Steering Committee Meeting Sunflower Project Statewide Financial Management System Update

Steering Committee Meeting

Sunflower ProjectStatewide 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

Chang

e Age

nt

Laun

ch

January February March April May June July

Begin

Design

Pha

se

End D

esign

Pha

se

Inte

rface

Sta

ndar

ds C

omple

te a

nd

Publis

hed

to A

genc

ies

The Next Six Months of the Project

1st S

et o

f Env

ironm

ents

Availa

ble

End D

esign

Pha

se

Begin

Build

Phase

“Go-live” only1 Year Away!

Agenc

ies B

egin

Wor

king

on In

terfa

ces a

nd S

yste

ms

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 required 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:• 1st 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

99

Scope Decisions – Set-off

Alternatives Analysis:Alternative Cost Risk to Project Quality of Solution

Development Interface*Level of EffortDegree of IntegrationUse of Project Resources

Functionality Maintainability Stability

Keep Current System and Interface to PeopleSoft N/A T&M $150K Low Low Low Moderate

Develop Replacement via 3rd Party and Interface to PeopleSoft $100 - $150K T&M $150K Low – Moderate High High High

SI Develop Replacement w/i PeopleSoft $1,500,000 Moderate - High Moderate Low High

* 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 3rd 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 agencies @ 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 seethe project website: http://www.da.ks.gov/ar/fms/

17

Authority for Change Requests

Change Request

Authority Cost Impact Scope Impact Impact on PS Code

Base

Schedule Impact Agency Impact Law, Reg, Policy Impact

Level 1Executive Sponsors TBD TBD Any change affecting

the “Go-live” dateTBD Any changes affecting

laws, regulations or other non-A&R policies

Level 2Steering Committee Changes over $50K “Significant” impact on

project scope (+/-)TBD Recommends changes

to Executive Sponsors

Level 3FMS 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 ManagersAll 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