the university of texas at austin of texas at austin...attended project meetings and conducted...

The University of Texas at AustinWorkday Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) Services Project

Deliverable #21: Workday Deployment Readiness Verification Report #2May 18, 2018 (Final Submitted: June 12, 2018)

2© 2018 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 393922

Table of Contents

• Objectives, Scope, and Approach

• Executive Summary

• Assessment Dashboard

• Detailed Observations and Recommendations

• Interviews Conducted

• Documentation Reviewed

Objectives, Scope,and Approach


Objectives

Deliverable #21: Workday Deployment Readiness Verification Report #2 is the second of three campus readiness-related deliverables that will be created as the Program advances towards the November 1, 2018 go-live date. The primary objectives of this deliverable were to:

• Assess and document the project’s plans and activities as they pertain to preparing the campus for the HCM and Payroll implementation, and subsequent ongoing support; and

• Assess and document the user community’s current operational state and perspective regarding the project, remaining plans and activities leading up to the HCM and Payroll implementation, and operations post implementation.

As this deliverable is the second of three campus readiness assessments, the assessment re-visited the baseline observations and recommendations that were provided in the initial assessment. Follow-up observations and recommendations were documented in response to that baseline. The subsequent, final campus readiness assessment will also re-visit observations and recommendations from the initial assessment and this assessment.


Scope

In performing the assessment, the scope of our activities included conducting interviews with campus and project team members. The following groups were interviewed:

• Project Leadership;

• Office of the Provost, and Academic Deans (input solicited via email);

• Campus Groups and Organizations;

• Colleges, Schools, and Units (CSUs); and

• Central Processing Units (CPUs).

The full interview list is presented in the “Interviews Conducted” section of this document. The assessment results, including observations and recommendation, are presented within this document. The assessment results are presented in the following five areas:

• Governance and Leadership;

• Program Planning and Management;

• Campus Engagement;

• Campus Readiness; and

• Requirements and System Solution.


Approach

This deliverable followed the same approach that has been applied to previous project assessments and deliverables, which includes following KPMG’s IV&V Methodology, a repeatable process for evaluating in-progress implementation activities to determine effectiveness relative to industry standards. The activities that KPMG performed during the assessment included:

• Met With Project Leadership: The objectives, content, and format of the deliverable was discussed and confirmed with the project’s Managing Executive Sponsor and AVP, Workday Implementation Program. The previous assessment’s Deliverable Expectation Document (DED) was reviewed to ensure the necessary assessment content and interviewees were identified.

• Applied Industry Standards: Our team applied pertinent industry standards to the process and observations, which helped guide our team in developing recommendations.

• Attended Meetings and Conducted Interviews: During the assessment period, our team attended project meetings and conducted interviews with key project team members and stakeholders in order to understand the status of campus readiness and associated activities. This allowed our team to identify processes that are working well for the project, those that may not be effective, and identify risk areas.Given the time of the academic year and resulting full schedules, input for the assessment from the Provost’s Office and the Academic Deans, was solicited via email.


Approach (continued)

• Assessed Documentation: KPMG reviewed plans, processes and other documentation related to campus readiness. KPMG then reviewed these documents against the identified industry standards and applicable elements of the KPMG IV&V Methodology.

• Reviewed Previous Observations and Recommendations: During the assessment process, we re-visited the observations and recommendations that were identified within the initial, baseline campus readiness assessment.

• Compiled Observations: The KPMG team compiled observations from our analyses of the assessed areas.

• Developed Recommendations: Once the observations were identified and confirmed, our team developed recommended strategies to address the observed strengths, weaknesses, and risks, taking into account project constraints. Our recommendations were developed with the goal of being achievable and impactful for the project and UT.

• Created Draft Report: Upon completion of documenting the observations and recommendations, our team developed the draft report. The draft report went through the internal-KPMG review process, and was submitted to the Managing Executive Sponsor.

• Created Final Report: After the report was submitted to the Managing Executive Sponsor, the document was reviewed and discussed, and modifications to the document made based on the review and discussion; the final report was then submitted.

Executive Summary


Executive Summary: Overall State of Readiness

Overall, significant effort continues related to campus readiness and change management. In the initial campus readiness report, it was stated that much of the campus anxiety around the system was based on not having system-related information. At that time it was also pointed out that was due in large part to the phase of the project, and it was anticipated that that would improve in the months ahead. During this assessment we have found that is the case, as more information is available to the campus user community, along with significant outreach and support being provided to the campus by the Program.

After performing this assessment, we observed that that there has been substantial progress in all five of the assessed areas. The one area that continues to be a significant concern and risk is Campus Readiness. All associated areas are presented in the following pages. These areas should continue to be addressed in order to successfully achieve the Program’s objectives.

The primary cause of the concern comes from the campus’ stating that they cannot truly plan for the future until they have more visibility into the system functionality, including reporting. End-to-End Testing is in-progress, and Training and End User Testing will commence this summer. These events will give the campus much of the additional information that they are requesting. In the interim, increased communications, outreach, and support is being provided by the Program, which is having a positive impact. The campus also needs to continue to take ownership of the system implementation within their areas, and manage competing priorities.

Similar to the statement in the previous assessment, we anticipate seeing a marked increase in readiness after the testing and training activities begin.


Executive Summary: Governance and Leadership

Since the last report, Executive Leadership messages were issued first by the President, and then followed by a joint message from the Provost and Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Both messages were critical to be provided, and were received well campus-wide. As a result, a unified position on the Program was demonstrated, providing the campus with a common understanding of the priority of the Program and its commitment to succeed.

The dialogue initiated with the Academic Deans will continue further, and on a regular basis through attendance at the Deans Council meeting. The Program will have a standing agenda item at those meetings, to provide updates on the Program as a whole, and address whatever related questions, issues, or concerns that the Dean’s have.

The same level of anxiety was not observed with the user community this period. User anxiety remains around the work remaining, and that they feel that they still do not have enough knowledge of the new system to determine specifically how they will conduct their business, however there is no longer questions around the priority and urgency of the project.

For Governance and Leadership, it is recommended that the Program:• Issue additional unified messages to re-enforce the points made in the initial messaging, and

continue the sense of urgency.• Maintain the ongoing dialogue with the Academic Deans to further understand and address the

needs and concerns of the Academic community.• Update the communications strategy to include Executive Leadership messaging that

coincides with the remaining phases and milestones of the project.


Executive Summary: Program Planning and Management

The Program’s management and processes remains strong. Since the last assessment, a significant amount of Program outreach, support, and communication has occurred with the campus, and will continue through the implementation. The Change Management Team is meeting regularly with all areas and leadership groups. The Program’s AVP is also meeting individually with each campus area to understand outstanding needs; actions are being taken to address whatever need is required.

The formal training strategy and plan have been created and distributed. End users are getting more acclimated to the system through various communication channels and involvement with End-to-End Testing. Super Users have also been identified for all areas; they will have access to the system to get further acclimated. User involvement will also increase as the formal training and End User Testing activities commence this summer.

The ERP IT Leaders communicated that there is still some staffing concerns, including concern around being able to accomplish the scope of work in a tight timeline. This is compounded by their inability to hire resources with the right skill set, especially under existing budget constraints.

