1. Steering Committee Meeting Sunflower Project Statewide Financial Management System Update January 16, 2009

2. 2 Today’s Topics Project status and activities – Kent IV&V - Peggy Agency feedback on CRPs – Peggy Change control – Peggy Summary of Analyze phase – Gary Labor distribution analysis – Gary System name – Kent

3. 3 Project Kick-off Oct 6 th Begin FMS Team Training mid-Octobermid- November Begin Conference Room Pilots Analysis Phase Complete mid-January Interface Standards Complete and Published to Agencies mid-April The 1 st Six Months of the Project Winding Down – End of Analysis Phase Build-out of Data Center Including SHARP II mid-March mid-February

4. 4 Staffing: Filled 2 of 3 training positions Filled remaining position for Agency Readiness team Last developer on-board One position open for security analyst Conference Room Pilots – complete Surveyed participants for feedback KITO Reporting Pre-Implementation – final submittal Implementation – quarterly filing QA Plan - complete Project Activities

5. 5 Twenty-seven (27) deliverables scheduled to be submitted as of 01/15/09 Twenty-three (23) deliverables have been submitted to-date (remaining 4 deliverables are in final review and will be submitted early next week Deliverables encompass the following areas: Project Controls Functional Technical Enterprise Readiness Special scope sections KDOT FARMS & Central Cashier BMS State Treasurer Systems SHARP Integration Labor Distribution Project Activities – Deliverables

6. 6 Continuing build-out of data center for Development and Testing environments – February 1 st Published 1 st electronic newsletter Forming a data warehouse advisory group (data experts from large agencies, Legislative post-audit, KU) Oracle demonstration (today) of five non-core Purchasing-related modules; Chris Howe and FMS team to decide which modules to implement for the July 2010 “big bang”; will inform Steering Committee at February meeting of final decision Project Activities – Miscellaneous

7. 7 Number of GL business units Finalize chart of accounts Method for Interfund processing Auto-numbering vs. smart numbering Encumbrances Strategy to capture greater percentage of spend data Most of these decisions will be made in next 2 months during the Design phase Pending Design Decisions

8. 8 On-site all week Attended meetings Reviewed documents (SOW, Project Charter, Project schedule, Change Control Process) Interviewed 16 project team members (State and Accenture) Draft report due January 23 rd Independent Validation & Verification Review

9. 9 Orient change agents to the Sunflower Project and their roles Agency Change Agents include the Agency Primary Contact, Technical Contact, Training Contact and subject matter experts (SMEs) Agency Change Agents will be the primary point of contact between the Project and the agency Agency change agents will be responsible for: Disseminating relevant project information Ensuring agency personnel are adequately trained Advocate the Sunflower Project and champion change throughout the agency Change Agent Network Launch

10. 10 About Survey Sent to all CRP participants on December 19 –One survey per person Ex: 1 CRP attended = 1 Survey, 10 CRPs attended = 1 Survey –130 – CRP Participants Surveyed –Email sent to primary contact for each agency advising them of the survey Responses: –68 Total Responses through January 8, 2009 52% Response Rate

11. 11 CRPs Respondents Participated In:

12. 12 Reactions to CRPs Clearly described purposes of the CRP session: –4.25 out of 5(85.0%) Interact about session content with Sunflower Project Team Members at an appropriate level of detail: –4.08 out of 5(81.6%) My agency's business requirements were adequately captured during the CRPs: –3.44 out of 5(68.8%) The CRP format was an effective way for me to participate in the Sunflower Project: –3.97 out of 5(79.4%) 12345 Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeitherAgreeStrongly Agree

13. 13 Summary of CRP Feedback Agencies want more: –More one on one time with Project staff –More knowledge of PeopleSoft functionality –More knowledge of PeopleSoft integration –More communication on decisions like SHaRP, Time and Labor, COA, Program Codes –How the FMS will work for their agencies

14. 14 Summary of CRP Feedback Finance Team take-a-ways: –Provide future meeting information in advance if possible –Be respectful of agency staff time –Provide follow up information –More sessions –More participants –Smaller groups

15. 15 Pending change orders: Set-off interfaces Warrant reconciliation process Project Activities – Change Control Log

