits are delivered per associated work stream.

Manage the associated work stream functional process area expectations and adoption of best practices.

Support Team Members

Provide support for the execution of the Project (e.g., project administration and control, general controls testing).

Responsible for completing the specifically assigned project support tasks.

Conduct project analysis and reporting as needed. Subject Matter Experts

Provide functional and technical expertise related to specific processes (e.g., timekeeping experts, payroll experts, tax experts).

Responsible for providing functional and technical inputs in order to validate requirements and deliverable acceptance testing.

Responsible for understanding and accepting new/changed processes.

Quality Assurance

Provide quality assurance review and escalation.

Responsible for reviewing and analyzing project performance.

Provide unbiased recommendations to resolve potential project quality issues.




The following depicts the expected overall governing structures established by HE and Provider. Generally, Provider is expected to reflect similar counterpart roles to HE except in the case of their own executive or management steering groups, which may differ from one Provider to another.

Project Governing Structure

Note: Provider Resources participate in the ESG, MSG, and CCB in an advisory capacity. They hold no decision rights. The following table below provides further details on each governing body and its primary purpose.

Project Governance Bodies and Purpose

Governing Body

Acronym

Frequency Members Primary Purpose

Project Steering Committee

PSC Quarterly Executives from HE, Provider, SAP and other third parties as mutually agreed to by the members of the PSC.

Overall high‐level joint Company/Provider/SAP/3rd party Project oversight.

Highest level escalations and approvals. Facilitated by HE Executive Sponsor and

supported by HE/Provider Project Director and Project Manager.

Company Executive

ESG Monthly SVP and Chief Financial Officer SVP and Chief Information Officer

HE’s internal executive oversight and alignment group.




Governing Body

Acronym


Steering Group

SVP Operations Maui Electric President Hawai‘i Electric Light President VP of Power Supply VP of Energy Delivery SVP of Customer Service SVP, General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer, and Corporate Secretary

VP of Regulatory Affairs

Responsible for advising the Executive Sponsor on strategic policy level decisions.

Has the authority to preside and resolve Change Control Board escalations.

Facilitated by the Project Director and supported by the Project Manager.

Note that there may be an equivalent ESG on the Provider side. However, its member participants are likely to be different than HE’s participants.

Company Manager Steering Group

MSG Weekly Finance o Controller o Treasury o Budgets

Information Technology (“IT”): o IT Services o Information Assurance o Enterprise Project

Management Office (“EPMO”)

o Business Process Improvement

Energy Delivery: o Construction &

Maintenance o Support Services o Asset Management

Power Supply: o Planning & Maintenance o Engineering

Human Resources System Operation Customer Service:

o Support & Improvement o Customer Installations

HE’s Management Oversight and Alignment group.

Responsible for advising the Project Director on management level decisions.

Has authority to act as the Change Control Board when combined with both Company and Provider participation (see below).

Facilitated by the Project Director and supported by the Project Manager.

Note that there may be an equivalent MSG on the Provider side. However, its member participants are likely to be different than HE’s participants.

Change Control Board

CCB Weekly Joint MSG from both HE and Provider.

Primary oversight to proposed material Project changes and issue resolution.

Authority to resolve or escalate change requests.

Project Leadership Team

PLT Weekly HE and Provider: Executive Sponsors Implementation Manager Project Directors Project Managers

Joint Company and Provider Project Management Oversight for executive level issues/opportunities.




Governing Body

Acronym


Project Core Team

PCT Daily/Weekly

HE and Provider: Implementation Manager Project Directors Project Managers Architects Leads

Joint Project Management Oversight for daily/weekly tasks/issues/opportunities.

Project Team Members

PTM Daily HE and Provider: Subject Matter Experts Support Team Members

Execute tasks. Complete deliverables. Identify and resolve issues; escalate as

needed.

8.2 Labor Resource Expectations The internal project core team consists of 57 full time team members that are backfilled. Some internal technical positions may be sourced externally. Each vendor will bring on their resources in alignment with project schedule. Detailed RACI charts with each vendor are included and agreed upon the SOW with each vendor. Refer to the Project Organization Chart in Appendix A.

9. MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS Internal

Tri-Company (primary) o Energy Delivery Process Area o Power Supply Process Area o Finance Process Area o System Operations o CIO Process Area o Human Resources o Procurement o Regulatory

HEI

External

PUC Consumer Advocate Unions Providers

10. PROCUREMENT The majority of the procurements are service contracts with system integrators, hardware,

and software/maintenance There are no special procurement treatments needed




11. APPROVAL SIGNATURES OF PROJECT CHARTER Role Name Title Signature Date

Project Manager Curt Ruotola Enterprise Project/ Program Manager

Project Manager Ajay Tiwari Project Manager (KPIT)

Project Director Rosemary Peh Director, Enterprise Performance Excellence

Project Director George Sayer Practice Director, Energy & Utilities (KPIT)

Assistant Project Director

Hamilton Hung Manager, Ellipse Administration

Executive Sponsor

Ron Cox SVP, COO

Executive Sponsor

Tayne Sekimura SVP, CFO

Executive Sponsor / Implementation Manager

Jason Benn VP, CIO


Risks/Issues

Register

ERP/EAM Implementation Project RISK REGISTER As of 11/6/2018

Modified Modified By Workstream Status Owner Risk Title Risk Description Probability Impact Priority (P x I) Approach Risk Trigger7/16/2018 14:46 HCM Risk Closed Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

expires 10/31/2018Timing implications with ERP go‐live and new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with potential changes to pay penalties, etc., for bargaining unit employees effective 11/1/2018.

1: Low 5: High 5 Accept Finalization of terms of new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

7/12/2018 12:03 FM‐UIP Risk Closed Population of UIPlanner Staging Tables UIPlanner staging tables need to be populated with SAP data by 12/31/2017 to faciliate build work for UIP/SAP integration.

Delay in populating the staging tables increases the risk of being ready for integration testing according to the project schedule.

R&Acommented on 12/20/2017 that the tables would not be populated until the start of SIT2.

5: High 3: Medium 15 Mitigate UIPlanner staging tables not populated

7/12/2018 11:59 FM‐UIP Risk Closed UIPlanner Integration for SIT2 Risk of UIP/SAP integration being ready for SIT2. Project CR approved which will move project budgeting/initiation functionality from SAP project systems to UIPlanner without any change to project schedule or expectations for SIT2.

4: Medium‐High

4: Medium‐High

16 Accept Not meeting milestone dates

5/22/2018 10:05 WKM Mitigation Planned

WKM‐Data Conversion FLOC,FLOC Class/Characteristics,Equip,Equip Class/Characteristics data conversion for Energy Delivery is way behind.

Coding Status of ALL equipment types are as follows (33 Total equipment types):‐ Not Started (0%): 15‐ 1%‐15%: 1‐ 26%‐50%: 10‐ >50%: 7

Coding Status for Priority 1 Equipment (21 equipment types):‐ not Started (0%): 8‐ 1%‐25%: 1‐ 26%‐50%: 8‐ >50%: 4

The issue is caused on both sides (i.e HECO Functional and Data Conversion) by complexity of the conversion, lack of resources and focus on other project areas for things like tri‐company alignment, configuration, GIS interface, data cleansing, and mobile.

5: High 5: High 25 Mitigate lack of data SAP

4/13/2018 8:46 Interfaces Mitigation Planned

WKM‐GIS: Incomplete Data Load effort affecting Asset Mapping of this interface

Because the Data Load effort has not been completed, it's difficult to complete the Asset Mapping as the data load specifications are still in flux. Essentially, it's a moving target.

In addition, loading data from GIS with company‐specific rules will cause problems for the GIS/EERP interface because it cannot handle company‐specific mappings.

It's likely that the AssetMapping cannot be finalized until the Data Load has been completed, validated, and re‐analyzed for possible conflicts with the AssetMapping rules.

5: High 4: Medium‐High

20 Mitigate 1. Changes to data loading instructions (i.e. what source will provide the information to what attribute)

4/8/2018 21:57 FM Mitigation Planned

KPIT Finance resources KPIT Finance resources are stretched to the limits due to the many tasks at hand. Examples of these tasks include (but are not limited to): ‐SIT3 testing support‐Data conversion‐Go‐live preparations‐Training documents creation‐Assistance to HE finance folks and other workstreams‐Other requests from KPIT project management

In particular, 2 items are noteworthy: ‐Cash flow report ‐ complex fricew item‐Treasury and Accounts Payable testing and preparations (X being only one person to handle both areas)

KPIT finance folks have done the best they could and expended extra hours. This risk is not a reflection on their efforts.

