FINANCIAL SYSTEMS REPLACEMENT INITIATIVE - UCLA · FINANCIAL SYSTEMS REPLACEMENT INITIATIVE . ... a market leader in systems consulting, ... documenting processes for each system

FINANCIAL SYSTEMS REPLACEMENT INITIATIVE

ERP—PCD—03B

Draft — March 12, 2012

Prepared by Corporate Financial Services

PROJECT CONTROL DOCUMENT

ERP-PCD-03B MARCH 12, 2012 PAGE 2

© Copyright 2002-2004, The Regents of the University of California All rights reserved.

UCLA FINANCIAL SYSTEMS REPLACEMENT INITIATIVE

ERP-PCD-02A MARCH 12, 2012 PAGE i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ........................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AND HISTORY OF THE PROJECT ................................... 1 1.3 PROJECT STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................. 3

1.3.1 Executive Sponsors ............................................................................................................ 4 1.3.2 Functional Sponsors .......................................................................................................... 4 1.3.3 Project Organization and Management ............................................................................. 4 1.3.4 Other Stakeholders ............................................................................................................. 4

1.4 SUMMARY OF WORK TO DATE ............................................................................................... 5 1.5 DELIVERABLES ....................................................................................................................... 5

2 SCOPE ........................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................. 7 2.2 PLANNING PROCESS ............................................................................................................... 7 2.3 PROCESSES / PEOPLE AFFECTED ............................................................................................. 8 2.4 TECHNOLOGIES / SYSTEMS AFFECTED ................................................................................... 9 2.5 BUDGET ................................................................................................................................ 10 2.6 FORMAL REPORTING AND REVIEWS ..................................................................................... 11 2.7 MANAGEMENT OF CHANGES TO SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND ASSUMPTIONS ............................ 11 2.8 EXCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 11

3 SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................................. 12 3.1 LIFECYCLE MODEL ............................................................................................................... 12 3.2 DEPENDENCIES ..................................................................................................................... 13 3.3 STAFFING .............................................................................................................................. 13 3.4 SUBCONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................ 14 3.5 RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................. 14 3.6 CONTINGENCIES ................................................................................................................... 14

4 ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 15 4.1 PLANNING ............................................................................................................................. 15 4.2 THIRD PARTY COMMITMENTS .............................................................................................. 15 4.3 EXPECTED LOADS AND/OR TRANSACTION VOLUMES .......................................................... 15 4.4 TECHNOLOGIES – HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ................................................................... 16 4.5 NON-SCHEDULE RISKS ......................................................................................................... 16 4.6 NON-SCHEDULE CONTINGENCIES ........................................................................................ 16 4.7 DEPLOYMENT ....................................................................................................................... 16 4.8 FUNDING ............................................................................................................................... 16

5 SIGNATURES ............................................................................................................................. 17 6 REFERENCES AND ATTACHMENTS .................................................................................. 18 APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................... 19

A - 1 ORIGINAL PROJECT BUDGET .................................................................................................... 19

APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................................... 20 B - 1 APPLICATION INVENTORY ........................................................................................................ 20

ERP-PCD-03B MARCH 12, 2012 PAGE ii

APPENDIX C ...................................................................................................................................... 25 C- 1 PROPOSED PROJECT ORGANIZATION CHART ............................................................................. 25

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Major Milestones and Deliverables ....................................................................................... 12 Table 2 – Critical Resource Availability ................................................................................................ 13

REVISION HISTORY

11/15/08 – Draft 01A……………………………Working draft for ERP 02/13/09 – Draft 02A……………………………Added items based on comments from

Sam Morabito, Don Worth, Andrew Wissmiller 10/05/09 – Draft 03A……………………………Updated for Kickoff meeting with Executive

Committee 10/30/09 – Draft 03 B……………………………Correction to section 2.5 on Budget to reflect

additional funds allocated


FINANCIAL SYSTEMS REPLACEMENT INITIATIVE

1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

1.1 Purpose This project would initiate a planning effort culminating in a comprehensive, enterprise-wide plan for addressing the replacement of each major financial system over a ten-year period. The goal of this planning effort would be to ensure that at the end of the current five-year planning period (i.e., the UTIPP2 timeframe), the institution would be poised to begin a series of strategic replacements of its major financial systems. This project funds the creation of a dedicated planning team for this effort.

1.2 Institutional Requirements for and History of the Project UCLA’s mainframe financial systems have been in place for 20 to 30 years. They have been maintained and enhanced to meet the growing requirements of the campus but these enhancements have added to the ongoing complexity and subsequent cost of maintaining these applications. Most of these applications have had web front end applications appended to them in an effort to make them easier to use and provide some flexibility. All of these enhancements have greatly added to the ability of UCLA to provide systems with good functionality and availability. However, the increasing difficulty of that maintenance and the constantly growing needs of the campus make it necessary to look at a replacement for these financial systems. In addition, the back-end book of record processing of these applications is primarily written in COBOL. While not obsolete, the availability of COBOL programmers is reduced as time goes on. Many companies have outsourced the maintenance of their COBOL programs, but this can have additional costs and associated problems. Similarly, many of the UCLA subject matter experts in the technical and functional areas are nearing retirement age, making it difficult to maintain the level of knowledge of the current systems and processes.

