1. David M. Erickson; david.m.erickson@elevate-hr.com Implementing AX HCM: A Case Study AXUG Midwest 11/20/2014

2. Agenda  Introduction  Framework: Drivers by Outcome  3 Case Studies  Summary  Q&A

3. Elevate HR Profile  Elevate HR is the pre-eminent, dedicated provider of Human Resource products and services in the global Microsoft Dynamics AX market  Original developers of Microsoft Dynamics® AX Human Resources and Questionnaire modules (OEM)  Originated as MindKey in 1998  Sold IP to Microsoft after AX 2009 release  MBO of MindKey Dynamics AX HCM practice in 2010 to form Elevate HR  Subject matter experts in Human Resources, HR processes and technology, business transformation  We develop products to extend the Human Capital Management modules of Dynamics AX  We implement the full suite of HCM and Payroll for Dynamics AX

4. David Erickson CEO, Elevate HR, Inc.  28 years in strategic HR tech, transformation, operations, and development  Played key role in 3 of the largest corporate mergers in history  Held executive Business Transformation, HR, IT, and HR Operations positions at numerous Fortune 50 companies:  Honeywell  Pfizer  Bristol-Myers Squib  Former CEO, MindKey Global (Elevate HR predecessor)  Lead MBO to form Elevate HR, Inc.

5. Framework

6.  Culture  Reactive to current state  Planned future state  Strategy  Stand-alone AX HCM platform  Integrated AX ERP platform

7. Scenarios: Culture by Strategy Reactive Integrated Solution Stand-alone HRMS Planned

8. Ready, Aim, Fire  Ready first  Broad scope global ERP  Aim first  Organizationally not ready to proceed  Fire first  Unyielding integration driven by merger  Reality:  Situational  Iterative

9. Scenarios: Ready, Aim, Fire Reactive Integrated Solution Stand-alone HRMS Planned FireCoReadyCo AimCo

10. FireCo, AimCo, ReadyCo  Drivers & Strategy  Project landscape  Scope  What worked well  Problems encountered Composite cases

11. FireCo

12. FireCo: Drivers & Strategy  Input one: Merger integration  Must harmonize for speed of cultural alignment to new company  Must rationalize multiple redundant systems  Input two: Divestiture  Must be off former parent platform by “x” date  Must tailor new company processes to new business model  HR calendar: Benefits Open Enrollment  Strategy: Clear ERP (vs. Best of Breed) strategy  Replace only; no new features in Phase I  “Make it happen”

13. FireCo: Project Landscape  Energy and budget due to merger/divestiture  “Pre-approved”  Limited: budgets created without full discovery/analysis  Project part of over-arching business strategy  Different ERP platforms for different entities  Existing AX2009  Existing other ERP(s)  FireCo team served as “Primary Partner;” workforce and expertise supplementation

14. FireCo: Scope  Phase I  Core HRMS features (Org, Job, Position, Worker, Comp)  Employee Lifecycle Processes  Payroll interface  Advanced compensation  Phase 1(b)  Cleanup/redo of several Phase 1(a) components  Phase II  Benefits Administration  Full Employee and Manager Self Service  Company-specific modifications  Phase III  Everything we have released and will release (roadmap)

15. FireCo: What Worked Well  Mandate for action, the burning platform  Resources onboard and engaged  Empowerment to act  Scope management  Executive engagement  Obstacles removed  Quick decision-making

16. FireCo: Problems Encountered  HR functional group was disconnected from project, with IT driving everything  Slow to adopt new processes and procedures  Speed of action  Acting ahead of understanding of system: mistakes made  Scheduling of expert resources  Promote to production process insufficiently rigorous  Considerable rework required… creation of Phase 1b

17. AimCo

18. AimCo: Drivers  New management launching global growth strategy  Fragmented Application portfolio  Highly manual HR processes, too slow, too costly, too inaccurate, not scalable  Change in third party payroll provider; expiration of contract  HR calendar: Benefits open enrollment

19. AimCo: Project Landscape  New to AX: aiming for global rollout of Finance, HCM, Procurement  HCM most broken, so highest priority  Primary Partner hosts AimCo’s environment  Internal team hired and put in place specifically for the project  Skills in other ERP platforms, not AX  During project became an HR-First (HR Only)

20. AimCo: Scope  Core HRMS features (Org, Job, Position, Worker, Comp)  Employee Lifecycle Processes  Advanced compensation  Benefits Administration  Full Employee and Manager Self Service  Company-specific modifications  Payroll interface  Skills and competencies (where available)  Etc.

21. AimCo: What Worked Well  Strong, driven functional leader  Excellent project management coordination between Primary and Secondary Partners  Scope management came into play (original target scope modified, i.e., HR Only for first go-live)  Despite problems, went live within a couple weeks of original target  Served as example of success for other AimCo projects

22. AimCo: Problems Encountered  HR and IT somewhat disconnected, with HR driving it  Internal churn in IT department  Integrating newly hired team into AimCo culture proved too daunting  Difficulty in maintaining engagement of distributed functional project team

23. ReadyCo

24. ReadyCo: Drivers  Moving to AX 2012 from highly customized AX 2009 Platform  Looking to implement vanilla, including appropriate vanilla ISV’s  Globalizing and moving into new markets

25. ReadyCo: Project Landscape  Full ERP, phased approach by functional area and global region  Dedicated project team, project manager and leadership  Full post-implementation and administrative support organization in place  Strong business and technical team coordination  HR project tightly integrated within full project  Defined functional

26. ReadyCo: Scope  Phase I  Replace AX 2009 Core HRMS features and integrations  Employee Lifecycle Processes  Benefits Administration  Time management (PTO Accruals portion)  Company-specific modifications  Phase II  Full Employee and Manager Self Service  Advanced Compensation  Advance Recruiting (Requisition Request via Manager Self-Service)

27. ReadyCo: What Worked Well  HR, IT, other functions well aligned and engaged across organizational boundaries  Tightly defined and managed leadership structure  Promote to production process  Well managed teams  Tightly managed scope

28. ReadyCo: Problems Encountered  Not many  Highly sophisticated approach and model caused delay of “go live”  But this was identified early, business brought into decision, project parameters appropriately adjusted

29. Conclusion

30. Scenarios: Culture by Strategy Reactive Integrated Solution Stand-alone HRMS Planned Good: High energy, fast pace, firm deadlines Bad: many errors requiring re-work, cost Good: well-organized, highly disciplined, well-planned, effective executive leadership Bad: not much Good: strong functional leadership, scope management, went live near target Bad: Overly ambitious target, team integration, managing distributed team

31. Takeaways  No right or wrong approach  Project rooms are called “war rooms” for a reason  In battle, sometimes you have to shoot when you’re not ready, and aim well when you don’t pull the trigger  Iterative  That said, when business exigencies don’t preclude it, best to get ready, then aim, then fire

32. Questions? If not answered today, please reach out! www.elevate-hr.com +1 973-917-3230 info@elevate-hr.com Q&A