For Program Planning and Management, it is recommended that the Program:• Continue as planned with the integral outreach and touch point activities with the campus

community.• Execute the current training and testing plans. The user community should continue to provide

their input as they get further involved and gain more exposure to the system functionality. • Leverage the newly formed Steering Committee ERP IT Leaders sub-committee to address all

campus technical needs and issues.


Executive Summary: Campus Engagement

During this assessment, it was reported that campus engagement has increased significantly. Areas including outreach, communications, and general knowledge gains, were reported as improved. The level of involvement still varies by area, however everyone interviewed stated that they were aware of the outreach activities, and who to contact with questions and issues. Additional support is being provided by the Program to specific groups as needed. While there are competing priorities across campus, stakeholders have expressed that the Program is working with them to engage their embedded resources in an effective manner, and address their issues. The majority of those interviewed indicated that they are optimistic that this positive trend will continue.

Concerns were raised regarding the timing of testing and training activities, and that it will be difficult to get staff involved as the associated timelines interfere with their respective day-to-day peak times of the year. Further, campus units reported that the Program continues to consume more of their embedded resources’ time than was anticipated, resulting in additional stress.

For Campus Engagement, it is recommended that the Program:• Continue to conduct outreach initiatives as planned. It is again emphasized that all campus

stakeholders continue to take ownership of the implementation within their respective areas.• Manage competing priorities at the campus level, and address them accordingly.• Continue to work with the campus units to plan and monitor resource’s time; communicate as

far in advance as possible where additional resource time will be required; where feasible, provide assistance and support to the units to supplement their efforts.


Executive Summary: Campus Readiness

While there has been much progress since the last assessment, the campus sentiments remain that they are not ready. While previous interactions with the campus have revealed resistance to Workday, the Project has proactively addressed most of these instances as they have arisen.

Campus representatives interviewed stated that not having access to the system, and therefore not fully understanding how the system will operate, is a key contributor to them not being ready. Even though they may not understand all the issues, and have answers to all their questions, the user community remains optimistic. Several areas stated that they will “figure things out”, and are confident that everything will work out in the end. They are hopeful that End-to-End Testing, End User Testing, and Training will give them the better understanding of the upcoming changes that they need and are expecting.

Units believe that their dedicated staff members (specifically those that are embedded in the Program) will have the capability of transitioning to Workday, however concerns still exist with other employees. Units with a large volume of student employees are concerned that those employees will have a difficult time adapting to the system, given the lack of audit guardrails.

For Campus Readiness, it is recommended that the Program:• Continue to work closely with the campus and Human Resources to reach the readiness levels

that the individual areas determine is needed. • Continue to manage expectations, reiterating that not every need will be met as desired.• Continue to pursue and offer opportunities for the campus to access and interact with the

system. If possible, provide a sandbox environment where they can safely test their business processes, and create a forum to answer questions that come up.


Executive Summary: Requirements and System Solution

The most significant concern and risk regarding the requirements and system solution surrounds Reporting. Uncertainty and concern over reports, especially those used to support audits and compliance, are still surfacing, and have been aired by all those interviewed as a major issue. Although inventories of reporting needs have been submitted, there has not been confirmation that complete and accurate reports will be available at go-live.

There is still concern that Workday will not do everything the legacy system does. Some transactions will now require multiple steps, resulting in more processing, and potentially more people to get it all done, given the volume of transactions processed.

Since the last assessment, the Steering Committee ERP IT Leaders sub-committee has been created. The group has created their charter and has started meeting on a periodic basis to address the campus technical activities, issues, and concerns. This is a key group moving forward.

For Requirements and System Solution, it is recommended that the Program:• Review the reports inventory for accuracy and completeness, and assign available dates to

each. The units should be enlisted in validating the reports to increase their confidence.• Continue to assist the campus in identifying areas where Workday will behave differently than

the legacy system, and document workarounds to overcome potential limitations.• The Steering Committee (rather than the Program) should ensure that the ERP IT sub-

committee is representing all campus-wide technical risks and needed decisions.

Assessment Dashboard


Assessment Dashboard

The Assessment Dashboard presented on the following page provides an “at a glance” view of the status for each of the areas assessed. Our team used KPMG standard IV&V methodologies and the rating scale below when assessing each of the those areas. The content presented within the Executive Summary and Detailed Observations and Recommendations sections of this document provided the basis for the status of each area.

As three readiness assessments are being performed, the dashboard is updated for the current assessment. A summary dashboard for all assessments is also presented for comparative and trending purposes.


Assessment Dashboard (continued)

Assessment Area Status Key Recommendations

Governance and Leadership Yellow/Trending Green

• Issue additional unified messages to re-enforce the points made in the initial Executive messaging, and continue the sense of urgency.

• Maintain the ongoing dialogue with the Academic Deans to further understand and address the needs and concerns of the Academic community.

• Update the communications strategy to include Executive Leadership messaging that coincides with the remaining phases and milestones of the project.

Program Planning and Management Yellow/Trending Green

• Continue as planned with the integral outreach and touch point activities with the campus community.

• Execute the current training and testing plans. Users should continue to provide their input as they get further involved and gain more exposure to the system functionality.

• Leverage the newly formed Steering Committee ERP IT Leaders sub-committee to address all campus technical needs and issues.

Campus Engagement Yellow

• Continue to conduct outreach initiatives as planned. Campus stakeholders should continue to take ownership of the implementation within their respective areas.

• Manage competing priorities at the campus level, and address them accordingly.• Continue to work with the campus units to plan and monitor resource’s time;

communicate as far in advance as possible where additional resource time will be required; provide assistance and support to the units to supplement their efforts.

Campus Readiness Amber/Trending Yellow

• Continue to work closely with the campus to reach the readiness levels that the individual areas determine is needed.

• Continue to manage expectations, and that not every need will be met as desired.• Continue to pursue and offer opportunities for the campus to access and interact

with the system. If possible, provide a sandbox environment where they can safely test their business processes, and create a forum to answer questions that come up.

Requirements and System Solution Yellow

• Review the reports inventory for accuracy and completeness, and assign available dates to each. Units should be enlisted in validating the reports.

• Continue to assist the campus in identifying areas where Workday will behave differently than the legacy; document workarounds to overcome potential limitations.

• The Steering Committee should ensure that the ERP IT sub-committee is representing all campus-wide technical risks and needed decisions.


Assessment Dashboard (continued)

Assessment Area Assessment 1(February 2018)

Assessment 2 (May 2018)

Assessment 3 (August 2018)

Governance and Leadership

Amber/Trending Yellow

Yellow/Trending Green

Program Planning and Management


Yellow/Trending Green

Campus Engagement Yellow Yellow

Campus Readiness Amber/Trending Yellow


Requirements and System Solution

Amber/Trending Yellow Yellow

Detailed Observations and Recommendations



Area Observations Recommendations


February Baseline Observation: Executive engagement and support of the Program continues to be strong from the Managing Executive Sponsor. Efforts continue to be taken to provide the Program’s leadership with whatever support is needed. The Program’s leadership also has ongoing interactions with campus leadership through committees including CUBO and TxAdmin.

We have not observed the same engagement from the Office of the President and Office of the Provost. To our knowledge, there has not been a formal, unified Executive communication to the campus regarding the Program.