In recognition of these issues, Corporate Financial Services has twice had a review by outside consulting firms. The first, conducted by KPMG in 1998, was to assess the viability of continuing to maintain the existing applications versus moving to a new financial system. For the second, UCLA contracted BearingPoint in fiscal 2007, a market leader in systems consulting, to do an enterprise-wide Financial System Business Case Analysis. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether the campus should continue to make incremental investments in its existing systems in an attempt to extend their useful lives, or whether the campus should pursue a comprehensive enterprise-wide plan to purchase a new ERP system. The BearingPoint analysis confirmed the validity of the current strategy to extend the useful lives of the existing systems through planned, incremental investments (as outlined in the University Technology Infrastructure and Productivity Plan: 2007-2011 (UTIPP2)) but also recommended that the campus immediately establish a long-range planning process culminating in a comprehensive, enterprise-wide plan to address each major system over the following ten year period. The goal of this planning effort would be to ensure that at the end of the current five-year UTIPP2 timeframe, the institution would be poised to begin a series of strategic upgrades of its major financial



systems. In addition to replacing existing financial systems, this project will look at re-engineering existing business processes and providing the university with systems that can be consistently used across the campus, ideally including the medical enterprise. At the very least, interfaces between systems will look to be simplified, in order to minimize reconciliation requirements. UCLA also provides financial processing services to the UC Office of the President and to UC Merced. As part of the financial systems replacement project, it is assumed that these services will continue to be provided and could be made available to other campuses if needed.



1.3 Project Structure A preliminary proposed structure of the project is provided below.

Technical Assessment Team

Sam MorabitoAdministrative Vice

Chancellor

Judith FreedProject Director

Technical SMEs

Management Steering Committee

Functional Assessment Team

Functional SMEs

Susan K. Abeles AVC Corporate

Finance/Controller

Andrew WissmillerAVC Administrative Information Systems

Campus Representatives

AIS Representatives

Campus Representatives

CFS Representatives

James Davis AVC, Information

Technology

Steven OlsenVice Chancellor, Finance, Budget & Cap Programs

Executive Steering

Committee

Others TBD

David Feinberg CEO & AVC,

Medical Enterprise

ITPB representative



1.3.1 Executive Sponsors The Executive Sponsor for this project is the Administrative Vice Chancellor, Sam Morabito. He will provide strategic leadership to the project, along with James Davis, Associate Vice Chancellor of Information Technology and Steve Olsen, Vice Chancellor of Finance, Budget and Capital Programs. The Executive Steering Committee also includes Dr. David Feinberg, CEO/Associate Vice Chancellor of the Medical Enterprise and a campus representative from the ITPB, who will be named later. In addition, Associate Vice Chancellor of Corporate Financial Services/Controller, Sue Abeles, and Assistant Vice Chancellor of Administrative Information Systems, Andrew Wissmiller, will be part of the executive leadership of this project.

1.3.2 Functional Sponsors Financial systems impact significant numbers of campus users at all levels. As a result, those responsible for the daily operations of current systems are considered stakeholders of this project. They include:

Marsha Lovell, Director of Student Financial Services Craig Squire, Director of Corporate Accounting William Propst, Director of Purchasing Gayelea Allison, Director of Payroll Scott Monatlik, Director of Tax Services

1.3.3 Project Organization and Management The planning effort described in this document would involve a hierarchy of committees. At the lowest level, a Functional Requirements Work Group, led by a Project Director, staffed by functional and technical subject matter experts and populated with campus user representatives, would focus on the following: understanding procedural objectives and requirements of all business processes, engaging the campus to develop consistent definitions of the “enterprise” for each system, developing a master schedule for addressing each major system in sequence based on degree of dysfunction, risk or unmet needs identified, building appropriate budgets for systems replacement and renewal, documenting processes for each system in detail, preparing detailed business requirements, conducting informal vendor evaluations, evaluating options and degrees of fit, and identifying any changes to the computing environment that will be required to support operations.

A Management Steering Committee, co-chaired by the Associate Vice Chancellor/Controller of Corporate Financial Services and the Assistant Vice Chancellor of Administrative Information Systems and including process owners and functional and technical senior management representatives, will provide oversight and direction to the Functional Requirements Work Group, be responsible for resolving policy disputes, and implement a strategic communications plan to build support for the project and the eventual migration to the new systems. The Project Director will be a member of the Management Steering Committee. The Executive Sponsor is the Administrative Vice Chancellor, who will provide strategic leadership to the project.