The risk is that activities mentioned above (or others not listed) may not be completed on time or with adequate quality due to lack of time.

Other workstreams may also be experiencing this situation.

4: Medium‐High

5: High 20 Mitigate Deliverables are missed or are of inadequate quality

Hawaiian Electric Companies Data Classification: Internal 1 of 5


Modified Modified By Workstream Status Owner Risk Title Risk Description Probability Impact Priority (P x I) Approach Risk Trigger3/1/2018 11:15 CPM Trigger

Response Implemented

SOX Controls may not be incorporated into test scripts for SIT 2

All SOX Controls may not be tested during SIT 2. As of 2/8/18, only a portion of FM and SCM controls have been embedded/called out in the test scripts for SIT 2. Further, there are additional scripts being added after SIT 1 that the controls team has not seen.

3: Medium 5: High 15 Mitigate Quality test scripts with SOX Controls aren't provided to Controls team by Monday, 2/12/18 EOD.

1/12/2018 8:36 OCM Mitigation Planned

New Training Lead Training lead switch right before the Training Need Assessment deliverable is due. Tracking of received plans is not complete. Worried that we miss important aspects of the need assessment due to this loss of knowledge transfer. Former Training Lead was a strong "EnableNow" trainer.

5: High 5: High 25 Mitigate Miss the 12‐31‐17 deadline for Training Needs Assessment

12/14/2017 8:42 OCM Mitigation Planned

Resource Availability for Cataloging the Business Impacts

Teams are not showing up for scheduled meetings for Change Management ready to discuss the change impacts to process and organization impact for CM to coordinate and communicate the changes out to home‐based operations.

4: Medium‐High

5: High 20 Mitigate Unable to complete the Organization Change readiness deliverable

11/28/2017 9:44 WKM Risk Closed SAP Design Changes The change to Functional Location to no longer include circuit id. This is a major change. And will require rework as PowerPlan had been provided mapping based on Functional Location at the beginning of October. The change to CU historical estimates. HE and PowerPlan provided the historical estimate percentages by WO type at the end of September and were told on Thursday that SAP would not be able to identify a type of WO below the CU level (luckily transmission will not use CU’s and therefore all CU work orders will be distribution) as well as not being able to identify if the WO is a replacement WO.This has impacts to design, PowerPlan uses WO type to default many of the WO attributes and Tax Repairs needs the replacement identification.

4: Medium‐High

5: High 20 Mitigate Design of SAP

11/1/2017 9:07 SA Risk Closed Fiori resource on the ground A KPIT Fiori security resource is needed to provide guidance on design & build. In addition, the resource must satisfy KT goals.

This risk is for the uncertainty of identifying and securing a Fiori security resource by a designated timeframe.

2: Low‐Medium

3: Medium 6 Avoid If a resource is not on the ground during the expected timeframe.

10/13/2017 22:29 SA Mitigation Planned

SuccessFactors to GRC integration 1. The SuccessFactors to GRC integration is not built yet‐‐in Sandbox or DEV. This impacts our build timeline. We need the SuccessFactors to GRC integration ready for the GRC team during the week of October 16.

2. The SuccessFactors to GRC integration is a fairly new technology. Understandably, skill levels with this new technology are not mature.

2: Low‐Medium

1: Low 2 Mitigate Configuring the SuccessFactors triggers affect our build timeline

7/28/2017 12:24 FM‐PP Risk Closed HE Plant Accounting insufficient resources

The HE Plant Accounting team may not have sufficient resources allocated to the project to be able to signoff on Design documents in a timely manner. This will also impact completion of necessary templates that will be required for the realization phase.

3: Medium 3: Medium 9 Mitigate Delays in BPD review and final sign off. Delays to review and completion of Retirement Units and how the relate to compatoble units is a large concern. This would likely take someone full time a month to complete.

7/28/2017 12:22 FM‐UIP Risk Closed UI Planner integration with SAP UI Planner integration effort with SAP analysis not yet done.

Full scope of UI Planner efforts will not be known until business requirements are identified in late April/early May after Cost Accounting and Budget workshops; if not handled by then, this will become an issue and push project scope to Yellow.