February Baseline Recommendation: As stated in previous reports, having a unified message from the Executive Leadership of the University is critical for the Program to succeed. This will help to ensure that the priority and urgency of the Program is consistently understood campus-wide.As part of the formal communications strategy and plan that is currently being finalized, UT should consider including this unified messaging both now, and at least twice more as the project progresses, and the November 1, 2018 go-live approaches.

May Observation: Since the last report, Executive Leadership messages were issued first by the President, and then followed by a joint message from the Provost and Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Both messages were critical to be provided, and were received well campus-wide. As a result, Executive Leadership is demonstrating a unified position on the Program, providing the campus user community with a common understanding of the priority of the Program and its commitment to succeed.

May Recommendation: These messages were a very positive event for the Program as a whole. Additional unified messaging should continue to re-enforce the points made in the initial messaging, and continue the sense of urgency. If frequent and consistent communication from the Executive Leadership does not continue, there is a risk that other campus activities, projects, and programs may be prioritized over Workday, and thus potentially have a negative impact on the go-live plan and implementation.





February Baseline Observation: Academic Deans were interviewed during this assessment process. While their knowledge of, and involvement with, the Program varies, they all stated that they were aware of the November 1, 2018 go-live date. They also stated their desire to see the Program succeed, and do not resist it. Each Dean has a strong support structure in place to address administrative functions, including the system implementation. Those staff members are responsible for engaging with the Program and to see the implementation through.While the Deans interviewed provided positive thoughts, they did, however, report that there are other Deans that have a negative perspective of the Program, and are not prepared for the system implementation.

February Baseline Recommendation: While only a subset of Dean’s were interviewed, hearing their positive sentiments is encouraging, as their perspective and support is important for their staff, and is also critical to the Program’s success. Ongoing dialogue with them should continue, possibly as a group through the Dean’s Council meetings.

For those Deans that have negative perspectives of the Program, additional outreach should be performed to understand their issues and concerns, and address those accordingly.

May Observation: During this assessment period, the questions raised by the Academic Dean’s were quickly addressed by the Program Leadership.

The dialogue initiated with the Academic Deans will continue further, and on a regular basis through attendance at the Deans Council meeting. The Program will have a standing agenda item at those meetings, to provide updates on the Program as a whole, and address whatever related questions, issues, or concerns that the Dean’s have.

May Recommendation: Attending the Deans Council meeting is another positive activity that the Program has initiated. Topics pertinent to the Dean’s should be provided,. More importantly, maintaining the ongoing dialogue to further understand and address the needs and concerns of the Academic community, should further help enable the success and adoption of the new system.

In addition to the group meetings, individual outreach should be continued as needed, as is the current practice and plan.





February Baseline Observation: The consensus with the individuals we interviewed is that the lack of messaging from the President and Provost, and the negative sentiments from some of the Dean’s, adds another level of concern and anxiety, above the fear of change and work which already exists from the system implementation.

The recent budget reductions were also reported as being a distraction as the campus perspective is that it is unknown at this point if there will be additional reductions, and if they will have adequate staffing levels to carry out their day-to-day work activities following the system implementation.

February Baseline Recommendation: Reassurances from Executive Leadership surrounding the overall long-term investment for the betterment of the University, as well as eliminating any negative messaging, will help ease the campus anxiety. This will reduce distractions, and go a long way to reestablishing campus confidence in the future direction, thus allowing staff to focus on the important activities they have ahead of them. The above stated, ongoing unified messaging is needed by the campus community.

Following the messaging, UT should consider establishing campus area champions that will further promote support and the successful implementation. It is critical that campus staff hear from other campus staff the positive messaging, rather than that be communicated only from the Program team members.

Specific examples of how the Workday solution will streamline forthcoming daily operational processes should be identified and communicated, to demonstrate that the campus has made a wise investment. As a result, the Program will garner more supporters.

May Observation: During this assessment period, the same level of anxiety was not observed with the user community. Anxiety remains around the fact that there is significant work remaining, and

(continued on next page)

May Recommendation: From a Governance and Leadership perspective, as previously stated, the Program should continue to work with the President, Provost, and CFO on further messaging.






(continued from previous page)

that they feel that they still do not have enough knowledge of the new system to determine specifically how they will conduct their business, however there is no longer questions around the priority and urgency of the project.

(continued from previous page)

As a component of the Communications Plan, the team should formulate a new periodic Executive Leadership messaging strategy that coincides with the remaining phases and milestones of the implementation.

There are still multiple key competing priorities across campus, and others are likely to arise. It is crucial that the high levels of priority, urgency, and focus continue across campus over the next five months, and that the Executive Leadership continue to publically support the initiative.





February Baseline Observation: The Program’s management structure and associated planning and management activities remains strong. A formal readiness outreach program to the campus is underway, with each campus unit having been identified. Meetings with each unit has either occurred, been scheduled, or will be scheduled. It was reported during the interview process that the campus has confidence with the current Program leadership and team, as opposed to the lack of confidence in the previous leadership.

February Baseline Recommendation: Along with the Program’s testing activities, the readiness activities are very critical moving forward. The overall objective of the campus meetings should be arounddetermining the current state of readiness for each unit individually, and the unit’s concerns and needs moving forward. A formal plan to address those concerns and needs should be created collectively by the team and unit, following each meeting. The Readiness Summary component of the Steering Committee’s Program Status Report Dashboard should also be collectively updated. The resourcing of the readiness team should be monitored closely to ensure there is adequate staff to address the activities that the team is undertaking, and their ability to address campus needs.

May Observation: As stated in the above observation, the Program’s management and processes remains strong. Since the last assessment, a significant amount of Program outreach and communication has occurred with the campus, and will continue through the implementation. The Change Management Team is meeting regularly with all areas and leadership groups. The Program’s AVP is also meeting individually with each campus area to understand outstanding needs (including resourcing). Actions are being taken to address whatever need is required.

May Recommendation: This is an area that remains strong since the previous assessment, and shows every indication that they will be well positioned to drive the project to go-live. The integral touch points with the campus community remains critical, and the Program’s plans should continue as designed. The Program is also making key personnel changes as needed, and this should also continue.

The Program’s Sponsors and Steering Committee should ensure that the Program’s Leaders and managers continue to be supported as needed. Such support is often overlooked on project’s of this type and magnitude.





February Baseline Observation: The timeline published by the Program may be too high level and generic to be useful to departments in planning organizational changes that may be needed within the units to support the system's implementation. Some departments have expressed a need to understand the specific tasks that must be completed before go-live (e.g., business routings, roles and responsibilities, deadlines to scrub data or clean up processes), so they can make time to complete them before implementation, while still meeting their day-to-day operational responsibilities.There exists some anxiety at the campus level as there is a lot to accomplish by November 1, and they do not yet know the specifics.

February Baseline Recommendation: As part of the readiness meetings, and creation of a plan stated above, the team should also consider creating an organizational alignment checklist of specific tasks and activities that must be completed within the units to support the implementation of the system.

May Observation: The Program’s work plans and status reporting activities remain strong. A detailed presentation has been created and socialized to the Steering Committee and Business Process Owners. It depicts a cutover calendar, as well as details surrounding blackout dates for critical transactions. Input was solicited and adjustments made to accommodate concerns. It is unclear whether members of the governance groups are charged with communicating cutover planning information to campus units.