1.3.4 Other Stakeholders As the financial systems have interfaces from and to many other systems, both on campus and outside of the University, there will be many other stakeholders involved in the project. The success of this project will also require several campus stakeholders to volunteer time to the planning effort, as well as focus groups, and work groups, possibly as project team members.



1.4 Summary of Work to Date

September 2007……….Project presentation to CITI by Sue Abeles

November 2007……….Project received highest prioritization by CITI

December 2007…….....Total $700,000 budget allocated for FY0708 and FY0809

April 2008…………….Initiated search for Project Director

…………….. Office space acquired at Wilshire Center for the project team

November 2008……….Project Director Judith Freed hired

January 2009…………..Job descriptions prepared for initial subject matter experts

………….. Project Control Document draft submitted for review

February 2009…………Project Baseline and first Project Status report prepared

March 2009……………Project Control Document draft 2.0 submitted

……………Administrative Specialist hired as contract support

June 2009…………… Reworked project team structure

July 2009………………Project funds committed (less 10%) for 3 years

August 2009…………...Job descriptions submitted to CHR for approval

September 2009………. Reconfiguration of suite 680 completed

October 2009………….Project Director begins 100% appointment

…………..Project Control Document draft 3.0 completed

………….. Presentation to CAO/CFO Quarterly meeting

………….. Kickoff meeting with Executive Committee

………….. Project email address established

…………..Four job openings listed on CHR website

1.5 Deliverables The initial presentation to CITI suggested that the following list of deliverables be provided by the project. This is still anticipated to be the project requirements and deliverables. This list will be adjusted if further information is discovered during the documentation and detailed analysis phases of the project that would make some of the subsequent deliverables no longer required.

At this time a detailed project plan will be developed with associated tasks for these deliverables. Once a project team is in place, these deliverables will be put into a multi-phase project plan with the appropriate dates and deliverables associated with each phase. The original project plan presented to CITI was to cover approximately a five year period. The current schedule suggests that the planning phase may be accomplished in a shorter period of time, but requires the full project team to be available on a full-time basis.



The original deliverables include:

Documentation of existing processes, risks, and unmet needs

Detailed analysis of functional business requirements

Process review and reengineering to take advantage of best practices

An assessment of vendor capabilities

Development and issuance of a Request for Proposal

Technical assessment of campus infrastructure readiness for new system(s)

Implications for data conversion/data migration

Master schedule for addressing each major functional system in sequence

Proposed budgets for system replacement and permanent funding requirements for renewal and maintenance

An evaluation of options and recommendations regarding next steps for financial systems acquisition



2 SCOPE

2.1 Project Objectives Campus business processes must be well-supported by state-of-the-art systems and technology to ensure that the academic mission and all legal and regulatory obligations of the campus can be met. Additionally, UCLA provides business services to the Office of the President and the UC Merced campus, so that they are similarly dependent upon UCLA financial systems for transaction processing and financial reporting of their activities.

2.2 Planning Process The planning process will involve several key areas to be studied and documented by the project team. This will serve as a foundation for the selection and subsequent implementation of an ERP or best of breed solution for replacing the current financial systems. The major components of this project will fall into the following categories:

• Establish the current status of UCLA’s financial systems. This includes a complete review of the technology, costs associated with maintaining the systems, usability by central departments and academic units. A review of requirements by departments to maintain shadow systems to make up for missing functionality will also be conducted. Another important aspect of the current status of financial systems is to clearly document current cycle times, system availability and reliability. This needs to be compared to “perception” of cycle times, availability of systems, and reliability of systems by campus departments and central units. Current inefficiencies or redundancies that are found will also be evaluated for re-engineering.

• UCLA fundamental policies or procedures, as they pertain to financial systems, will also be explored to determine if they are effective in terms of controls or impediments of the progress. Some of these policies or procedures will include the concept of post-audit, distributed access, service centers, risk versus control related to monetary thresholds and various other policies that are integral to UCLA’s current financial systems, both technically and procedurally.

• A review of the current technical infrastructure available on campus and the scalability of that infrastructure. It is likely that a new ERP would require deployment on a distributed platform technology. It is important to assess the university’s ability to manage and maintain a large scale distributed platform series of applications with the required availability and reliability. This would likely require ITIL processes and possibly a different model for the help desk.

• An updated review of currently available ERPs and open source financial suites. This will include looking at how well these fit other university campuses and how they were implemented. Another important aspect of this review is to document true costs to the universities and how well the systems met their expectations. Additionally, the review will assess the long-term viability of these ERPs, since companies have gone out of business or mergers have occurred in the past.

• Establish a clear plan of how to move forward at UCLA, including a presentation of alternatives, a recommendation with timelines, costs, associated risks and benefits, and a process for retiring existing systems while maintaining data for longitudinal analysis. Perhaps the most important aspect of the plan is to assess campus willingness and readiness to adopt new business practices and a way to communicate and involve the campus personnel in the process.