3: Medium 3: Medium 9 Accept April's Business requirement workshops under cost accounting and budgets

6/19/2017 14:36 Basis Risk Closed INTERDEPENDENCY CIS Configuration Changes arising out of KPIT CIS/Security Assessment

If the "must have" items identified in the KPIT assessment report with direct impact to SAP ERP/EAM project are not resolved before Realization phase begins there will be delays with system configuration.

3: Medium 4: Medium‐High

12 Mitigate Resulting list of "must do" items is projected to go beyond start of Dev Environment build‐out (estimated 1 month prior to start of Realization phase)

6/19/2017 12:59 HCM Risk Closed Defining security roles prior to determining new time entry process

Defining security roles started on 3/2/17, prior to any decisions being made on what the new time entry process will be. (i.e., what will the new payroll service center be responsible for? what will happen to the current timekeepers in the departments? will employees enter their own time or can crew leaders continue to enter for their crew?)

1: Low 1: Low 1 Accept New time entry process decided upon and finalized

6/19/2017 12:57 TECH‐‐Arch Risk Closed INTERDEPENDENCY with external project AlertEnterprise Add‐In

Risk identified with no mitigation planned yet. Probably changed to 1:Low" as Phase 1 for AlertEnterprise is scheduled to be completed by 4/17 which is ahead of the end of the Blueprinting phase.

If AlertEnterprise project slips past Blueprinting phase it may result in additional labor for configuration and testing with the SAP ERP/EAM landscape. ITS project plan expected by 2/3.

1: Low 2: Low‐Medium

2 Mitigate AlertEnterprise project timeline goes beyond 6/30

6/19/2017 12:56 PASC Risk Closed Unknown Process of Adding Legacy System Status and FRICEWs to BPDs

Need process to ensure Legacy System disposition and associated FRICEWs are added to signed off and future BPDs before moving into FRICEW rationalization

1: Low 4: Medium‐High

4 Avoid Legacy systems not represented in BPDs



Modified Modified By Workstream Status Owner Risk Title Risk Description Probability Impact Priority (P x I) Approach Risk Trigger6/19/2017 12:53 DEV Risk Closed HECO Middleware resource start date

delayHECO ITS is in process of upgrading the Middleware platform (Websphere) and will need all resources to complete by 7/31/17. The HECO resource scheduled to move to the ERP Project on 5/1/17 will not be available until the upgrade is completed.

4: Medium‐High

1: Low 4 Mitigate Middleware upgrade project not completed by 7/31

6/19/2017 12:51 CRB Risk Closed PUC approval of Demand Response Management System (DRMS)

PUC approval of the Companies' pending Demand Response Management System (DRMS) Application would force changes to CIS and could impact ERP/EAM testing and schedule. The DRMS project development would occur in the CIS production landscape, and the timeline may overlap with the ERP/EAM Project.

3: Medium 3: Medium 9 Accept Receipt of DRMS D&O from PUC (or notification that DRMS D&O is forthcoming from the PUC)

6/19/2017 12:49 SA Risk Closed Fiori being added to project scope. If Fiori is included in scope, then additional security resources may be required for both HECO & KPIT.

3: Medium 3: Medium 9 Accept Change request is approved.

6/19/2017 12:46 HCM Risk Closed INTERDEPENDENCY NavRisk Replacing Renaissance

Renaissance is being replaced with cloud‐based NavRisk software.

There's impact to the integration work for the ERP project. Options ‐ 1. upgrade Navrisk now and integrate with Ellipse *THEN* link to ERP2. upgrade navrisk **WITH** ERP project

3: Medium 3: Medium 9 Mitigate Risk is occuring

6/19/2017 12:43 OCM Risk Closed Technical Staff Training In the OCM deliverable (BP‐037), the issue of who is responsible to train technical staff surfaced. OCM team feels that we cannot plan and train the technical staff. The current HR practice is to hire for the technical specialty, not train in‐house. This issue was broached in the PASC meeting on 3/2/17. PM requested OCM‐lead to note the issue on the register.

4: Medium‐High

3: Medium 12 Mitigate Training plan and hiring of KPIT Training ‐Lead

6/19/2017 12:40 DEV Risk Closed Limited HECO knowledge of Work Management data in Ellipse

The current Ellipse DEV team is unfamiliar with the work managment module in Ellipse and may be an issue with providing accurate master data, data mapping and/or transactional data.