May Recommendation: If it is currently not the plan, moving forward, the team should develop a plan to communicate cutover planning to campus units beyond the governance groups. If there is an expectation that the information will funnel to the campus stakeholders through members of the various governance groups, a process and related documentation should be created to facilitate the communication to ensure that the information remains accurate.





February Baseline Observation: Per the Program timeline, it appears that End-to-End Testing and End User Testing may be scheduled to occur before the Training is delivered. Without proper training, End User Testing may be less effective or may take longer, as users struggle to learn the system as they execute test scenarios.

February Baseline Recommendation: As part of the current training planning activities, the team should consider providing accelerated training before the start of End-to-End Testing and End User Testing.

May Observation: The formal training strategy and plan have been created and distributed. End users are getting more acclimated to the system through various communication channels and involvement with End-to-End Testing. Super Users have also been identified for all areas; they will have access to the system to get further acclimated, and also then provide additional information to their areas. User involvement will also increase as the formal training and End-User Testing activities commence this summer.

May Recommendation: The team should execute the current training and testing plans as designed. The user community should also continue to provide their input as they get further involved and gain more exposure to the system functionality.





February Baseline Observation: Workday training has been expressed as a concern by most campus stakeholders. It has been expressed that a formal training strategy and plan has not been communicated to them, and the campus does not know how they will train their business units and transfer knowledge from their embedded subject matter experts (SMEs).

It was further expressed that there are concerns regarding using SMEs rather than experienced trainers to deliver the training.

February Baseline Recommendation: While such a communication may already be planned, the Program should present the training strategy and plan as soon as possible. It should limit the campus’ burden of ramping up staff and mitigate their labor hours. Training materials along with training videos should be made available on-line. Instructor led-courses should be conducted both in-person and virtually to accommodate campus staff availability. The use of SMEs vs. experienced trainers should also be determined.

May Observation: As previously stated, the formal training strategy and plan have now been created and distributed to the user community.

Campus-wide training is scheduled to start in July. The campus has stated that this is a time when they are overwhelmed with competing priorities. Many units expressed concern that training is happening at their busiest time, when their staff is already working 50-60 hour weeks to meet their operational commitments.

May Recommendation: As also stated, as training progresses, the user community should actively engage and provide feedback during the process.

Given the November 1 go-live date, there is not much that can be done to address the timing of training. If there is any opportunity for “tweaking” the training plan, unit schedules could be further considered, as well as offering and staggering multiple sessions of the same modules. While it is not the plan nor optimal, the team should also consider recording the training sessions, so staff could watch those if they are unable to attend in-person. These actions will minimize the impact on the units. The campus units should also be scheduling the training participant’s schedules as soon as possible considering their other work and vacation schedules.





February Baseline Observation: It has been reported by multiple groups (specifically the ERP IT Leaders) that there is a campus-wide shortage of technical resources due to various projects competing for the same resources. This is problematic given remaining work that needs to be completed, especially around integrations. There is also an industry shortage of the resources, which compounds the issue.

February Baseline Recommendation: The Program should work with other Programs across campus to establish a policy where key technical resources currently engaged by the respective Program are not “poached” by another, but rather any necessary changes be coordinated in order to limit the overall impact. If needed, Human Resources should also be engaged to facilitate any staff moves between Programs. Development of a formal staffing model would also alleviate some of the burden that currently managers have in predicting which technical resource are needed when.

May Observation: During this assessment, it was communicated by ERP IT Leaders that there is still some staffing concerns, including concern around being able to accomplish the scope of work in a tight timeline. This is compounded by their inability to hire resources with the right skill set, especially under existing budget constraints. Junior resources, even those with relevant skill sets, may not have the depth of knowledge required for the complexity of the development tasks at hand.

It was reported that some resources continue to get “poached” from other areas, causing concerns given the amount of work remaining prior to go-live. As a result, this remains a risk to the project.

May Recommendation: If this is not taking place as part of the current outreach efforts, the Program should also meet regularly with the ERP IT Leaders, and determine if it is feasible to provide assistance to units that are understaffed and have significant work remaining. It is unclear if the programming levels within the Program would allow for such a solution in the short-term, however it should be investigated. The use of outside consultants, should also be explored. The newly formed Steering Committee ERP IT Leaders sub-committee, should also call attention to these areas if they exist.Regarding the “poaching”, this is another area that should be discussed at the sub-committee meetings. A standing agenda item around resource needs/issues should be added and discussed at each meeting. Human Resources should be engaged if needed to assist in resolving the issues.




Campus Engagement

February Baseline Observation: The campus engagement varies significantly from unit to unit. Some individuals are positive as they have been engaged through Unit Testing activities, engaging in the previously held Design Confirmation Sessions, and attend ongoing Program meetings – these activities are providing them with a broad view of the implementation, and more detail information in specific areas. Other units have negative perspectives, have not been involved, nor have plans to do so. Others also possess negative sentiments, although they have been involved –these individuals appear to be adverse to any change. Some are still holding over negative sentiments from experiences from several years back, and are falling back on those. Some of these varying perspectives are due to the phase of the project, with readiness activities now underway, End-to-End Testing and User Testing not yet started, and training being developed and planned. Some units, however, did not indicate that they had plans for engagement, regardless of the phase.

February Baseline Recommendation: The Program has, and continues to perform, significant outreach, and this should continue. At the same time, it is important for members of the campus units to also be proactive, own the implementation for their units, and reach out to the Program if they have concerns or needs that they feel are not being addressed. It is very important that the campuscommunity understand that the Workday implementation is a campus business initiative, and not a technology project; everyone has a role and responsibility in ensuring the implementation is successful.

May Observation: As of this period, it was reported that campus engagement has increased significantly. Areas including outreach, communications, and general knowledge gains, were reported as improved. The level of


May Recommendation: The Program should continue to conduct outreach initiatives as planned. It is again emphasized that all campus stakeholders should continue to take ownership of the implementation within their respective areas, and





Campus Engagement

(continued from previous page)involvement still varies by area, however everyone interviewed stated that they were aware of the outreach activities, and who to contact with questions and issues. Additional support is being provided by the Program to specific groups as needed. While there are competing priorities across campus, stakeholders have expressed that the Program is working with them to engage their embedded resources in an effective manner, and address their issues. The majority of those interviewed indicated that they are optimistic that this positive trend will continue. Concerns were raised regarding the timing of testing and training activities, and that it will be difficult to get staff involved as the associated timelines interfere with their respective day-to-day peak times of the year.

(continued from previous page)reach out to the Program with all related questions, concerns, and issues.

Competing priorities should be addressed promptly and managed closely at the campus level. If resource conflicts result, these need to be communicated and resolved accordingly.




Campus Engagement

February Baseline Observation: There is some confusion in the units as the Program begins to meet with them. Multiple activities are taking place simultaneously, and some units are being asked to participate in multiple meetings organized by different areas of the Program. Some campus users are having difficulty understanding how all of the activities fit together.

February Baseline Recommendation: It is recommended that the Program create a roadmap that depicts the campus’ involvement. It should be ensured that the purpose and scope of the campus involvement clearly fits into the published roadmap.

May Observation: This above observation was an example of concerns that was based on the phase of the project during the initial assessment. As stated previously, since that time, there has been significant communications and outreach to the campus community. Some confusion still exists, which is not unexpected, and those items are being addressed by the Program (if they are aware of them).