2.3 Processes / People Affected Approximately 13 million transactions are processed by the UCLA general ledger on an annual basis. The majority of these transactions are being processed from “feeder systems” throughout the campus in a batch mode. However, nearly 10% of these transactions are processed online annually and are considered “financially significant”, thereby requiring a post-audit review by one or more mandatory reviewers. The number and type of online, real-time transactions is increasing annually, resulting in a greater impact on university employees to review transactions in a timely manner. There are already approximately 4,000 employees involved in the daily processing of financial transactions. This could increase with the move toward more online processing.

The diagram below is from the Bearing Point study, and shows the current data flow of the current set of financial systems. The scope of the project would include the “application engines” pictured on the mainframe (center box), including the DB2 databases pictured.

Current Data Flow



2.4 Technologies / Systems Affected As this is the planning phase of the project, no production technologies and/or systems will be impacted. However, it is probable that a sandbox environment will be set up to gain a working knowledge of potential packaged ERP products and/or open source systems that are available. This will require either an in-house installation of software, or possibly an installation of software that is hosted by a vendor.



2.5 Budget The initial budget submitted to CITI was for $7,362,674, allocated among expense items as shown in Appendix A. It was anticipated that the project would begin in fiscal year 2008. However, with delays in funding and in project initiation, there has been a delay in the startup of the project. In addition, the actual amount allocated to the project was $700,000 for the first 2 years, which are presumed to be FY08 and FY09. The remaining project budget was allocated in July 2009, although less than the original requested amount. The proposed budget below shows the actual expenditures through FY09, which are well under the $700,000 limit for the combined first and second year, and a projected budget for the remainder of the project which has been extended through FY13 to adjust for the delayed start. The current budget is a reduction of the original requested budget by approximately one year and $850,000. However, this budget is still over the allocated amount. Further refinement to the budget will be done once the project team is in place.

Current Proposed Budget

Annual Inflation 4% FY09

actual FY10 FY11 FY 12 FY 13 Total Salaries Project Director $52,836 $147,941 $156,395 $162,650 $84,578 $604,400 Functional SME-GL $69,767 $128,267 $133,397 $69,367 $400,797 Technical SME-GL $67,467 $108,533 $112,875 $58,695 $347,569 Med Enterprise Financial SME $73,600 $118,400 $123,136 $64,031 $379,167 Functional SME-Purch to Pay $73,600 $118,400 $123,136 $64,031 $379,167 Technical SME-Purch to Pay $67,467 $111,627 $116,092 $60,368 $355,553 Functional SME-BAR $30,320 $113,467 $118,005 $61,363 $323,155 Technical SME-BAR $30,320 $98,667 $102,613 $53,359 $284,959 Functional SME-Payroll $30,320 $98,667 $102,613 $53,359 $284,959 Technical SME-Payroll $39,867 $59,800 $62,192 $32,340 $194,199 Technical Architecture FTE $100,000 $104,000 $54,080 $258,080 Marketing/Communications/

$24,180 $77,090 $80,174

$223,134 Training Specialist $41,690 Clerical Support $11,164 $36,505 $37,512 $39,013 $20,287 $144,481 Incentive Awards $65,000 $65,000 Subtotal Salaries $64,000 $691,353 $1,326,823 $1,379,896 $782,546 $4,244,619 Benefits @ 28% of Salaries $17,402 $209,065 $371,511 $386,371 $200,913 $1,185,262 Supplies & Expense Work Stations $10,000 $10,000 Printers $3,000 $3,000 Space $55,829 $33,457 $57,354 $57,354 $28,677 $232,671 Supplies & Expense $2,500 $12,000 $21,091 $21,091 $10,500 $67,182 Travel $30,000 $45,000 $32,000 $10,000 $117,000 Consulting Services $120,000 $220,000 $220,000 $70,000 $630,000 Hardware-Servers/Sandbox $20,000 $20,000 Subtotal S&E $58,329 $208,457 $363,445 $330,445 $119,177 $1,079,853 Total $139,731 $1,108,874 $2,061,779 $2,096,712 $1,102,636 $6,509,733



2.6 Formal Reporting and Reviews This project will follow the same reporting and review requirements of all CITI approved projects, in addition to the project reviews set up within the project team. The project will also have regular reviews and status updates with the Executive Committee.

2.7 Management of Changes to Scope, Schedule and Assumptions An Issues List will be maintained for the project. Changes to scope, schedule and assumptions will be documented as part of the issues list and will be brought up at review meetings. Changes will be highlighted at the UTIPP2 review meeting and documentation provided as well.

There are a number of UC-wide and UCLA initiatives that could impact this project, i.e., the PPS White Paper project initiated by the Controllers, and the Administrative Efficiencies Report. Decisions that are made, as a result of these initiatives, that impact the replacement of the financial systems, will be reviewed and appropriate adjustments will be made to the project plan.