12 Mitigate Outcome of Functional Lead for work managment selection for Data Lead.

6/19/2017 12:26 FM‐PP Risk Closed FERC 106 accts impact to loading data to PowerPlan

HE's current backlog (back to 1999, with no documentation) to post activity to FERC 106 accounts poses a continuing risk of an adverse impact to process this data in PowerPlan, post go‐live.

5: High 3: Medium 15 Mitigate Preparing to load data

6/19/2017 12:25 Basis Risk Closed Support for Enterprise Job Scheduling will end if Control‐M is not upgraded by 11/1/17

We have to upgrade Control‐M by 11/2017 for support purposes. Impacts the job schedules in ERP/EAM.

3: Medium 5: High 15 Mitigate Upgrade plan timeline conflicts with Project schedule needs for scheduling jobs in the N+1 environment.

6/19/2017 12:22 HCM Risk Closed New Collective Bargaining Agreement for 4 Oahu‐based Management Employees becoming Union Employees (Predictive Maintenance Specialists)

A new and separate Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) will be implemented for the Predictive Maintenance Specialists in the Power Generation department. Implementation of this new CBA is targeted to occur around June 2017.


20 Accept Conclusion of CBA negotiations between company and Union

6/16/2017 9:53 Basis Risk Closed INTERDEPENDENCY Solution Manager Upgrade

If Solution Manager upgrade to 7.2 is not completed by end of Blueprint phase, the SAP ERP/EAM project team will continue to use SharePoint document libraries which will create significant additional work to migrate to Solution Manager 7.2 later.

5: High 3: Medium 15 Accept If project timeline to complete upgrade is projected to go beyond 6/30/17.

6/16/2017 9:52 Basis Risk Closed INTERDEPENDENCY Solution Manager Data Movement

If CIS documentation is not migrated to SolMan PROD when needed for Blueprinting workshops, the SAP ERP/EAM project team will have to rely on SharePoint storage and/or hardcopies.

5: High 2: Low‐Medium

10 Mitigate CIS documentation is not migrated before Blueprinting workshops that need to access/update corresponding documentation.

6/16/2017 9:51 Basis Risk Closed INTERDEPENDENCY with external project "Rev‐Trac Implementation (N+1)"

If RevTrac and the SAP Technical Library are not integrated by end of ERP blueprinting it may result in additonal labor and increased risk of error in code transports for SAP.


4 Mitigate RevTrac CIS production milestone slips past March 31.

6/15/2017 10:05 PASC Mitigation Planned

Potential misalignment/ inconsistent support for Leads at home base

06/15/17: Risk has been reported at PLT, but was not listed in the Risk Register. Action was to add it.

4: Medium‐High

5: High 20 Mitigate Change management not supported by home base management. Process improvements not adopted.

6/9/2017 7:44 HCM Risk Closed Timing of the completion of the 2017 Compensation Study could affect the pay structures in SAP

The 2017 Compensation Study may bring about changes to the current pay structures, therefore, the timing of the completion of the Compensation Study may impact the load of the current pay structures to SAP.

3: Medium 3: Medium 9 Accept Completion of the Compensation Study

6/9/2017 7:42 HCM Risk Closed Resource availability The lack of availability of key internal and external HCM time/payroll resources may lead to a delay in the schedule of workshops.


12 Mitigate HCM time/payroll sessions not being completed as scheduled

6/8/2017 16:31 Basis Risk Closed INTERDEPENDENCY AIX Upgrade Must patch AIX in 2017 for support and security purposes. 5: High 2: Low‐Medium

10 Mitigate AIX patch plan timeline conflcits with Project schedule needs for access to N+1 environments.

6/7/2017 16:39 LSR Risk Closed No Responsible Party for LSR work stream identified

There is a misunderstanding within ERP team that HZ owns the Legacy System Retirement workstream. Currently there is no clear owner of this work stream. Identifying as risk.

2: Low‐Medium

4: Medium‐High

8 Avoid Unknown team/lead to retire legacy systems

6/7/2017 16:39 DEV Risk Closed Owner of Legacy Disposition Not Identified After Blueprinting Phase is Over

Legacy Application list disposition owner needs to be identified. HZ has been managing the disposition of the list in order to determine the interfaces needed from legacy apps to SAP. However, once interfaces are determined, her scope of accountability moves only to Integration. Hence, a new owner needs to be identified.

