1. Steering Committee Meeting Sunflower Project Statewide Financial Management System Update
May 8, 2009

2. Today’s Topics Project status and activities – Kent
Change control – Peggy
IV&V review and report – Peggy
Decisions to-date and pending decisions – Gary
Agency visits and interactions – Gary
Enterprise readiness – Donna Harold

3. Project Timeline “Go-live” only 1 Year Away!
January February March April May June July
Change Agent Launch
End Analyze Phase
& Begin Design Phase
1st Set of Environments
Available
End Design Phase &
Begin Build Phase
Agencies Begin Working
on Interfaces and Systems
Configuration Workshops
Conversion Workshops
Interface Standards Complete and
Published to Agencies
Configure System, Develop Mods
Develop Reports, Build Interfaces,
Run Data Conversions

4. Project Status and Activities
Phase 2 of the Project Plan (Build, Test and Deploy) approved by KITO
Completed review of most Design phase deliverables
Reports (agency and central) are in functional design
Shifting gears to the Build phase, i.e. configuring the system by developing configuration data spreadsheets for control data and setting system parameters
Developing test conditions and test scripts

5. Project Status and Activities
Requests for additional interfaces (e.g. inventory for State hospitals, encumbrances/POs for KCI)
Data conversion workshops held on May 5th:
Approx 150 attendees
Provided overview of conversion process
Discussed data conversion strategies and considerations such as on-line vs. automated
Reviewed agency and project responsibilities and timeline
Data Warehouse Advisory Group
Held 1st meeting
Engaged group with lots of good ideas
Homework assigned – prototype a management dashboard for CFO or other high-level manager
Hands-on workshop in late June using data warehouse and query/reporting tools and dashboards

6. Project Status and Activities
Concerns that agencies do not have all necessary information to design changes to systems and interfaces
Piloting a “one-stop” shop approach to answer all pressing agency questions in a single meeting – SRS, KDOT, Regents
Planning additional sessions for other interfacing agencies
Held three coordination workshops that included functional and technical staff to identify and address barriers impacting agency progress on design of system changes and interfaces:
KU, KUMC, KSU
WSU, ESU
SRS

7. Project Status and Activities
Held project retreat for State team members:
Decisions made to-date and pending decisions
Recognizing and coping with stress and burnout
Next phases of the project (Build, Test, Deploy) and inter-team dependencies
Preliminary plans for maintaining much of the State project team during the 1st year of operations
Developing a demo of SMART for agencies to better understand and visualize the system and interaction of modules and interfaces

8. Project Status and Activities
Bumps in the road:
No Finance Team members at 1st interface Workshop – fielded a lot of questions that the Tech Team could not answer; publishing the Q&A
No deposit interface layouts available for the A/R interface workshop
Data conversion layouts 30 days late
Revised interface layout for additional field (EIN/SSN) needed but has not been made available to agencies
Sent invite to Regents for data conversion workshop – no data conversion
Use of remote access is working fine and reducing travel requirements

9. Upcoming Project Activities
Change Agent Network meeting – May 20th, :00am, Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library
Data conversion workshops for:
Assets
POs and purchasing contracts
Projects and grants
A/R and customers
Workshop for Regents interfacing to SHARP and publish SHARP interface layouts

10. Change Control
Change orders approved since last Steering Committee meeting
Note: Credit of $97K for FARMS replacement, i.e. decrease in the fixed-price cost due to use of delivered functionality vs. custom code; minor mods required to add approx 12 SRS-specific data elements, security, data warehouse, etc.

11. Change Control Agreement by Sponsors and STO to proceed with Option 2
Background:
Warrant Tracking System operated and maintained by the State Treasurer Office (STO) is obsolete and needs to be replaced/rebuilt
Was not included in original scope but should have been
Three options considered:
STO re-build warrant tracking system
Perform warrant tracking in SMART (requires mods); STO maintains control of the business process
Outsource warrant tracking to UMB
Recommended Option 2
Higher cost than Option 1 in the near-term but Option 2 is in the best long-term interest of the State, i.e.
Maintainability – fits under an enterprise infrastructure
Consolidates all warrant information in SMART (except KDOR satellite warrants for tax refunds)
Service level agreement between DISC and STO
Agreement by Sponsors and STO to proceed with Option 2

12. Change Control Balance of hours for mods and enhancements
Total Accenture hrs used = 8,163 (8,002 last month)
Total available contract hrs = 19,130
% Used = 42.3%
% Remaining = 57.7%

13. IV&V Review Second of five scheduled reviews
Two week review – one week reviewing documents and one week on-site
Interviewed 25 individuals from Sunflower team (State and Accenture), DISC, Sponsors and SRS and KDOT
Reviewed 26 documents including 11 deliverables