2.8 Exclusions The project has been defined for the financial systems replacement and excludes the student systems and other campus systems that are specific to a department or a functional unit. Although there are many systems that interface with the financial systems, these will not be included unless there is a specific reason they are deemed necessary for inclusion, as agreed upon by the Executive Steering Committee.

A complete listing of campus applications is provided in Appendix B. The listing indicates which applications are considered in scope and which are out of scope. Those applications which provide interfaces to the financial system are considered to be partially in scope, as the interfaces will need to be addressed as part of the project.



3 SCHEDULE

3.1 Lifecycle Model A project plan will be developed that shows detailed tasks and activities, along with deliverables. The table below shows some major milestones anticipated at this time, but will be refined once the project team is in place and the actual planning has begun.

Table 1 – Major Milestones and Deliverables

Major Milestones Major Activities Associated Deliverables Establish project team Post job descriptions,

evaluate resumes, conduct interviews

Project staff dedicated to the ERP project initiative; recommendations for workgroups, including meeting schedules and member list

Conduct literature and project review

Review Bearing Point study; current literature on ERP implementations; contact other universities with recent ERP implementations

Reaffirm project goals and associated risks since Bearing Point study Inventory of where other campuses stand in their pursuit or implementation of an ERP Establish list of people to interview

Business Process Modeling

Train team on process modeling technique; Define major business processes Validate major processes with key users

Prepare documentation of existing processes, from technical and functional perspective Identify any associated risks; functional and technical Review current processes against best practices

Determine current metrics for business processes

Review current costs, cycle times, business process error rates, and perceived system weaknesses

Conduct focus groups and individual interviews with key campus personnel Establish current system availability vs. perception by campus users

Evaluate technical infrastructure

Determine progress towards ITIL Look at current service level measurements and ability to meet them

Document process for change management, and current adherence to process

Produce RFP based on determined requirements and evaluate responses

Assemble requirements for new financial system, both technical and functional

RFP document for distribution; evaluation of responses

Present options for Financial Systems Replacement

Review the available options, note differences from initial Bearing Point review; determine costs and associated risks of implementation

Present options and recommendations for financial systems replacement initiative with associated costs and timelines



3.2 Dependencies A significant dependency on the schedule is the ability to staff the project with functional and technical subject matter experts. To the extent that these are delayed or the expertise is not available, the project will be negatively impacted in its ability to document the current processes. The University’s precarious budget situation may make it more difficult to recruit subject matter experts in both the technical and functional areas.

As there are various systems, although outside the scope of this project, that interface with one or more of the financial systems that are being considered for replacement, there is a distinct possibility that these systems will need some analysis and ultimately modification. It will be up to the business owners of these systems to provide timing, cost estimates, and conversion requirements associated with these modifications. These peripheral requirements will depend on people outside the project team and could potentially cause delays.

3.3 Staffing Table 2 – Critical Resource Availability

Staff Member Availability Potential Disruptions to Availability Judith Freed, Project Director

50% time November 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009; 100% starting October 1, 2009

None anticipated at this time, other than furlough time during the 12 month period

Functional SMEs (4 FTE) Assumed @ 100% once hired

None anticipated at this time, other than the availability of campus personnel during fiscal closing or other major activities Furlough time may affect availability

Technical SMEs (3.4 FTE)

Assumed @ 100% once hired


Medical Enterprise SME (1 FTE)

Assumed @ 100% once hired


Project support staff; clerical, technical architect, and communication/training specialist

Assumed @ 100% once hired, or specified contract time

None anticipated at this time Furlough time may affect availability

Consultants – various, e.g., business analyst, documentation specialist, as required

As needed None anticipated at this time

An organization chart of the proposed staffing is provided in Appendix C.



3.4 Subcontractor Management The Project Director will be responsible for management of any subcontractors hired for the project.

3.5 Risk Management The most significant risk to the project would be disruptions to the project budget and/or staffing process. Extending the project beyond the proposed timeframe or changes in staffing could disrupt the continuity of the project and negatively impact deliverables.

3.6 Contingencies The project budget and plan submitted to CITI is based on the state of the financial systems as documented in 2006. With current UTIPP2 projects going on simultaneously to this project, we are looking at replacing a somewhat “moving target” in terms of functionality and perhaps technology. Although this project will review the UTIPP2 projects as they are implemented and update documentation as required, the timing of some deliverables may be impacted.



4 ASSUMPTIONS

4.1 Planning Project planning will be done assuming a five year commitment to the project, although actual funding has only been allocated in two parts ($700,000 for the first 2 years, the remainder allocated in 2009), at less than the requested amount. Since some time has already passed without establishing the project team, the five year time frame has been shortened.

4.2 Third Party Commitments It is anticipated that there could be third party commitments required at various times throughout the project. These will be dealt with on an as needed basis.