3: Medium 3: Medium 9 Avoid No owner for disposition of legacy applications



Modified Modified By Workstream Status Owner Risk Title Risk Description Probability Impact Priority (P x I) Approach Risk Trigger6/2/2017 15:19 FM‐PP Risk Closed PowerPlan Labor Hours budgeted too

lowThe PowerPlan team is concerned that insufficient labor time is budgeted to meet project objectives. PowerPlan is performing a reestimation of hours by 6/29 (prior to completion of blueprint).

5: High 5: High 25 Mitigate Upon re‐estimation deliverable due in Blueprint Phase (estimated completion 6/29/17)

6/1/2017 17:20 PASC Risk Closed Dept Budgets for training In order to prepare 2018 budgets managers need guidance for ERP ‐ SAP training requirements in 2018.

4: Medium‐High

4: Medium‐High

16 Mitigate Multiple requests for a training plan

6/1/2017 17:09 HCM Risk Closed Required Weekly Certified Payroll Report (currently for rail project)

Risk that SAP may not be able to pull retro time and pay adjustments for reporting to HART.

Another risk that the decision on the payment of fringe benefits and prevailing wages may come during or after configuration/creation of the report.

3: Medium 5: High 15 Mitigate Confirmation from SAP on retro adjustments; decision received on prevailing wages and fringe benefits

6/1/2017 16:57 FM‐PP Risk Closed 3 PowerPlan BPDs may not complete by FRICEW Rationalization if data mapping sessions and conversion workshops aren't scheduled appropriately

Design decisions related to data conversion for Work Orders that will be in‐flight at the time of Go‐Live were not made by 5/15 and 5/16 as expected. Consequently, the following 4 PowerPlan conversion workshops need to be rescheduled after decisions are made about conversion in SAP: ‐ PP‐019A: Workorder Conversion SAP CUE ‐ PP‐019B: Workorder Conversion SAP non CUE ‐ PP‐020: CWIP/RWIP Conversion ‐ PP‐021: CR Conversion

Additional unforeseen costs may be incurred as PowerPlan was not anticipated to return until the start of the Realization Phase, yet additional work is needed to participate in conversion design discussions, to conduct the four workshops shown above, and to complete 3 BPDs associated with them.

4: Medium‐High

5: High 20 Mitigate If data mapping sessions are not set up for remote participation

6/1/2017 16:22 HCM Risk Closed Risk to timekeeping benefit if system unable to automate workorder process and allow mass entry of time for crews

Achieving the minimum $61M benefit for an improved timekeeping process relies heavily on the system's ability to automatically pull in the various workorder numbers tied to a particular job and crew. The benefit is also contingent on a crew leader's ability to enter/confirm time for his/her crew at one time versus on an individual basis.

4: Medium‐High

5: High 20 Mitigate If/when it is determined that standard functionality does not include automation and mass time entry needed.

6/1/2017 11:43 DM Risk Closed Data Mapping is starting later than hoped

‐ Leads have not been able to provide much assistant to HE SMEs in data mapping questions as they have been dedicated fulltime to pricess workshos and BPDs.‐ HE SME's are learning about system during blueprinting ‐ and some saying they need that knowledge to do the data mapping‐ Current effort only focuses on MASTER DATA. Missing plans for historic Master data, and transactional data‐ Historic/Transactional data identification will come out of blue printing, concerned that won't have time to then map, clean, migrate those.‐ Data needs to be standardized across 3 companies (they may use different codes, or may have different systems)‐ Work Management assets for migration, and their source determinations still need to be addressed (e.g. CIS/eGIS)

3: Medium 5: High 15 Mitigate If the data mapping deliverables finish dates slip into target FRICEW racionalization start (7/20)

5/25/2017 11:52 FM‐PP Risk Closed Improve communication process to pass data from SAP to PowerPlan

The process to work with Work Management groups to establish and agree upon information to be passed from SAP to PowerPlan is challenging.

3: Medium 5: High 15 Mitigate Work Management BPDs are finalized without PowerPlan review

5/23/2017 16:11 DEV Risk Closed Integrations PM focused on Retirement as much as Integrations

Focus needs to be shifted off retirement of legacy systems and onto integrations in preparation for realization phase. Currently Integrations PM is handling both areas, and is balancing them, but as blueprinting comes closer, more time has to be paid to integrations.


