UT SystemERP Planning Project

Financial Area RepresentativesApril 22, 2009

UT SystemERP Planning Project

Financial Area RepresentativesApril 22, 2009

UTSA’s ERP EnvironmentUTSA’s ERP Environment

UTSA uses UT Austin’s DEFINE system for HR & Financial applications IBM Mainframe-based Flat file – not a relational data base Partially web enabled Highly customized Highly automated campus workflow Not a comprehensive HR system

DEFINE is inexpensive – less than $400,000 per year for access & maintenance Does not include UTSA IT or DEFINE administrative staff

UTSA uses UT Austin’s DEFINE system for HR & Financial applications IBM Mainframe-based Flat file – not a relational data base Partially web enabled Highly customized Highly automated campus workflow Not a comprehensive HR system

DEFINE is inexpensive – less than $400,000 per year for access & maintenance Does not include UTSA IT or DEFINE administrative staff

1

UTSA’s ERP EnvironmentUTSA’s ERP Environment

DEFINE functionality is controlled by UT Austin Major overhaul to HRMS system in progress No shared governance or service level agreement Some system enhancements / changes are not

always shared

DEFINE functionality is controlled by UT Austin Major overhaul to HRMS system in progress No shared governance or service level agreement Some system enhancements / changes are not

always shared

2

UTSA’s ERP EnvironmentUTSA’s ERP Environment

Banner Student is our system of record for all revenue, scholarship and financial aid awards and other important student information. No integration with the DEFINE financial system

Custom interface between Banner & DEFINE required to create financial system records

Currently, reconciliation is manual

Banner Student is our system of record for all revenue, scholarship and financial aid awards and other important student information. No integration with the DEFINE financial system

Custom interface between Banner & DEFINE required to create financial system records

Currently, reconciliation is manual

3

TEXSIS Project TEXSIS Project

TEXSIS Project is a pilot for a shared service implementation of the Campus Solutions (Student Administration application) by UT Dallas UT Tyler UT Arlington

Funded by Board of Regents in 2006 using Permanent University Funds (PUF)

Staggered implementation – “go live” during 2009

TEXSIS Project is a pilot for a shared service implementation of the Campus Solutions (Student Administration application) by UT Dallas UT Tyler UT Arlington

Funded by Board of Regents in 2006 using Permanent University Funds (PUF)

Staggered implementation – “go live” during 2009

4

TEXSIS Project Goals & ObjectivesTEXSIS Project Goals & Objectives

Improve and streamline business processesImplement IT system using higher education best

practicesShared governance project model for

implementation & ongoing maintenanceMinimize software modificationsShare best & common practices amongst

institutionsPursue value added new initiatives

Improve and streamline business processesImplement IT system using higher education best

practicesShared governance project model for

implementation & ongoing maintenanceMinimize software modificationsShare best & common practices amongst

institutionsPursue value added new initiatives

5

UT System ERP Planning Project UT System ERP Planning Project

Following success of the TEXSIS project, UT System contracted for a cost analysis and feasibility for a similar project for Finance & HR.

UT Dallas is using a very old software package (SCT+) for Finance and Human Resources (Payroll) that will no longer be supported by the vendor. UT Dallas must do something now to protect its

administrative computing viability

Following success of the TEXSIS project, UT System contracted for a cost analysis and feasibility for a similar project for Finance & HR.

UT Dallas is using a very old software package (SCT+) for Finance and Human Resources (Payroll) that will no longer be supported by the vendor. UT Dallas must do something now to protect its

administrative computing viability

6

UT System ERP Planning Project UT System ERP Planning Project

UTSA participated in a survey regarding campus requirements and readiness to implement an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system Collaborative effort with OIT, HR & Financial Affairs

Alvarez & Marsal (consultant team) analyzed & issued a report in December 2008

UTSA participated in a survey regarding campus requirements and readiness to implement an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system Collaborative effort with OIT, HR & Financial Affairs

Alvarez & Marsal (consultant team) analyzed & issued a report in December 2008

7

Survey Findings Survey Findings

Most campuses (other than Dallas) are not ready for a major system implementation project Dallas has no choice Other campuses may want to migrate from DEFINE

but are not prepared No funding for a major project Inadequate staffing to take on additional workload Insufficient IT staff for ongoing maintenance and

support

Most campuses (other than Dallas) are not ready for a major system implementation project Dallas has no choice Other campuses may want to migrate from DEFINE

but are not prepared No funding for a major project Inadequate staffing to take on additional workload Insufficient IT staff for ongoing maintenance and

support

8

Survey Findings Survey Findings

Consultant recommended PeopleSoft to meet the campus’s major functionality requirements Not many choices – SCT Banner, Oracle, Datatel, SAP TEXSIS is using PeopleSoft, so they will have an

integrated software suite & experience with PeopleTools, as well as the physical environment (data center at UT Arlington)

Shared implementation costs result in overall savings Will require a great deal of cooperation between

participating campuses

Consultant recommended PeopleSoft to meet the campus’s major functionality requirements Not many choices – SCT Banner, Oracle, Datatel, SAP TEXSIS is using PeopleSoft, so they will have an

integrated software suite & experience with PeopleTools, as well as the physical environment (data center at UT Arlington)

Shared implementation costs result in overall savings Will require a great deal of cooperation between

participating campuses

9

Estimated Project Costs Estimated Project Costs

PUF funds are currently not available to support project implementation

UT System will cover software maintenance & 2 staff for project management

Project implementation costs estimated for consultants, backfill and travel: $9M per campus if 8 campuses participate $10M per campus if 5 campuses participate $15M+ if campus goes it alone