4.3 Expected Loads and/or Transaction Volumes The expected volume of transactions is not necessarily expected to increase over current volumes, with the exception of what has been considered as normal growth for the university. The chart below provides a breakdown of current transaction volumes and technical costs of the various applications currently in production supporting the financial processes. This data includes UCLA, UCOP and UC Merced.

Application Annual Transactions

FY08-09 FY 2008-09 Costs

(Technical) Budget System 14,213 $90,433 General Ledger System 13,606,942 $1,376,186 Purchasing/Accounts Payable 3,241,634 $2,533,618 Payroll System 73,417 $1,324,017 Staffing List System 10,556 $61,869 Billing and Receivables 2,973,676 $660,204 PAN System/ASAP 1,258,187 $96,883 ISIS* N/A $206,073 Security (DACSS)* N/A $67,446 UID System* N/A $89,732 View Direct Reports* N/A $143,725 TOTAL $6,650,186 1. Transaction counts include batch and online 2. Payroll system counts are average number of employees on database during year 3. Costs include programming costs, CPU, storage, and proportion of infrastructure 4. Systems with asterisk* are also used by non-financial systems; transaction counts are not applicable



4.4 Technologies – Hardware and Software Technologies are not known at this time. It is presumed that the new system will run in a distributed platform environment rather than mainframe, but this can only be finalized once an ERP product(s) is selected or a technical direction is determined for a suite of products. Until then, estimates cannot be made, nor architectures produced for review. Technology will be a significant part of the evaluation process, in terms of acquisition costs, reliability, maintainability, and total cost of ownership.

4.5 Non-Schedule Risks Project staffing consistency is always a risk in a project of this type. Staff turnover can lead to a disruption of project schedules, particularly since this project is anticipated to be staffed with subject matter experts who are already knowledgeable about UCLA processes and procedures. If all or part of the project staff cannot be filled with existing UCLA staff, some positions will be filled by contractors that lack institutional knowledge.

4.6 Non-Schedule Contingencies This project has been fully funded, although at a reduced amount. Although the budget has already been cut somewhat from the original request, the additional cut puts the project budget below the revised budget. The shortfall of funds will mean that additional schedule and scope changes will be necessary. These will be discussed with the Executive Committee.

4.7 Deployment It is anticipated that one or more chosen applications will be deployed in a “sandbox” environment during the planning and evaluation phase of the project. It is assumed that the budget will cover the necessary hardware and software to set up this environment. Similarly, it is anticipated that either Administrative Information Systems or Corporate Financial Services will be able to facilitate the setup of the sandbox environment.

4.8 Funding No funding offsets are available to apply to this project; the entire cost is to be funded by new funds.

Less than 50% of the funding requested for the first 2 years was allocated by CITI initially. At this time the remainder of the funding has been allocated (minus 10%) which does not fully cover the proposed budget in section 2.5 of this document. It will be necessary to cut down the scope or make changes to the originally anticipated deliverables and/or timeline to adjust for the current funding level. Should further budget reductions occur, a similar reduction of scope and deliverables will also need to be addressed.



5 SIGNATURES

______________________________________________________________ ____________ Susan K. Abeles, AVC Corporate Financial Services/Controller Date

______________________________________________________________ ____________ Andrew Wissmiller, AVC Administrative Information Systems Date

______________________________________________________________ ____________ Judith Freed, Director, Financial Systems Replacement Project Date



6 REFERENCES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A: Initial Proposed Budget

Appendix B: Application Inventory

Appendix C: Project Team Organization Chart



APPENDIX A A - 1

Proposed ERP Planning Initiative Budget FY08-FY12

Annual Inflation 4% FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY 12 Total Salaries Project Manager $43,333 $135,200 $140,608 $146,232 $152,082 $617,455 Functional SME-GL $125,000 $130,000 $135,200 $140,608 $530,808 Technical SME-GL $60,000 $119,600 $124,384 $129,359 $433,343 Functional SME-AP $95,000 $98,800 $102,752 $106,862 $403,414 Functional SME-Purchasing $95,000 $98,800 $102,752 $106,862 $403,414 Technical SME-PAC/BruinBuy $60,000 $119,600 $124,384 $129,359 $433,343 Functional SME-BAR $43,500 $90,480 $94,099 $97,863 $325,942 Technical SME-BAR $115,000 $119,600 $124,384 $358,984 Functional SME-Payroll $95,000 $98,800 $102,752 $106,862 $403,414 Technical SME-Payroll $60,000 $119,600 $124,384 $129,359 $433,343 Technical Architecture FTE $60,000 $60,000 $120,000 Marketing/Communications/ Training Specialist $75,000 $78,000 $81,120 $84,365 $318,485 Clerical Support $37,000 $38,480 $40,019 $41,620 $157,119 Incentive Awards $65,000 $65,000 Subtotal Salaries $43,333 $880,700 $1,247,768 $1,357,679 $1,474,586 $5,004,066 Benefits @ 28% of Salaries $12,133 $246,596 $349,375 $380,150 $412,884 $1,401,138 Supplies & Expense Work Stations $10,000 $10,000 Printers $3,000 $3,000 Space $27,972 $55,268 $57,479 $59,778 $62,169 $262,666 Supplies & Expense $4,000 $19,500 $20,280 $21,091 $21,935 $86,806 Travel $5,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $125,000 Consulting Services $50,000 $200,000 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $450,000 Hardware-Servers/Sandbox $20,000 $20,000 Subtotal S&E $99,972 $324,768 $207,759 $160,869 $164,104 $957,472 Total $155,439 $1,452,064 $1,804,902 $1,898,698 $2,051,574 $7,362,676