4 Avoid Retirement of legacy apps process taking too long

5/22/2017 13:46 HCM Risk Closed Changes to or new physical work locations for employees may require a lot of setup work

KPIT mentioned that there is a lot of work that is required when there is a new or change to an existing physical work location for employees. Physical work locations have been designated as the Personnel Areas in the HCM enterprise structure. The new Schofield Generating Station (SGS) and Iwilei Tank Farm are two examples of when we will need to create a new personnel area for Hawaiian Electric. The start date for employees working at Schofield may pose a risk to the project.


20 Accept Confirmation from HR (recruitment) of start/transfer date for employees working at Schofield.

5/19/2017 12:14 CRB Mitigation Planned

Community Based Renewable Energy Program (CBRE)

The CBRE project development will occur in the production landscape and the timeline may overlap with the ERP/EAM Project.

5: High 3: Medium 15 Accept PUC D&O approval to proceed with the CBRE Project

5/17/2017 15:33 LSR Risk Closed No clear process for justification for non‐retirement of applications

Initially justification for applications not being retired was only supposed to be done for applications that were to be retired in the SOW. Since a meeting the week of May 15, a decision was made to justify more than the current list of applications in the SOW. Regardless of the number needing justification, a process and clear deadlines need to be established.

5: High 5: High 25 Mitigate No process for justification on non‐retirement of applications

5/15/2017 11:14 HCM Risk Closed Flexibility of SAP/SuccessFactors to allow for future reorganizations, OneCompany structure, mergers/acquisitions, etc.

The ability/flexibility of the system to allow for easy implementation of large reorganizations, tri‐company view and approval of various items (OneCompany), future mergers/acquisitions including different BU contracts, etc.

2: Low‐Medium

4: Medium‐High

8 Mitigate If standard functionality cannot accommodate the various changes, configuration and customization options will be discussed.

5/4/2017 16:58 Basis Risk Closed INTERDEPENDENCY RISK: Oracle Patch or Upgrade

Oracle database updates are required for support and security purposes. 5: High 2: Low‐Medium

10 Mitigate Update plan timeline conflicts with Project schedule needs for access to N+1 environments.



Modified Modified By Workstream Status Owner Risk Title Risk Description Probability Impact Priority (P x I) Approach Risk Trigger5/4/2017 15:45 SA Risk Closed CIS role model redesign/cleanup HECO is interested in a single security strategy enterprise‐wide. This impacts CIS as CIS aligns its

designs with the ERP project1: Low 2: Low‐

Medium2 Mitigate The prerequisite changes impact the

timeline

5/3/2017 14:57 SA Risk Closed GRC lead is not on‐site KN has been trying to get into the USA since February but has been delayed due to visa issues. KPIT reports Kamal now has his visa and is scheduled to arrive on 5/1.

Until he is on the ground, this is an open risk.

1: Low 5: High 5 Avoid Contractor is not on site by 5/1/17

5/1/2017 16:04 CPM Risk Closed Inefficient resource allocation The lack of a detailed project plan, both overall and from the KPIT SOX Lead, may lead to inefficient allocation of resources from our EY contractors. We are relying on a detailed plan so we can schedule the timing that EY is here in person. Improper timing could lead to either insufficient coverage over the Controls process or higher hours which results in higher fees.

2: Low‐Medium

4: Medium‐High

8 Avoid Lack of a detailed project plan within the next few weeks.

5/1/2017 16:00 CPM Risk Closed Incomplete business process control design

Risk is that BPD's will have an incomplete business process control design. Turnaround time doesn't appear to give KPIT enough time to design controls. An incomplete design will require the EY/HE FRC team more time and resources to properly review and approve the controls.


12 Mitigate No detailed controls plan and timeline from the project team by the time the first BPD with required controls is due for approval. Also, incomplete controls design on the BPD could also trigger this risk.

4/14/2017 8:35 AM Risk Closed NDA between KPIT & PP The finalize BPDs from the WKM workshops are needed by PP to correctly design the interface with SAP.

2: Low‐Medium

5: High 10 Mitigate Final WKM BPD that deal with Assets.