No estimates for ongoing costs

PUF funds are currently not available to support project implementation

UT System will cover software maintenance & 2 staff for project management

Project implementation costs estimated for consultants, backfill and travel: $9M per campus if 8 campuses participate $10M per campus if 5 campuses participate $15M+ if campus goes it alone

No estimates for ongoing costs

10

Project Constraints, Issues & ConcernsProject Constraints, Issues & ConcernsImplementation must be ‘vanilla’ to reduce project

costs DEFINE is highly customized We will lose some functionality and gain other

One single software instance Adds project risk Different from TEXSIS project where each campus has their own

instance of the software (more costly, but more flexible) All campuses must apply fixes, patches and upgrades at the same

time & perform system maintenance on the same schedule Business system interruption vulnerability – no redundancy

Implementation must be ‘vanilla’ to reduce project costs DEFINE is highly customized We will lose some functionality and gain other

One single software instance Adds project risk Different from TEXSIS project where each campus has their own

instance of the software (more costly, but more flexible) All campuses must apply fixes, patches and upgrades at the same

time & perform system maintenance on the same schedule Business system interruption vulnerability – no redundancy

11

Project Constraints, Issues & ConcernsProject Constraints, Issues & Concerns

Implementation is based on a ‘big bang’ approach – everything at the same time This is very difficult We would recommend phasing if / when UTSA moves off of

DEFINE HR first – including Payroll, interface labor costs to DEFINE Finance immediately following

Implementation is based on a ‘big bang’ approach – everything at the same time This is very difficult We would recommend phasing if / when UTSA moves off of

DEFINE HR first – including Payroll, interface labor costs to DEFINE Finance immediately following

12

UT System Proposal UT System Proposal

As a result of most campuses’ reluctance to commit, the following was proposed by the UT System: Let UT Dallas plan for an implementation starting Fall 09 Set up shared governance structure on the basis of a “soft

commitment” of the other campuses to follow with an implementation when ready, within 3 years

As a result of most campuses’ reluctance to commit, the following was proposed by the UT System: Let UT Dallas plan for an implementation starting Fall 09 Set up shared governance structure on the basis of a “soft

commitment” of the other campuses to follow with an implementation when ready, within 3 years

13

UT System Proposal UT System Proposal

Participation in shared governance will cost UTSA about $50,000/year

Some risk to this approach – Software versions will change due to vendor support

schedule Timing of our implementation must be carefully considered – we

don’t want to ‘go live’, only to have to upgrade shortly thereafter All decisions about software functionality and system

usage will be determined and set with limited opportunity to revise Will require us to stay very involved with UT Dallas implementation

Participation in shared governance will cost UTSA about $50,000/year

Some risk to this approach – Software versions will change due to vendor support

schedule Timing of our implementation must be carefully considered – we

don’t want to ‘go live’, only to have to upgrade shortly thereafter All decisions about software functionality and system

usage will be determined and set with limited opportunity to revise Will require us to stay very involved with UT Dallas implementation

14

UT System Proposal UT System Proposal

Some benefits to this approach – UT Dallas will be ‘proof of concept’ We can be involved without the immediate pain We can take the time to evaluate other options We can begin making business process improvements We can plan for financial, staffing and other requirements to

position us for a major ERP implementation and change initiative.

We will have a CIO on board to assist with the transition.

Some benefits to this approach – UT Dallas will be ‘proof of concept’ We can be involved without the immediate pain We can take the time to evaluate other options We can begin making business process improvements We can plan for financial, staffing and other requirements to

position us for a major ERP implementation and change initiative.

We will have a CIO on board to assist with the transition.

15

Opportunities to ExploreOpportunities to ExploreConduct a comparative study of the costs and

benefits of implementing SCT Banner HR & Finance Benefits:

Leverage what we have / know Physical integration of student financial data with financial

application We control the environment, release/fix upgrade schedule,

functionality and degree of customization Phased in approach at our pace, with our project plan and control Possible collaboration with other UT campuses using Banner

Student Costs:

UT System does not support this direction We would bear the full cost of hardware, IT support, maintenance,

and software application

Conduct a comparative study of the costs and benefits of implementing SCT Banner HR & Finance Benefits:

Leverage what we have / know Physical integration of student financial data with financial

application We control the environment, release/fix upgrade schedule,

functionality and degree of customization Phased in approach at our pace, with our project plan and control Possible collaboration with other UT campuses using Banner

Student Costs:

UT System does not support this direction We would bear the full cost of hardware, IT support, maintenance,

and software application

16

Opportunities to ExploreOpportunities to Explore

Evaluate the feasibility / desirability of collaboration with UTHSCSA – they have a mature, full functionality PeopleSoft system.

Begin funding/financial planning for a future ERP implementation

Evaluate business process changes, improvements and staffing/backfill requirements

CIO Involvement is critical

Evaluate the feasibility / desirability of collaboration with UTHSCSA – they have a mature, full functionality PeopleSoft system.

Begin funding/financial planning for a future ERP implementation

Evaluate business process changes, improvements and staffing/backfill requirements

CIO Involvement is critical

17

CMO Recommendation CMO Recommendation

CMO recommended that we opt to participate but explore other opportunities Will require commitment of UTSA staff time to

validate UT Dallas pilot project decisions Project structure for our involvement will be

discussed in the coming weeks with affected areas and staff

CMO recommended that we opt to participate but explore other opportunities Will require commitment of UTSA staff time to

validate UT Dallas pilot project decisions Project structure for our involvement will be

discussed in the coming weeks with affected areas and staff

18