APPENDIX B B-1 Application Inventory

Accounting (Budget, Ledger, Purchasing, Payables, Receivables):

Application / Service Institutional /

Regional / Local

Owner Supported by

Current Status

BruinBuy Application Institutional CFS AIS Current UTIPP2 projects are adding functionality, as well as additional catalogs and increasing EDI and EFT enabled suppliers

Budget System Institutional APB AIS Mainframe application currently undergoing rewrite to simplify logic

Chart of Accounts Institutional CFS AIS Reference information (rather than an application) common to all financial applications

Consolidated Gift Reporting

Institutional CFS AIS Custom developed at UCLA; receives input from multiple sources: foundation, UCOP, UCLA

Equipment Management Institutional CFS CFS Interfaces with PAC and GL Financial Journal & EFT receipt

Institutional CFS AIS Current UTIPP2 projects are adding functionality and changing technology

General Ledger Institutional CFS AIS Currently mainframe application with both web and batch update applications and web reports

Intercampus Transfer/ Recharge

Institutional CFS AIS Current UTIPP2 projects are adding this functionality

Interdepartmental Recharge

Institutional CFS AIS Current UTIPP2 projects are adding functionality and changing technology

Lawson Purchasing/AP Medical Enterprise

MCCS Medical Enterprise requirements for purchasing will be looked at to see if they can be accommodated by one system

Lawson G/L Medical Enterprise

MCCS Medical Enterprise requirements for general ledger will be looked at to see if they can be accommodated by one system

Memo Liens Institutional CFS AIS Not used much Organizational Hierarchy Institutional APB AIS Reference information (rather than an

application) common to all financial applications

Purchasing/ Accounts Payable (PAC)

Institutional CFS AIS Current UTIPP2 projects are adding functionality—mainframe application available to central office only; all others use BruinBuy exclusively

In Scope Partially In Scope Out of Scope



Transfer of Funds

Institutional APB AIS Current UTIPP2 projects are adding functionality and changing technology

Vendor Invoice Portal

Institutional CFS AIS Provides a means for vendors to submit invoices online

Billing and Receivables

Institutional CFS AIS Currently being looked at in conjunction with the consolidated billing project; interfaces to general ledger system

Cashiering and DDF

Institutional CFS AIS Currently being looked at in conjunction with the consolidated billing project

Consolidated Billing

Institutional Currently being reviewed for purchase or development

Cyberpay and PCI

Institutional CFS AIS Currently being looked at in conjunction with the consolidated billing project

Post-Authorization Notification (PAN)

Institutional CFS AIS Used by all financial transactions; web based

CBIG Institutional APB APB Used by campus to prepare and submit budgets to APB

Chancellorial Commitment

Institutional APB AIS Used by APB only for tracking commitments; has some relationship to transfer of funds

Monetary Transfer of Funds (MTF)

Institutional External Affairs

External Affairs

Currently available on the “Islands” menu maintained by EA. Transfers funds from foundation to campus fund.

Voyager Local (Library) Library Library Local application for Library; feeds to both General Ledger and PAC

Human Resources and Payroll:

Application / Service

Institutional / Regional / Local

Owner Supported by

Current Status

EDB Web Inquiry

Institutional UCOP/ CFS

AIS Change in technology to JAVA. Developed by UCOP.

EDB Web Update

Institutional UCOP/ CFS

AIS Currently being developed by UCOP for “New Hire Update”

Glacier Institutional Payroll 3rd party Hosted application interface through Payroll Kronos Regional HHS HHS Used by Administrative Services and some

departments on campus; interfaces to PPS Online Open Provisions

Institutional APB AIS Open Provisions has been rewritten to be web-based.