May Recommendation: The Program should continue with the further engagement of the campus community. The Program is making significant efforts to engage the campus community as much as possible, and they can only address questions and concerns that they are aware of. The Campus should continue to communicate all of the concerns to the Program representatives so that they can be resolved.




Campus Engagement

February Baseline Observation: It has been reported by various campus groups that awareness regarding key milestones are unbeknownst to them at this juncture. They stated that pivotal business processes that were once being discussed with them (given their knowledge), no longer appear to be a priority, leaving them unaware of what will be the forthcoming ultimate solution.This has caused an issue on their part of feeling the Program is not being transparent.

February Baseline Recommendation: As the communications strategy is completed, it is important that the Program milestones be clearly communicated. In addition, all open business decisions, along with their disposition, should also be communicated. This will help restore confidence in those that have more of a negative outlook, currently due to their perceived lack of communication and transparency.

Overall, the communications strategy should be concise and to the point, with visual dashboards and key communication timelines, rather than go into too much granular detail. The detail is still important, however it can be included as an appendix to the strategy, and thus not be overwhelming to the reader.

May Observation: During this assessment, it was discussed that concerns still exist about the status of business decisions that will have significant impact on units. Some units still feel uninformed, or that they have been left out of the decision-making process. If changes to the current employment model require cultural or procedural shifts, time to accommodate these changes should be built into the decision-making process (e.g., sporadic employment, mass transactions and student hiring).

May Recommendation: As outstanding business decisions are finalized, the team should continue to communicate the outcomes to affected business units so that they will have sufficient time to align their business processes accordingly. This is especially true regarding those units that have the highest populations subject to the issue.




Campus Engagement

February Baseline Observation: There is still consensus amongst some at the campus level that their voice is still not being heard. They stated that they have staff embedded in various groups and committees, created to steer key decisions for the Program, and are sharing concerns regarding specific business requirements that are seen as gaps in Workday. They do not feel, however, that the Program is considering their concerns or recommendations.

February Baseline Recommendations: Whether or not the campus concerns and recommendations are being considered, the perception amongst some is that they are not. To address these sentiments, as concerns and recommendations are being aired, they should be logged, along with a decision and/or disposition. This will help ensure that the campus feels they are heard, and further assist in eliminating any negative perceptions. The Program should further communicate its “open door” policy and encourage campus participants to air its concerns. As previously stated, it is also the campus’ responsibility to ensure their issues and concerns are being addressed if they do not feel they are.

May Observation: The above sentiments were not aired during this assessment. While there are still some on campus that have concerns about communication, and improvement may still be needed, it was frequently stated and acknowledged that the Program is doing its best to anticipate and address their concerns.

May Recommendations: The Program should continue to create opportunities for communication, including listening to campus needs and concerns, and addressing their issues promptly.




Campus Engagement

February Baseline Observation: Related to the previous observation and recommendation, some units with high volumes of flat rate paid employees may not have been involved in the sporadic employment discussions, or may not have a clear understanding of the proposed solution. If the solution is not effective, there is a risk that some of these departments may lose valuable resources, as their participation in their programs must be planned months in advance.

February Baseline Recommendation: It is recommended that the Program ensure that departments with high volumes of flat rate paid employees participate and/or understand the proposed solutions for sporadic employment.

May Observation: It was reported during the assessment that departments with a high-volume of flat rate paid sporadic employment are still not aware of the proposed solution, and their overall understanding remains unclear.

May Recommendation: As previously recommended above, the Program should ensure that those departments with high volumes of flat rate paid employees participate and/or understand the proposed solutions for sporadic employment.




Campus Engagement

February Baseline Observation: Some units have invested significant resources in the Program, with participation of some appearing to more than the anticipated 50% of their full time hours. Although these units can realize the value in their participation, the Program continues to consume more and more of their resources' time, which often has had an adverse effect on their day-to-day responsibilities in the departments.

February Baseline Recommendation: The Program should continue to monitor the embedded resource’s time, and be mindful of their time and other responsibilities. Activities where additional time may be required of embedded resources should be communicated as far in advance as possible. Where feasible, the Program should provide assistance and support to the units to supplement their efforts.

May Observation: Across the board, campus units report that the Program continues to consume more and more of their embedded resources’ time, far beyond the anticipated agreement. While the spirit of collaboration prevails, the impact continues to create stress in the units, as other resources must absorb day-to-day responsibilities of embedded resources. There is also stress on the embedded resources, who report that they must deal with too many meetings, too many tasks, too much testing, and do not have time to commit to their regular jobs, as anticipated.

May Recommendation: The Program should continue to monitor the embedded resource’s time, and be mindful of their time and other responsibilities. Activities where additional time may be required of embedded resources should be communicated as far in advance as possible. Where feasible, the Program should provide assistance and support to the units to supplement their efforts.




Campus Engagement

February Baseline Observation: Some campus units have been struggling to adequately plan for embedded resources completing Unit Testing and planning for End-to-End Testing.

February Baseline Recommendation: The Program should continue to flesh out the resource plan,discuss that with the units, keep it updated, and made available to the units so that they can plan accordingly.

May Observation: As previously stated, the training strategy and plan have been created and distributed to the campus community.

As mentioned throughout this report, there appears to be many expectations associated with End-to-End Testing. For instance, the campus may expect to get a better understanding of the full process, how long it will take to process a transaction from start to finish, the level of expertise that their staff needs, etc. While some of these may be achievable, unknown expectations may create disappointment if not well managed. Further, regarding planning, the Program continues to regularly reassess the need for meetings, the meeting durations, and required attendees. Such efforts are intended to more effectively manage team member’s time, and keep them focused on the critical tasks at hand.

May Recommendation: Overall the Program should continue to communicate the campus resource needs as soon as possible, to enable them to plan accordingly.As the project activities continue and progress, the team should also gather feedback from the units regarding what they expect to get from the activities with which they are involved (e.g., End-to-End Testing, End User Testing, etc.). These expectations should be fully understood, and any expectation determined to be unachievable, should be reset and communicated accordingly.




Campus Engagement

February Baseline Observation: With units short on resources as they provide support for the Program, department leads may have to cover some of the responsibilities of the embedded resources, which creates additional responsibilities within the units, and may not leave them much time to get further involved with the Program (e.g., attending Program meetings).

February Baseline Recommendation: It is recommended that the Program publish a synopsis of topics covered, and minutes of discussions and decisions at the meeting, and send them to all invited attendees, even those who may not have been able to attend.

May Observation: It was reported during the assessment that department leads continue to have to cover for their staff members that are engaged within the program. This is adding additional stress to their day-today jobs.

May Recommendation: If coverage of day-to-day activities continues to be a strain, or is anticipated as the go-live nears, the department leads should discuss this with the Program Leads as they meet. The Program is actively working to alleviate such situations, and the campus should take advantage of this assistance.




Campus Engagement

February Baseline Observation: Units that have been involved in the Program from the onset would like the Executive Leadership to understand that they are experiencing project fatigue; the Program has been going on for a long time and every request from the Program brings challenges and difficulties to operational activities of the unit. The same is true of the Program team.

February Baseline Recommendation: The Program should consider soliciting Executive Leadership to acknowledge the cooperation and engagement of business units in the Program. Celebrations and acknowledgements of efforts to show appreciation for their involvementshould continue. This is important as involvement and pressure will most likely increase in the months ahead.