14. IV&V Report
“The IV&V Team assessment is that the Sunflower Project status and overall ‘health’ continues to be very good.”
“It is clear that the State continues to emphasize planning and preparation for the coordination and communication necessary to successfully accomplish the Sunflower Project.”
Key risk identified (same as in previous report):
Schedule risk – due to the scope in terms of number of modules and number of agencies; delays in publishing the COA, interface standards and data conversion layouts to agencies increase the risk to agencies with extensive workloads
Recommend monthly critical path reviews of “at risk” agencies’ project plans

15. IV&V Report
Report noted previously identified risk and actions to resolve these risks:
QA Organization – Improve understanding of Accenture QPI role and recommendation that Accenture QPI group periodically meet with the State QA team and inform them of recent QPI activities
Technology – Concern regarding scope growth in the number of environments has been resolved
Contingency Planning for Scope Risk – Developed a “Go-live” Decision Making Framework and Contingency Plan – “The IV&V Team commends the PMO for their initiative in this initial contingency planning exercise.”

16. Decisions To-date

17. Pending Decisions
Encumbrances – recommended option is to use a combination of PO and G/L; require a PO if the vendor is known and use G/L encumbrances for “blanket” when vendor is not known; universities use of encumbrances in SMART is TBD
Interfunds – recommended option is to use A/R and A/P modules and modify SMART to match the paired transactions so that an agency can view both sides of the transaction (A/R and A/P), establish agency-to-agency notifications, and eliminations – modification will be required
Auto-numbering – recommended option is to follow “best practices” and use auto-numbering functionality, but allow agencies to choose “smart” numbering to avoid major change management issues with agencies
Additional interfaces:
State hospitals would like an interface from SMART Purchasing module into their consumable inventory systems – this interface would be of value to multiple agencies

18. Agency Visits and Interactions
Meetings held to discuss scope and interfaces:
KDOT
Health Policy
Commerce
DOL
SOS
KDHE
KPERS
Education
Aging
Insurance
Regents
SRS
KCI
Corrections
Sentencing Commission
Legislative
And others…
All agencies except 2 (Office of Administrative Hearings and INK), have been visited at least once and “confirmation document” approved by agencies’ fiscal and IT leadership

19. Knowledge Transfer Plans
Donna Harold – Accenture ER Lead

20. Knowledge Transfer Objectives
Transition knowledge and skill from Accenture to State staff to help enable them to perform their roles on the project and in the Post Go-Live Support Organization (PGLSO)
Define and gain acceptance of the PGLSO early
Effectively engage State staff with activities that focus on knowledge enhancement and skill development
Use a variety of activities and methods to transfer knowledge
Steve is the MC
Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved.

21. Knowledge Transfer Approach
Identify Structure of the Post Go-Live Support Organization
Determine Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSA) No
Kick-Off
Target KSA Level Met?
Determine Knowledge Transfer Activities
Update PLPs
Execute PLPs
Yes
Develop Initial Personal Learning Plans (PLPs)
Knowledge Transfer Complete
Knowledge Transfer Kick-Off: Individuals Personalize PLPs
Monitor and Report on Knowledge Transfer Progress
Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 21

22. Personal Learning Plans
Central to the Sunflower Project Knowledge Transfer Approach is the use of a Personal Learning Plan (PLP)
Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved.

23. Personal Learning Plans
Enables the State and Accenture resources to objectively and proactively plan and manage knowledge transfer activities to completion
Lists the skills and/or knowledge that is required to successfully execute tasks for a particular role in the project or PGLSO
Identifies project activities that will transfer knowledge
Formalizes knowledge transfer, along with identifying the target date by which the knowledge transfer completes
Each State project team member has a PLP that they maintain specific to their role
Once resources are identified for the PGLSO their PLP’s will be updated (or created) to include KSAs needed
Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved.

24. Knowledge Transfer Scorecard
Reports on overall Knowledge Transfer progress at the team level
Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved.

25. Knowledge Transfer Timeline by Project Phase
Design
Build
Test / Deploy
Post Go-Live Support
Initial PLP
Knowledge Transfer Activities / Update Personal Learning Plans
PGLSO / Help Desk Structure & Processes
Help Desk Set-up & Training
PGLSO Operational
Submit Personal Learning Plans to Enterprise Readiness Team
3/13/09
10/15//09
3/15/10
6/15/10
9/15/10
Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved.
Knowledge Transfer Scorecards

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

27. Authority for Change Requests
Cost Impact
Scope Impact
Impact on
PS Code
Base
Schedule Impact
Agency Impact
Law, Reg, Policy Impact
Level 1
Executive Sponsors
TBD
Any change affecting the “Go-live” date
Any changes affecting laws, regulations or other non-A&R policies
Level 2
Steering Committee
Changes over $50K
“Significant” impact on project scope (+/-)
Recommends 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