Personnel/ Payroll (EDB)

Institutional UCOP AIS Mainframe system developed by UCOP and installed/run at UCLA. Currently being evaluated for replacement as a UCOP led UC-wide project

Staffing List Institutional APB AIS Staffing list is a batch mainframe system;




U-Pay web entry Institutional CFS AIS Web based transaction input for payroll

system, replacing key punch forms Web Merit Institutional UCOP AIS Developed by UCOP; some local UCLA

enhancements Web Payroll Expense Transfer

Institutional CFS/ ORA

AIS New web application with input to the Payroll Personnel System

Academic Personnel System

Institutional OIT OIT Dossier tracking system for academics; used by APO and academic departments

AYSO Institutional UCOP UCOP UCOP’s at your service online application FasTrax Institutional CHR/

CFS AIS Inquiry system only; uses PPS data base as

source of data Payroll Garnishment

Institutional CFS AIS UCLA system for tracking garnishment of employee wages

People Admin Institutional CHR CHR UCLA application for posting of job openings and reviewing applicants

Skill Net Institutional CHR CHR Local application used by UCLA for enrollment in local training classes

UCLA ID Institutional SAO/ Payroll

AIS UCLA’s application for a university ID, encompasses students and employees

Miscellaneous:



Owner Supported by

Current Status

College Information System (CIS)

Local L&S L&S Developed by the college; uses QDB as basis for data

Distributed Administrative Computing Security System (DACSS)

Institutional AIS UCLA has developed this for all institutional applications; it is being converted to Signet/Grouper, which is web based

Travel Express Institutional CFS CFS Interfaces to PAC and PAN for reimbursement processing for employee travel & entertainment expenses

Advance Institutional EA EA/AIS Application for fundraising; maintained by External Affairs; minimal interfaces

Application Service Request System

Local AIS AIS Will likely be replaced by ITSM product

Bruin Card Institutional CFS 3rd party One card for employee/student used by many applications, i.e., Kronos

Campus Directory

Institutional CTS CTS Feeds to Enterprise Directory




Events Institutional SAO AIS The Events System (EVM) is a space

management and events scheduling application

Facilities Service Request

Local Facilities Facilities Local application for Facilities; online web form

FoodPro Local (Housing) HHS HHS Local application for Housing used in the food ordering process

Maximo Local HHS HHS Local application for Housing and Hospitality; separate instance from Facilities

Maximo Local Facilities Facilities Local application for Facilities as work order system; also controls local inventory

Patient Applications

Medical Enterprise MCCS No interfaces to current financial systems

Shibboleth Institutional AIS Single sign on -- authentication Telecommunications Service Request

Institutional CTS CTS Application for ordering voice and telephone service

Reporting:



Owner Supported by

Current Status

PAC Web Reports

Institutional CFS AIS Reports are available in BruinBuy and on OFSR menu. Some reports are operational inquiries, some are trend reports.

UCLA Financial Web (OFSR) -- ledger, budget reports

Institutional CFS AIS Currently consists of various reports that are web-based and parameter driven; these will be looked at for suitability of being reproduced using Cognos

Campus Data Warehouse (QDB, CDW, Cognos)

Institutional Campus data warehouse will be used whenever possible for reporting requirements, both institutional and local.

View Direct/ Document Direct

Institutional AIS AIS Report display, web based and CICS-based. Reduces the need for paper reports to be delivered to campus departments.

SRDB data warehouse

Institutional SAO SAO Reporting and data warehouse system maintained by the Registrar’s office

UCLA Financial Web – payroll reports

Institutional CFS AIS Currently developed in JAVA; available on OFSR menu.




Research:



Owner Supported by

Current Status

Effort Reporting System

Institutional ORA/ EFM

AIS UCOP developed system; maintained at UCLA

InfoEd Institutional ORA ORA Application for contracts and grants; maintained by Office of Research Administration

RATS Institutional ORA ORA Research animal tracking system Student Applications:



Owner Supported by

Current Status

Financial Aid Institutional SAO AIS Only interfaces to financial systems will be looked at

Distributed Components Web Services

Institutional SAO AIS The Distributed Components are web services that are wrapped around student application functionality

Grades Institutional SAO MyUCLA Institutional SAO College Various student applications collected into a

student portal SEVIS Institutional SAO AIS FsaAtlas implements UCLA’s compliance

with Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)

Shared Components (SIO)

Institutional SAO AIS AIS develops and maintains this application as a compliment to the Universal ID (UID) system. It provides a central repository for high level demographic information not specific to any term or application

Student Records Institutional SAO AIS UCLA developed system for recording information of admitted students

UCLA ID Institutional SAO/ Payroll

AIS UCLA’s application for a university ID, encompasses students and employees

University Admissions

Institutional SAO AIS UCLA developed application for undergrad and grad admissions submission, selection, notification

URSA Institutional SAO AIS Online web application for current students, parents to view information, schedule classes, pay bills etc.




APPENDIX C C-1 Proposed Project Organization Chart

Documents

FINANCIAL SYSTEMS REPLACEMENT INITIATIVE - UCLA · FINANCIAL SYSTEMS REPLACEMENT INITIATIVE . ... a market leader in systems consulting, ... documenting processes for each system