May Observation: All units interviewed stated that they continue to have a challenge of managing their day-to-day and overlapping Program activities. Fatigue continues, and is expected to continue through the implementation. Potential burnout of the staff was raised as a concern. Program Leadership is aware of these concerns, and is working to alleviate them as much as possible.

May Recommendation: As the campus involvement will continue, and activities will overlap, the campus and Program should continue ongoing dialogue in managing the resources. The Program will continue to look at maximizing the campus involvement (including eliminating and shortening meetings), communicating needs as far in advance as possible, and inquiring how the Program can further assist. The campus should also raise their issues and concerns in a timely manner so that that they can be addressed.




Campus Readiness

February Baseline Observation: Similar to as was stated within the previous Campus Engagement section, campus readiness also varies from unit to unit, however most units indicated that they are not ready. There is a consistent theme of not knowing what the specifics of the Workday system will be, and the associated expectation based on that. They expressed that they understand how to conduct business within the legacy system, however they do not know how the Workday system will operate. Awareness sessions and Design Confirmation Sessions were held (with most attending), however the current state is a lack of understanding that needs to be addressed. As a result, with only nine months to go until go-live, there is a notion around campus that the campus will be receiving a solution that has never been vetted from their standpoint or level of expectation.

February Baseline Recommendation: Thereadiness efforts underway need to address all of the campus’ questions and unknowns from the campus perspective. One unit stated that a readiness binder was created for them, and is a useful tool. Providing such a tool campus-wide should be considered if feasible. As concerns were raised during our interview process, we recommended to the units that they raise the same topics in their readiness meetings, as it appears they are not doing so.

In addition to the individual readiness meetings, the team should also consider taking advantage of the standing 1.5 hour timeslot available at the TxAdmin meetings, to further discuss campus concerns and needs.

May Observation: While there has been much progress since the last assessment, and the hard work continues, the campus sentiments remain that they are not ready. While previous interactions with the campus have revealed resistance to Workday, the Project has proactively addressed most of these instances as they have arisen. The feelings on campus at this (continued on next page)

May Recommendation: It is possible that the Program's definition of readiness may need to be broadened to align to the campus' readiness needs and expectations. As units start working on their cutover plans, additional needs and dependencies may also be revealed. The Program and campus should continue to work closely together to reach the readiness levels that the





Campus Readiness

(continued from previous page)stage appears to be resignation to the changes Workday will bring. All campus representatives interviewed stated that not having access to the system, and therefore not fully understanding how the system will operate, is a key contributor to them not being ready. Even though they may not understand all the issues, and have answers to all their questions, the user community remains optimistic. Several areas stated that they will “figure things out”, and are confident that everything will work out in the end.

They are hopeful that End-to-End Testing, End User Testing, and training will give them the better understanding of the upcoming changes that they need and are expecting.

(continued from previous page)individual areas determine is needed. Human Resources should also be engaged to address the organizational and personnel matters. Expectations should continue to be managed, reiterating that not every need will be met as desired. .In addition, the Program should continue to pursue and offer opportunities for the campus to access and interact with the system. If possible, provide a sandbox environment where they can safely test their business processes, and create a forum to answer questions that come up.




Campus Readiness

February Baseline Observation: Given their lack of knowledge of the Workday system and how they will conduct day-to-day activities, the campus units interviewed do not yet know how to organize for the future nor know the staffing levels that will be needed. Some units stated that the Human Resources (HR) department should provide the necessary guidance on organizational and staffing decisions.

February Baseline Recommendation: This is a critical risk to the Program. To mitigate this risk, the Program should determine the role of HR in organizational and staffing areas. If HR will be involved, they themselves will need to be trained in the short-term to be able to provide appropriate guidance. HR is already seeing themselves being involved in an implementation and post-implementation support role, however their involvement up-front with organizational and staffing matters will require expedited training. This needs to be resolved in the short-term, and planning performed as needed to support the decisions.

May Observation: There is still concern about how long it will take to process transactions. So far, End-to-End Testing is revealing that the processes will be more intense than what the campus does today, which may require more people to do the same work (this is not yet known, however is being raised as a potential risk). Further, while all units need to take advantage of the time to restructure their units to fit the new business processes, some have been proactive in evolving and adapting, and achieving positive results. There may be an opportunity for these units to share their approach, strategies, and experiences with units that have not been as successful in preparing for the system.

May Recommendation: Human Resources has begun to work with campus units on organizational and competency matters as they pertain to the implementation. This work should continue and be coupled with the information learned about whether additional staff may be needed to carry out the new work.Further, the Program should consider creating an environment where units with similar issues get together to share and exchange ideas for restructuring to fit the new model. This could be a forum or online community where units can post their issues, and solicit input, as well as their approaches to addressing those issues that others may face. .




Campus Readiness

February Baseline Observation: The campus representatives also consistently aired concerns that the Workday system will not provide the same “guardrails” (e.g., audits and edits) that the legacy system provides. This is causing further concern around their uncertainty of how to organize and staff their units appropriately, as they feel they do not know if they have the right staff to conduct future business.

February Baseline Recommendation: Also as part of the Program’s readiness activities, the specific “guardrails” topic should be addressed, so it can be determined if this is an area that should or should not be raised at the level of concern as it currently is being raised.

May Observation: During this assessment, campus representatives continued to express concerns that Workday will be prone to more errors due to the lack of audit and edit guardrails.

May Recommendation: This topic should continue to be discussed as it remains a campus concern. Some of the concern should be addressed once the users start their training and testing, at which time they will see the system, and gain a better understanding of the process flows. The Program should ensure the user security roles are properly defined, and the business process flows with routing of approvals processes, should continue to be communicated clearly.




Campus Readiness

February Baseline Observation: There is concern and uncertainty about the amount of time required of the units to successfully complete their organizational readiness. However, without a clear understanding of the changes that may be needed, campus users will continue to feel apprehensive about their ability to achieve readiness.

February Baseline Recommendation: As stated above, the Program should create a checklist of the tasks and activities required to be in place before implementation so that units can grasp what is required of them. The time needed for each task should be estimated so they can fit the readiness activities within their operational schedules.

May Observation: While much dialogue is in progress, information is being provided, and the Program has initiated a BPO Master Checklist, the majority of the campus representatives interviewed still remain unclear at this point on the amount of time required for their unit to successfully complete organizational readiness.

May Recommendation: This is an ongoing, iterative process, and the continued outreach will assist the campus in getting to where they need to be with their readiness. The Program should continue to meet with the campus representatives for each unit, and complete the BPO Master Checklist outlining all activities required before go-live.




Campus Readiness

February Baseline Observations: Some of the uncertainty within the units is their feeling that theyare receiving seemingly unrelated, fragmented information from the Program. They stated that without a full understanding of the Workday processes from start to finish, they do not have a clear understanding of the end-to-end process, how one process may impact another, or what processes will be manual, thus requiring additional staff involvement.

February Baseline Recommendations: If it is feasible at this point, the team should create overviews or roadmaps of the Workday processes, and disseminate them to the campus units. The units can then use them to compare against their existing processes, and determine how the future processes differ from the current processes.Also if feasible, the Program should provide a sandbox environment for the campus to view the system functions. A sandbox environment would help instill confidence back into campus stakeholders, once users are able to “see” how the functions perform and interrelate with one another.

