Russ Henderson, Project Director, ERP Project Florida State University David Hemingson, Managing Director, BearingPoint Sprinting Up the Learning Curve: An Approach to Rapid Implementation

► Copyright Florida State University and BearingPoint, Inc 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.

FSU’s Approach ► FSU’s Objectives in Adopting Approach  Gain Software Knowledge ASAP  Achieve Self-Sufficiency  Contain Implementation Costs  Move Rapidly Toward Implementation

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

Traditional Rapid Implementation Approach Cumulative Level of Transformation Knowledge Time / Project Phase Traditional Rapid Implementation Approach

FSU’s Rapid Implementation Approach Cumulative Level of Transformation Knowledge Time / Project Phase Traditional Rapid Implementation Approach FSU’s Rapid Implementation Approach

Cumulative Level of Transformation Knowledge Time / Project Phase Result of More Rapid Knowledge Transfer

Consulting Support for Traditional Rapid Implementation Approach Cumulative Level of Transformation Knowledge Time / Project Phase Level of Consulting Support

Consulting Support for FSU’s Rapid Implementation Approach Cumulative Level of Transformation Knowledge Time / Project Phase Level of Consulting Support

Consulting Support for Implementation Approaches Cumulative Level of Transformation Knowledge Time / Project Phase Level of Consulting Support

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

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

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

Objectives Being Achieved ► Self-sufficiency being Achieved ► Costs being Contained ► FSU Moving Rapidly toward Implementation

The History The Approach The Plan

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

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

Maintain the Status Quo?

The Approach Develop the Vision Form the Consortium Invitation to Negotiate Procurement Method Evaluate Products Demonstrations Conference Room Pilot Select and Implement

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

► University-Wide Training  New Knowledge, Skills ► Possible reorganizations ► Duties changing PEOPLE IMPROVEMENTS THE VISION

► 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

THE CONSORTIUM

Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) ► Four Vendors Responded  Oracle, PeopleSoft, SAP, SCT ► Short List  Oracle, PeopleSoft, SCT

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

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

► “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

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

Team Training Phase October 2002 – February 2003 ► Cumulative 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

Team Training Phase October 2002 – February 2003 ► Master’s Degree = 854 Hours of Instruction ► PeopleSoft Master’s?  1,060 Hours of Instruction / Knowledge Transfer

Discovery Phase March 2003 – April 2003 ► 604 Issues Identified  311 Resolved  136 Deferred to Later Phase  157 Research

► 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

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

Structure Phase July 2003 – December 2003 ► Gap Resolution ► Data Conversion ► Pre-Production Hardware ► Interfaces

Open Area Conference with Private Office Space

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

Go Live…. JULY 1, 2004 JULY 1, 2004 Financial Systems JANUARY 1, 2005 Human Resources Payroll Systems

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

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

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

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

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

The #1 Most Documented Critical Success Factors are ….. Critical Success Factors Change Management Communications End-User Training

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

► Over 30 Public Appearances  Council of Deans  Faculty Senate  College Meetings (Chairs, Faculty, Staff)  Town Meetings  HR Department Representative Meetings What is FSU Doing?

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 Expenses Total Three-Year Budget $ 22,244,975

Summary of Project Costs Fiscal Year 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, * Includes expended, encumbered, projected.

For more information: ► for presentation and other information regarding the AIM project ►