Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byKarson Hyland Modified over 9 years ago
1
Russ Henderson, Project Director, ERP Project Florida State University David Hemingson, Managing Director, BearingPoint Sprinting Up the Learning Curve: An Approach to Rapid Implementation
2
► Copyright Florida State University and BearingPoint, Inc. 2003. This work is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the authors. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the authors.
3
FSU’s Approach ► FSU’s Objectives in Adopting Approach Gain Software Knowledge ASAP Achieve Self-Sufficiency Contain Implementation Costs Move Rapidly Toward Implementation
4
BearingPoint’s Perspective ► Implementations Teams Tend to Overmodify ► Overmodification Results from Misunderstanding of Functional Capabilities Costs of Modifications ► FSU’s Approach Limits Modifications Modification Decisions Follow Configuration
5
Traditional Rapid Implementation Approach Cumulative Level of Transformation Knowledge Time / Project Phase Traditional Rapid Implementation Approach
6
FSU’s Rapid Implementation Approach Cumulative Level of Transformation Knowledge Time / Project Phase Traditional Rapid Implementation Approach FSU’s Rapid Implementation Approach
7
Cumulative Level of Transformation Knowledge Time / Project Phase Result of More Rapid Knowledge Transfer
8
Consulting Support for Traditional Rapid Implementation Approach Cumulative Level of Transformation Knowledge Time / Project Phase Level of Consulting Support
9
Consulting Support for FSU’s Rapid Implementation Approach Cumulative Level of Transformation Knowledge Time / Project Phase Level of Consulting Support
10
Consulting Support for Implementation Approaches Cumulative Level of Transformation Knowledge Time / Project Phase Level of Consulting Support
11
Knowledge Transfer Technique ► Configure Rapidly Five Month Project ► First Month – Consultants Demonstrate Capabilities, University Team Members Develop Understanding ► Next Two Months – University Team Members Make Representative Entries, Consultants Coach ► Next Month – Team Members Test the Configuration ► Final Month – Demonstrate Configured System to Campus Community; Documentation, QA, Wrap Up
12
Incentives Supported Rapid Knowledge Transfer ► University Team Participants Best and Brightest Focused on Knowledge Acquisition Full-time Engaged in Iterative Gap Reviews ► Each Conducted with Greater Knowledge of Transformation Knew They Would Be Demonstrating the Configured Software to Their Colleagues Knew They Would Be Responsible for Taking the Configuration Forward on Their Own
13
Knowledge Transfer Confirmed ► University Team Members Independently Re-entered Representative Entries Mid- Project ► University Team Members Successfully Demonstrated the Software Two-Day Demonstrations with University Data Demonstrated Support for Business Processes ► University Team Members Are Successfully Moving Forward with Completion of Design
14
Objectives Being Achieved ► Self-sufficiency being Achieved ► Costs being Contained ► FSU Moving Rapidly toward Implementation
15
The History The Approach The Plan
16
Where Were We? ► Board of Regents ► State Agency ► State Computer Systems Financial (SAMAS) Payroll (Bureau of State Payrolls) DEPENDENT AND OBEDIENT – STATE RULES, REGULATIONS, PROCESSES, AND SYSTEMS
17
Where Are We Now? ► Education Code Rewrite Eliminate Board of Regents Establish Board of Trustees Public Corporation (not State Agency) ► Devolution of Powers State Financial Systems Bureau of State Payrolls
18
Maintain the Status Quo?