May Observations: Campus units continue to express concern that the information coming from the Program is fragmented. They stated that they are finding it difficult to gather sufficient understanding about their future business workflows, which are needed for organizational alignment. In addition to outreach, and communication activities and events, CSU’s will have the opportunity to gain further knowledge during End User Testing, where 2 – 5 CSU representatives will participate.

May Recommendations: Since the campus’ informational needs may differ from one unit to another, the team should continue to further understand the campus’ needs in order to provide a customized solution. Surveys could be used as communication tools to identify patterns of concerns, and provide documented solutions to frequently asked questions. CSU’s should also ensure that all planned representatives fully participate in the End User Testing activities, as significant system knowledge will be gained during this process.




Campus Readiness

February Baseline Observation: Clear, cohesive and consistent business process flowcharts have been requested by several campus units. They referenced that Huron Consulting analysts have been very productive in creating some of the flowcharts with limited direction, and the positive impact has been significant.

February Baseline Recommendation: It is recommended that the possibility of extending the existing Huron analysts be considered, and/or augmenting them with additional analysts to create flowcharts for as many critical processes as possible.

May Observation: While the augmentation of Huron Consulting resources have significantly enhanced the Program, it was not indicated that additional flowcharts have been created. This continues to be asked for by the campus stakeholders.

May Recommendation: While it may not be feasible to accomplish during the short-term given other pressing project activities, the Program should continue to attempt to create these flowcharts. Such documentation will not only assist the current process, but also assist with post go-live and future activities. If budget allows, an additional resource could potentially be added to address this.




Campus Readiness

February Baseline Observation: Another area of readiness that was raised by the units that surrounds staffing related to assessing unit staff members capabilities against the needs of the new system. Some feel that their staff are capable of transitioning to the new system, however others feel that they have staff that will not be able to transition, and perform their roles adequately. They are seeking guidance on how to address this and proceed.

February Baseline Recommendation: HR should be engaged in all discussions surrounding staff competencies and the determination of who can/cannot transition to the new system. This assessment should be planned now and commence once adequate information is known about the system functionality.

May Observation: Units believe that their dedicated staff members (specifically those that are embedded in the Program) will have the capability of transitioning to Workday, however concerns still exist with other employees. Those units with a large volume of student employees are concerned that those employees will have a difficult time adapting to the system given the lack of audit guardrails within Workday.

May Recommendation: The Program should continue to monitor this situation as part of the outreach activities, and as training is conducted. As more exposure to the new system is gained, it is anticipated that this concern may be reduced.




Campus Readiness

February Baseline Observation: As peer institutions are being contacted to address specific functional and implementation areas, schools and colleges may also benefit from talking to their peers at those institutions at a higher, more general level.

February Baseline Recommendation: TheProgram should consider providing units with contact information of individuals at peer institutions that share similar job roles. Having such dialogue may alleviate some of the anxiety that currently exists. If this action is taken, the contact would need to be coordinated as to not overwhelm those at the peer institutions.

Further, when working with the peer institutions toaddress the specific issues, the Program should ensure (if not already doing so) that the SMEs from the campus be involved in the calls to ensure all nuances of the issue are being addressed.

May Observation: As of this period, it is unclear if the Program is or is not having additional conversations with peer institutions, and if they are taking place, if the campus representatives are participating in those conversations. Several campus representatives stated that they have not been involved in such conversations.

May Recommendation: As recommended previously, if the Program is conducting peer calls, they should consider engaging campus representatives if it is feasible or appropriate. Providing units with contact information of individuals at peer institutions that share similar job roles, should also be considered, however be coordinated with the peer institution.




Requirements and System

Solution

February Baseline Observation: There is some frustration and concern with the campus community that the Workday solution does not meet Higher Education requirements nor can it fulfill the complex nuances of UT. The campus representatives have communicated the following requirements as the significant gaps within the Workday product:· AL1/AL4· Summer Appointments · Grants/Balance Checker for Grants · Fringe Pooled Rates/Retroactive · Overtime Payments (ov5) · Pharmacy School Identity Connection (non-

legacy data) · On-demand checks · Sporadic Employment

February Baseline Recommendation: The Program should continue as a high priority to work through the resolution and solution design regarding the identified Workday gaps. There should be ongoing communications to the campus stakeholders regarding the status and determined solutions for the gaps. The absence of a solution is contributing to the overall anxiety that the campus is experiencing.

May Observation: There is still concern that Workday will not do everything the legacy system does (e.g., processes that that automatically trigger correlated updates when another process is invoked). Some of these transactions will now require multiple steps, resulting in more processing, and potentially more people to get it all done, given the volume of transactions processed.

May Recommendation: The team should continue to assist the campus in identifying areas where Workday will behave differently than the legacy system (positive and negative), and assist where possible to identify, prepare for, and document workarounds to overcome potential limitations.





Solution

February Baseline Observation: Severalstakeholders have communicated that they do not believe that Workday will solve their business operational inefficiencies, but rather believe Workday will actually create a more labor intensive work environment.

February Baseline Recommendation: The Program should communicate system functionality as soon as possible, and address the ongoing campus concerns as part of the readiness activities. The absence of functional information creates the opportunity for individuals to focus on the unknowns either accurately or inaccurately. Further communication of the system benefits will also help alleviate some of the negative perceptions.

May Observation: The notion amongst the campus that Workday will not meet all of the operational efficiencies found in the existing legacy system environment still holds true as of this assessment period.

May Recommendation: This is another area where more exposure to the system, and going through the training process should help address. Further attention to this topic as part of the outreach activities is further recommended.





Solution

February Baseline Observation: As covered in previous reports, there continues to be uncertainly and concern regarding reports. The campus has been informed that they will not get some of the reports that they need, however lack sufficient understanding of the system to devise work arounds. Also, units are not informed about what reports have been or are planned to be created or developed. The concern has been aired that the units will have to rely on Excel to conduct operational business transactions.

February Baseline Recommendation: As reporting continues to be addressed, the team should provide a list of planned reports and discontinued reports to campus users who may have to rely on them. If existing reports are removed from the inventory, the team should provide information to the units on how the information they need will be made available to them.

May Observation: Uncertainty and concern over reports, especially those used to support audits and compliance, are still surfacing. Although inventories of reporting needs have been submitted, there has been little or no confirmation that complete and accurate reports will be available at go live. Also related to reporting, campus report needs may have been defined, with priority given to reporting within the Workday product, however, some reporting needs at the outset may straddle across data sources. It is unclear how/when these reporting needs will be addressed.

May Recommendation: The Program should review the reports inventory for accuracy and completeness. Available dates should be assigned to each report, and those dates communicated to the affected unit. The participation of the units should be enlisted in validating the reports to increase their confidence.Further, the team should consider expanding the reporting inventory to identify institutional reporting needs that include multiple data sources. These should be prioritized as needed to meet campus needs and demand.





Solution

February Baseline Observation: Workday may not provide required functionality that may have to be addressed outside of Workday, and it is unclear how risks associated with the missing functionality will be addressed. For example, for tracking medical licenses and certifications, the risks include non-compliance with state/federal guidelines, NCAA violations, loss of license by the practitioner, as well as risks to the health and welfare of the students.