Project

Schedule

ID Name Dura- tion

Start Finish Actual Start

Actual Finish

%

1 Project Preparation Phase 34d 1/9/17 2/24/17 1/9/17 2/24/17 100%

2 Project Preparation Phase 34d 1/9/17 2/24/17 1/9/17 2/24/17 100%

3 Project Management (PASC) 24.06d 1/9/17 2/10/17 1/9/17 2/10/17 100%

4 Phase Start‐Up 21.06d 1/9/17 2/7/17 1/9/17 2/7/17 100%

12 Project Management Plan ‐ Process and Definition 17.06d 1/9/17 2/1/17 1/9/17 2/1/17 100%

18 Phase Executing/Monitoring/Controlling Results 19d 1/16/17 2/10/17 1/16/17 2/10/17 100%

24 Phase Transition Planning 20.94d 1/9/17 2/6/17 1/9/17 2/6/17 100%

31 TECH ‐ Remote/On‐Premise Connectivity for Third‐Party Partners 33.94d 1/9/17 2/24/17 1/9/17 2/24/17 100%

32 Organization Change Management (OCM) Prep Phase 29d 1/16/17 2/24/17 1/16/17 2/24/17 100%

33 OCM Initial Planning and Prep 28d 1/17/17 2/24/17 1/17/17 2/24/17 100%

37 Training and KT Strategy ‐ Prep Phase 12d 1/16/17 1/31/17 1/16/17 1/31/17 100%

40 Solution: Business Process Management (BP) 29d 1/16/17 2/24/17 1/16/17 2/24/17 100%

41 Master Workshop Schedule ‐ Create and Publish the Workshop Schedule DELIVERABLE PP‐012 12d 1/16/17 1/31/17 1/16/17 1/31/17 100%

49 Baselined High‐Level Project Plan 16.94d 1/19/17 2/10/17 1/19/17 2/10/17 100%

52 Financial Asset Management Sub‐Project Scope, Requirements and Work Estimation 23d 1/24/17 2/24/17 1/24/17 2/24/17 100%

56 Project Documentation Strategy/Standards 33d 1/10/17 2/24/17 1/10/17 2/24/17 100%

57 Blueprint Phase 131d 2/6/17 8/14/17 2/6/17 8/14/17 100%

58 Blueprint Phase 131d 2/6/17 8/14/17 2/6/17 8/14/17 100%

59 Launch Blueprint Phase 58d 2/6/17 4/28/17 2/6/17 4/28/17 100%

60 Finalize Phase Resources Allocation 43d 2/6/17 4/6/17 2/6/17 4/6/17 100%

61 Update Project Schedule for Blueprint Phase 10d 2/6/17 2/17/17 2/6/17 2/17/17 100%

64 Update Project Roster / Org Chart Roles and Responsibilities DELIVERABLE BP‐001 8d 2/6/17 2/16/17 2/6/17 2/16/17 100%

65 Project Team Training (Project Methods, Standards, Governance) ‐ Blueprint Ramp‐up Training of CRIDS / SOLMAN / Standards / Documentation ‐ Project Processes & Procedures DELIVERABLE BP‐004

35.94d 2/7/17 3/29/17 2/7/17 3/29/17 100%

66 Project Initiation 44d 2/27/17 4/28/17 2/27/17 4/28/17 100%

69 Blueprint Kickoff ‐ Execute Kickoff Meeting DELIVERABLE BP‐002 4d 2/6/17 2/9/17 2/6/17 2/9/17 100%

70 Define scope 1d 7/27/17 7/27/17 7/27/17 7/27/17 100%

71 Prepare and finalize Workshop Output Templates 35d 2/6/17 3/28/17 2/6/17 3/28/17 100%

72 Update, Finalize and Sign off the Business Process Design document template and naming standards 35d 2/6/17 3/28/17 2/6/17 3/28/17 100%

73 Update and Finalize Agenda template 5d 2/6/17 2/13/17 2/6/17 2/13/17 100%

74 Determine Initial SAP Global Settings & Organization Structure 54d 2/13/17 5/1/17 2/13/17 5/1/17 100%

1/8 1/15 1/22 1/29 2/5 2/12 2/19 2/26 3/5 3/12 3/19 3/26 4/2 4/9 4/16 4/23 4/30 5/7y 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2

pmi honolulu hawai‘i chapter 2018 annual awards · analyzing the feasibility of 1) an upgrade of...

Documents