19
The Approach Develop the Vision Form the Consortium Invitation to Negotiate Procurement Method Evaluate Products Demonstrations Conference Room Pilot Select and Implement
20
PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS ► Electronic Workflow ► Self-service ► Fewer levels of approval Enhanced front-end editing Simultaneous reporting to management ► Beginning-to-end transactions through shared data ► Best Practices THE VISION
21
► University-Wide Training New Knowledge, Skills ► Possible reorganizations ► Duties changing PEOPLE IMPROVEMENTS THE VISION
22
► Foundation Improvement Common Integrated Systems Shared Data ► Web-Based ► Access to Information ► Forecasting, Modeling, Projecting ► Workflow Automation Less paperwork More efficiency and speed Less data entry TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS THE VISION
23
THE CONSORTIUM
24
Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) ► Four Vendors Responded Oracle, PeopleSoft, SAP, SCT ► Short List Oracle, PeopleSoft, SCT
25
Invitation to Negotiate ► Software Demonstrations Oracle, July 8-12, 2002, Tallahassee PeopleSoft, July 15-19, 2002, Jacksonville SCT, July 29-August 2, 2002, Gainesville ► Negotiations ► Best and Final Offers August 22, 2002
26
PeopleSoft Enterprise Resource Systems And The Winner Was: Human Resources Payroll Financial Systems ► Accounting / University Management ► Sponsored Research ► Purchasing ► Facilities & Property Management Student Systems Best Fit Best Price Best Presence
27
► “Conference Room Pilot” Live prototype September 9 – October 18, 2002 ► Licenses and Maintenance Contract Finalized September 30, 2002 Other contracts: ► Team Training ► End User Training Kit and Materials ► Consulting THE PLAN
28
Reception Server/Switch Room Kitchen Break Room Large Conference Room Open Conference Room PED Office Consultant FAMU PEDUF PED FSU PED Conference Room Large Conference Room Conference Rooms Training Sponsored Programs Asset Management Vendor Relations Payroll Human Resources Student Technical University Mgmt. Training Rest Rooms
30
Team Training Phase October 2002 – February 2003 ► Cumulative 11000+ Hours of Classroom Instruction Average 180 hours per person ► Attended 72 courses collectively ► Over 800 online courses taken On-Line On-Demand Web-based training
31
Team Training Phase October 2002 – February 2003 ► Master’s Degree = 854 Hours of Instruction ► PeopleSoft Master’s? 1,060 Hours of Instruction / Knowledge Transfer
32
Discovery Phase March 2003 – April 2003 ► 604 Issues Identified 311 Resolved 136 Deferred to Later Phase 157 Research
33
► 41 FSU Full-Time Project Members ► 10 FSU Part-Time Project Members (IT support) ► 24 BearingPoint Full-Time Consultants ► 40 FAMU Full-Time Project Members Configuration Phase May 2003 – June 2003
34
Consultant Partner Selection ► BearingPoint (formerly KPMG) ► March 1 – June 30, 2003 ► Knowledge Transfer ► Establish Initial Set-Up Environment ► Cumulative 35,200+ Hours of Consultant Knowledge Transfer Average 880 hours per person
35
Structure Phase July 2003 – December 2003 ► Gap Resolution ► Data Conversion ► Pre-Production Hardware ► Interfaces
36
Open Area Conference with Private Office Space
37
Statistics ► A total of 11 database instances Financials – 6 HR/Payroll – 5 ► Implementing 1,274 database tables for both financials and human resources ► Over 20 modules included in the scope for the current project ► Over 50 application messages
38
Go Live…. JULY 1, 2004 JULY 1, 2004 Financial Systems JANUARY 1, 2005 Human Resources Payroll Systems
39
Critical Success Factors Effective Project Management ► What is FSU Doing? Experienced in-house project manager Utilizing formal project management methodology – Published work plans Daily Team Meetings Team Building Interventions Contractual Agreements ► Hands Off Our Personnel! ► Control of consultants = continuity & quality
40
Timely Decisions and Resolution of Issues ► What is FSU Doing? Empowered team leaders to make majority of decisions Established formal process for executive decision-making Weekly Issues Meetings with Steering Committee Critical Success Factors
41
Availability of Resources When Needed ► What is FSU Doing? Relieved all team members of prior duties Acquired single work location for team Recruited seasoned, knowledgeable staff ► Institutional history ► Extensive involvement in current processes Critical Success Factors
42
Executive Support (Both Real and Perceived) ► What is FSU Doing? Established sponsors prior to beginning of selection process Highest level executives active members of oversight committees/teams Weekly Meetings with Steering Committee Critical Success Factors
43
Software Must Meet Business Needs ► What is FSU Doing? Extensive review and evaluation of software capabilities Conference Room Pilot approach for additional verification of “fit” Close scrutiny by Project Director – avoid “Scope Creep” Critical Success Factors
44
The #1 Most Documented Critical Success Factors are ….. Critical Success Factors Change Management Communications End-User Training
45
What is FSU Doing? ► Full-time training team already in place Project communications Preparation of presentations Design of training programs and materials ► Significant investment in change management, communications, and end-user training
46
► Over 30 Public Appearances Council of Deans Faculty Senate College Meetings (Chairs, Faculty, Staff) Town Meetings HR Department Representative Meetings What is FSU Doing?
47
Three-Year Project Budget Non-Recurring $7,276,795$7,232,425$5,313,058 Recurring (Operational) $ 549,999$ 944,215$ 928,483 TOTALS$7,826,794$8,176,640$6,241,541 Expenses200320042005 Total Three-Year Budget $ 22,244,975
48
Summary of Project Costs Fiscal Year 02-03 Non-Recurring Expenses$10,200,978$ 7,141,072 Recurring Expenses (Operational) $ 549,999$ 707,891 TOTALS$10,750,977$ 7,848,963 Actual BudgetedEOY * EOY Budget Surplus$ 2,902014 * Includes expended, encumbered, projected.
49
For more information: ► www.aim.fsu.edu for presentation and other information regarding the AIM project www.aim.fsu.edu ► dhemings@bearingpoint.net
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.