February Baseline Recommendation: The Program needs to validate these gaps, and work with the units to devise a plan to address required institutional functionality that Workday may not be able to satisfy.

May Observation: The Program is actively addressing these functionality gaps. The risk of tracking medical licensing and certifications have been mitigated by continuing to track those through the legacy system, and linking to Workday through a bridging integration. However, due to the complexity of the integration, it must be ready in time to undergo thorough testing.

May Recommendation: As is the case, the Program should continue to actively address and remove risks associated with existing functionality that Workday may not be able to provide.





Solution

February Baseline Observation: The Payroll group has expressed concern regarding the new tax law and how that will affect the new payroll system. In addition, Payroll has raised the concern that the system go-live will be only a month prior from them having to produce W2s from the system for the first time. While W2s have been tested during Unit Testing waves, it is pivotal for all the information to come over correctly from Workday post go-live. Any delays due to incorrect information could result in significant fines.

February Baseline Recommendation: Leading up to go-live, the Program should ensure that all payroll processes, including W2s are repeatedly tested and validated. The testing will instill more confidence in those posing the concerns.

May Observation: As noted in the previous assessment, these areas continue to be a concern. The team continues to keep focused on these areas, and stated that they will continue to do so.

May Recommendation: As is the plan, the Program should continue to work closely with the Payroll group, and test these areas thoroughly. Contingency plans should be created, should related issues arise post go-live.





Solution

February Baseline Observation: When meeting with the ERP IT Leaders, they raised concerns over a number of open technical items requiring resolution. These items are being addressed collectively amongst the IT Leaders and the Program.They also raised concerns regarding the governance of the technical areas since the disbanding of the AITL group. Since it was disbanded, there have been ad-hoc meetings amongst the leaders, however no formal group to ensure all areas are represented and issues be prioritized and consistently addressed.

February Baseline Recommendation: It is important that each of these items be documented and tracked within the work plan. All downstream items (including those raised as concerns) need to be addressed in the upcoming End-to-End Testing.

Regarding the governance concern, reuniting the AITL group should be considered, at least through the go-live date. Another alternative to form a Steering Committee sub-committee lead by the ERP IT Leader that sits on the Committee. Appropriate resources could be brought in as needed to ensure the Workday-related items are addressed.

May Observation: Since the last assessment, the Steering Committee ERP IT Leaders sub-committee has been created. The group has created their charter and has started meeting on a periodic basis to address the campus technical activities, issues, and concerns.

May Recommendation: As is the plan, the sub-committee should continue to meet, and have dialogue and working sessions to resolve all of the outstanding technical issues. Any potential risks and decision points should be communicated quickly to the Steering Committee and Program. The Steering Committee should ensure that all campus-wide needs are addressed.





Solution

February Baseline Observation: It was reported by several campus groups that they do not understand the Merit Process in Workday. They stated that they have not seen the overall Merit Process workflow in Workday, and this has been a topic of concern and seen by them as a risk area.

February Baseline Recommendation: The Program should communicate with the campus definitive business requirements that capture the Merit Process as efficiently as possible. The Program should assess whether to keep the Merit Process within the existing system until an optimal solution within Workday is determined.

May Observation: As of this period, the Program has decided to postpone the planning working sessions around the Merit Process until after go-live. Campus representatives stated that they were not aware of the status and decision.

May Recommendation: If it has not already done so, the Program should communicate clearly their plans around the Merit Process to avoid any further confusion which was expressed by the campus.





Solution

February Baseline Observation: Although the Financials module has been deferred indefinitely, there is angst within campus units as to the direction the Program will take for Financials. Several units consider Financials a larger effort for their units, and would like to have a high level understanding (e.g., Workday or another product) of the direction UT is contemplating.

February Baseline Recommendation: While such a decision is not on the immediate horizon for the Program, they should still address it with the campus, and inform the campus with an update (as it stands today) about the long-term plans for the Financials implementation.

May Observation: The concern around the Financials system still exists, however it was not observed that this is a significant issue or risk at this time. A lack of understanding of the status or plan for Financials may be the contributing factors for these ongoing concerns.

May Recommendation: While the Program has previously discussed this topic, an additional communication is suggested around the disposition and plan for Financials. This would help to eliminate an unneeded distraction as the drive to go-live continues.





Solution

February Baseline Observation: Similar to the above, although the Student system module has been deferred indefinitely, there is concern that no commitment has been announced for upgrading that system.

February Baseline Recommendation: As stated above, given the concerns, the Program should provide an update about the known or anticipated long-term plans for systems such as the Student system.

May Observation: This is similar to the Financial system topic above, and has come up in different conversations with the campus representatives.

May Recommendation: The Student system disposition and status could also be re-communicated along with the Financial system as recommended above.

Interviews Conducted


Interviews Conducted

Project Leadership

• Deployment and Campus Technical Coordination Lead, April 3, 2018

• Campus Readiness Program Director, April 4, 2018

• AVP, Workday Implementation Program, April 24, 2018

• Technical and Reporting Program Director, April 24, 2018

• Training Lead, April 24, 2018

• Managing Executive Sponsor, April 25, 2018

• Reporting Lead, April 25, 2018

• Organizational Alignment Lead, April 26, 2018

Office of the Provost, and Academic Deans (input solicited via email)

• Senior Vice Provost for Resource Management – No further input provided

• Dean, School of Architecture – No further input provided

• Dean, School of Law – No further input provided

• Dean, Moody College of Communications – Additional input provided

• Dean, College of Engineering – Additional input provided

• Dean, College of Liberal Arts – Additional input provided


Interviews Conducted (continued)

Campus Groups and Organizations

• ERP IT Leaders – Group 1, April 18, 2018

• College and Schools Chief Business Officers (TxAdmin), April 26, 2018

• Vice Presidential Chief Business Officers (VPAdmin), April 26, 2018

• ERP IT Leaders – Group 2, May 9, 2018

Colleges, Schools, and Units (CSUs)

• College of Liberal Arts, April 3, 2018

• Dell Medical School, April 3, 2018

• School of Law – Group 1, April 3, 2018

• College of Natural Sciences, April 4, 2018

• Moody College of Communications, April 4, 2018

• College of Pharmacy, April 24, 2018

• School of Law – Group 2, April 24, 2018

• Athletics, May 2, 2018

• Housing and Food Services, May 4, 2018


Interviews Conducted (continued)

• Division of Diversity and Community Engagement, May 9, 2018

• School of Business, May 15, 2018

Central Processing Units (CPUs)

• Human Resources, April 24, 2018

• Budget, April 25, 2018

• Financial and Accounting Services, May 8, 2018

• Payroll Services, May 8, 2018

• Financial Aid, May 9, 2018

• Academic Personnel Services, May 10, 2018

• Office of Sponsored Programs, May 16, 2018

Documentation Reviewed


Documentation Reviewed

• Campus Readiness – All Campus-Wide Events and Activities

• Communication Strategy

• High-Level Cutover Calendar

• Governance Planning Calendar

• Training Strategy

• Implementation Work Plan

• Steering Committee Status Report Dashboard – Readiness Summary

• Deployment Strategy

• Training Curriculum Plan

© 2018 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 594055

The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.

The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.

kpmg.com/socialmedia

the university of texas at austin of texas at austin...attended project meetings and conducted...

Documents