16. 16 Continuing weekly meetings to assess software gaps (from CRPs) Gaps become candidates for mods based on benefit Candidate mods are costed Final decision go/no-go on each mod Mods going forward follow the change control process Process: design => build => test => deploy 1 st group of mods will be presented at February Steering Committee meeting Change Control – Software Enhancements & Mods

17. 17 Surprisingly few mods, so far; more on this topic next month… FARMS and Central Cashier replacement functionality does not appear to involve the level of mods/customizations originally anticipated KDOT analysis confirmed replacement of IFIS and VES and interfacing specific KDOT systems to specific PeopleSoft modules; analysis also included an approach to transition additional KDOT systems to the FMS over time Summary of Analyze Phase

18. 18 Draft Analysis document distributed to Steering Committee for review Analysis team included FMS, A&R, DPS and DISC Three options were evaluated: 1. No central time and labor solution 2. Implement Time and Labor for select agencies 3. Modifications to SHARP custom Time and Leave Option 2 had several variations in areas such as on-line time entry into PS Time and Labor, employee self-service, workflow approvals and architecture Labor Distribution Analysis

19. 19 Guiding Principles 1. Agencies should be able retain their current level of functionality in terms of electronic approvals, workflow, employee self-service capabilities; agencies should not have to “take a step” backward to use the central labor distribution solution. 2.The solution will minimize additional modifications to SHARP and use delivered functionality wherever possible. 3.The solution will move the State towards its stated vision of employee self-service and electronic workflow for leave requests and time approval. 4.The solution will not add significant risk to the overall Sunflower Project. 5.The solution will minimize the amount of on-going support required by DISC, A&R and DPS by minimizing the number of interfaces from agency time capture systems to SHARP, the number of rule sets and other areas of complexity and the amount of periodic maintenance required. 6.Don’t force agencies to use more than one time capture system.

20. 20 Central Labor Distribution – Other Considerations Timekeepers vs. self-service, i.e. number of users Three agencies would like to retain their current time capture systems and interface to PS Time and Labor Resources needed during implementation from DPS, DISC and A&R Involvement of agencies in Analyze, Build and Test, Deploy phases Training required for administrators, supervisors, staff Impact on SHARP Integration and SHARP changes Overall risk to the project Resources needed for post go-live support

21. 21 Options and Recommended Option Option 1 does not meet agencies’ needs and will require agencies to maintain legacy and “shadow” systems. Option 1 runs counter to the objectives of the Sunflower Project, i.e. to move agencies to single platform/application Option 2 meets the agencies’ needs, supports the strategic direction for SHARP and aligns with the guiding principles; it provides the platform to easily bring on other agencies and move towards employee self-service Option 3 does not support the strategic direction for SHARP and does not align with the guiding principles (for these reasons in-depth analysis of Option 3 was not performed) Several variations on Option 2 were analyzed by the team in subsequent sessions

22. 22 Option 2 – Architecture Alternative #1 High risk Impacts all employees More implementation effort and less maintenance Alternative #2 Less risk No impact on SHARP for 95% of State employees who do not need labor distribution Less implementation effort more maintenance effort Mods required Recommended Architecture

23. 23 Central Labor Distribution – Recommendation Project is in good shape, i.e. scope control, on-schedule and w/i budget Team is doing a very good job of vetting and controlling potential mods Agencies are on-board and need this functionality Strong and capable State leadership for Central Systems Integration – Pam Fink Knowledgeable functional consultant provided by Accenture Central agency resource needs (A&R and DPS) have been addressed Positions the State for the future – 25 add’l agencies have a need for labor distribution and would be brought on after “go-live” Project has the resources and the momentum Recommendation: proceed with implementation

24. 24 System Name Shortlist of candidate names: SOLAR – Statewide On-Line Accounting & Reporting System KARMS – Kansas Accounting, Reporting & Management System KIFS – Kansas Integrated Financial System SMART – Statewide Management Accounting Reports Technology KFIS – Kansas Financial Information System ASTRA – Automated Statewide Reporting & Accounting System Finalists: 1.KSMART – Kansas Statewide Management Accounting and Reporting Tools 2.SMART – Statewide Management Accounting and Reporting Tools 3.SMARTK – Statewide Management Accounting and Reporting Tools for Kansas

25. 25 Questions and Answers? For additional information on the project, please see the project website: http://www.da.ks.gov/ar/fms/

26. 26 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