Steering Committee Meeting Sunflower Project Statewide Financial Management System Update February 13, 2009

2 Today’s Topics Project status and activities – Kent IV&V report - Peggy Change control and pending decisions – Peggy Agency visits and interactions – Gary SMART branding – Kent

3 Change Agent Launch January February March April May June July Begin Design Phase End Design Phase Interface Standards Complete and Published to Agencies The Next Six Months of the Project 1 st Set of Environments Available End Design Phase Begin Build Phase “Go-live” only 1 Year Away! Agencies Begin Working on Interfaces and Systems

4 Building out phase 2 of the Project Plan which includes activities for Build, Test and Deploy phases All major milestones are on-schedule or ahead of schedule: Interface standards Configuration design Training plan under development Over 50 reports identified for development Personal Learning Plans being developed for State project team members Project Status and Activities

5 Developed and presented options for the Post Go-live support organization Wrapping up review of Analyze phase deliverables Drafting Deliverables Expectations Documents for Design phase deliverables Developing data warehouse and reporting approach Developing roles and associated training curriculums Project Status and Activities

6 Boundaries have been established by the Project Leadership to address system access for state educational institutions at “go- live” State educational institutions will: Interface vouchers and receipt revenue into SMART similar to current interfaces with STARS and SOKI Access SMART directly to perform business processes currently performed in STARS and SOKI; this will be a limited number of end users View and retrieve agency data entered into SMART after attending appropriate training and with proper authorization Not be re quired to load any assets into SMART Project Status and Activities

7 Positives: Well-staffed and capable project team Well-organized Effectively completed Analyze phase Negatives: Large scope in terms of number of software modules and number of agencies – recommends contingency planning No Accenture QA Lead Agency Liaison team is potentially understaffed Findings from Independent Validation & Verification Review

8 Formal Change Control Board meetings each week Change orders approved since last Steering Committee meeting: Labor distribution Modifications and interfaces to support the new Set-off system (time and materials) Change orders anticipated for next Steering Committee meeting: 1 st round of software mods and enhancements Reduction in scope of FARMS and Central Cashier due to the ability of the delivered software to meet the business requirements Reduction in the scope of Purchasing modules Change Control

9 9 Scope Decisions – Set-off Alternatives Analysis: AlternativeCostRisk to ProjectQuality of Solution DevelopmentInterface* Level of Effort Degree of Integration Use of Project Resources FunctionalityMaintainabilityStability Keep Current System and Interface to PeopleSoftN/AT&M $150KLow Moderate Develop Replacement via 3 rd Party and Interface to PeopleSoft$100 - $150KT&M $150KLow – ModerateHigh SI Develop Replacement w/i PeopleSoft$1,500,000Moderate - HighModerateLowHigh * SI’s quote for an Interfacing Solution is $549,576; managed as a Time and Materials (T&M) mod expected costs are significantly less based on SOK SME analysis. Recommendation: Replace Set-Off System outside of PeopleSoft using 3 rd party and have SI interface into FMS using a time and materials arrangement

10 Analysis of centralized vs. de-centralized security – survey sent to agencies – decision will be made by next month Finalize chart of accounts – mapping exercise sent to agencies Method for Interfund processing – G/L versus using A/P and A/R Method for end-of-year encumbering Pending Project Decisions

11 Replace Warrant Tracking System – operated and maintained by the State Treasurer Office (STO) System is obsolete and needs to be replaced Three options considered: 1.STO re-build warrant tracking system 2.Perform warrant tracking in SMART (requires mods) 3.Outsource warrant tracking to UMB Considering replacing most agency satellite warrant writing systems Pending Project Decisions

12 Approximately180 attendees ALL agencies represented Audience included Agency Primary Contact, Technical Contact, Training Contact Reviewed the agency task list (100+ tasks) Change Agent Network Launch

13 Feedback: The Event Met My Expectations: 17.4% very satisfied 63.0% satisfied 16.3% neutral 3.3% unsatisfied Sample of comments: “When will someone talk to our agency about our needs specifically? You'd think that would be important in designing a new system to interview the 2nd branch of government.” “Information on the vendor file. For example, will it be centralized? Will it be shared with agencies who interface with the SMART system? Information on the new chart of accounts and the interface specifications.” “Sometimes people within agencies are not the best in communicating, and maybe I'm getting ahead of the ballgame, but still really unclear what is going to be stored in the Data Warehouse, other than Accounts Payable data. Maybe when we start talking interfaces, it will start to clear-up..” “I didn't get a clear picture of agency reporting capabilities. Addressing future ad hoc and standard report capabilities may reduce some of the change fears.” Change Agent Network Launch } 80%

14 Meetings held to finalize scope: DOL HCSF Corrections KDHE Aging State Historical Society Numerous small ASTRA Upcoming meetings: Wildlife and Parks Legislative DISC DFM SOS Many, many more Agency Visits and Interactions

15 SMART Branding

16 Questions and Answers? For additional information on the project, please see the project website:

17 Authority for Change Requests Change Request AuthorityCost ImpactScope ImpactImpact on PS Code Base Schedule ImpactAgency ImpactLaw, Reg, Policy Impact Level 1 Executive SponsorsTBD Any change affecting the “Go-live” date TBDAny changes affecting laws, regulations or other non-A&R policies Level 2 Steering CommitteeChanges over $50K “Significant” impact on project scope (+/-) TBDRecommends changes to Executive Sponsors Level 3 FMS Mgmt Team (CCB)Changes under $50K “Moderate” impact on project scope (+/-) All mods approved by FMS Mgmt Team Any change affecting KITO milestones or other key (internal management) milestones Any decisions/ changes “adversely” affecting agencies Any changes affecting A&R policies and procedures Level 4 Managers All changes affecting cost (+/-) approved by FMS Mgmt Team “Minor” impact on project scope (+/-) “Minor” impact on project activities that do not adversely impact a milestone Configuration decisions benefiting agencies that do not impact cost or do not impact a milestone