Common Management Systems in the

California State University

“An ERP to Remember”

“CMS -- An ERP To Remember”

The Project ManagerPlayed by: Hilary Baker

The Executive SponsorPlayed by: David Ernst

The ERP VendorPlayed by: Jenny Rickard

CMS Facts and Figures

• California State University– 23 Campuses– 370,000 students, 40,000 faculty & staff

• Common Management System - CMS

• Target administration environment– Administrative “best practices” – Shared, common suite of PS applications software– Shared data center

HB

CMS Facts and Figures

• Project scope– Human Resources, Finance, Student Administration– Interface to State Controller Office payroll

• Implementation approach– Single software version; Multiple campus databases– Collaborative design and prototyping– Pilot approach for Student Administration– Central development group– Campus rollout to end users

HB

CMS Facts and Figures

• Project Timeline 1999 - 2006– Implementation on all 23 CSU campuses– 1st wave - Self-selecting first 11 campuses– 2nd wave - Remaining campuses & Chancellor’s

Office

• Project Cost– $350 -$400 million– Includes redirected staff time and new dollars

HB

An ERP to Remember

Back to Today’s Reality

• “My CMS”

• Critical factors

• Alignment of “the stars”

• Lessons being learned

• Current status

• Success metrics

HB

“My CMS”- The Sponsor

• A project to improve the efficiency and quality of CSU’s administrative services

• A vehicle for achieving a common, best practices standard of administration on all 23 campuses and the C.O.

• The largest project of its kind ever undertaken in higher education

DE

“My CMS”-The Project Manager

• Human Resources - HR/SA 7.6

• Finance - 7.5

• Student Administration - HR/SA 8.0

• Project plan and associated budget

• Resources - staff and consultants

• New data center

• End to end performance management

• Risk management

HB

“My CMS”-The Vendor

• A way of make the “C” in CSU stand for California rather than Cleveland

• A chance to establish PeopleSoft as the vendor of choice for higher education

• Prove that PeopleSoft software solutions are scalable– R1, mid size and small universities

• Prove that PeopleSoft can be implemented quickly and cost effectively, without giving up flexibility and functionality

LD

Why CMS in the First Place?

• Campuses looking at financial system replacement

• ITS plan

• Focus on admin productivity and quality

• BPR

• Local campus authority and responsibility

DE

Proven Success Factors• Successful project characteristics

– Executive Sponsorship, vision and leadership– Realistic and well articulated scope– Realistic budget and tight fiscal controls– Strong project management and oversight– Realistic timeline– Project milestones and review points– Ability to keep political issues at bay, keep stakeholders

informed and on board– ROI to stakeholders as quickly as possible

LD

Political Factors

• Tension between local authority and economies of scale

• IT deemed a key strategic resource and Chancellor’s Office ready to invest

• Planning done and approval gained outside campus CIO organizations

• Measures of Success and accountability

DE

Political Factors

• Scale of CMS project - people management

• Collaborative decision making - an oxymoron?

• Managing system-wide project issues– Chancellor’s Office history on system projects– Campus concerns with losing system autonomy

especially with student systems – Campus resentment to mandated new systems

HB

Cultural Factors

• Local incentive to replace legacy systems

• Acceptance of bargaining power CSU could muster if it acted as one

• Willingness to make investment at the system administration level--”off the top”

• Chancellor’s mandate

DE

Cultural Factors

• Initial campus resistance to mandated project

• Lack of confidence that would ever succeed

• Involvement early and often

• Communications

• Build trust

• Gain momentum

HB

Economic Factors

• ITS plan made technology a priority resource allocation investment

• Analysis showed cost of acting together was 1/3 to 1/4 that of campus by campus

• Project initiated at beginning of several years of state budget surpluses

• Campus “taxing” strategy virtually “painless”

DE

Economic Factors

• Need plan to build budget but …

... given budget before plan!

• Revised plan and revised budget but ...

... budget constrained by executives!

• Manage expectations and budget

• Budget for the unplanned surprises

HB

Personnel Factors

• Engaged campus functional office leadership and existing advisory groups early in planning process

• Drove planning outside traditional campus IT organizations to gain buy in/momentum

• Central project management and staff all new players

• Campus IT staff now playing key roles

DE

Personnel Factors

• Numerous CMS Teams

• Staff Resources– Building central staffing team– Reliance on campus staff expertise

• Consultant Resources– Supplemented prior to staffing– Expertise - functional or technical– Implementation partner for Student pilot

HB

Management Support Factors

• Chancellor and Exec. V.C. are project champions

• Campus Presidents and Business VP’s are mostly supportive

• Management comfortable talking about project as a best practices/reengineering effort--not a technology project

• A regular report item with CSU Exec. Council

DE

Management Support Factors

• Executive sponsorship familiar with ERP system implementations

• Project expectations clearly set for me

• Steering Committee actively engaged

• Decision making process in place

HB

Alignment in the CSU

• The whole is greater than the sum of the parts

• Need to have the “stars” aligned for some of this to happen at the CSU

• Having the success factors plus how the factors interact is important

DE

Alignment at PeopleSoft• CSU opportunity came at an interesting

time in PeopleSoft’s history

• We came together to win the business– Every executive and division in PeopleSoft

worked on winning the CSU deal

• Impact of PeopleSoft leadership changes– Dave Duffield to Craig Conway– E&G Industry - regional - E&G Industry

• Chancellor Reed and Craig Conway

LD

Lessons Being Learned

• Take enough time to plan• Be willing to reconsider earlier decisions• Communicate effectively• Plan for the unplanned - the “gopher” factor • Setting, meeting and exceeding expectations• Need lucky breaks too!

HB

Lessons Being Learned• What’s working

– Chairman’s Account/Advantage One

– Project is on track and making progress

– 2 Campus SA pilot

– Decision to upgrade to HR/SA 8.0

• What’s not working• What would I have done differently so far

– Wish Campus Portal had been available and part of the deal

– More time to migrate from 7.6 to 8.0

• Doing it “right” isn’t enough– Unprecedented size, scope and visibility

LD

Lessons Being Learned

• We are learning that people will respond to strong and fair leadership consistently applied.

• It’s more import to leave the dock than to plot all the ports of call ahead of time

• You will never get full agreement, but you have to try to get a critical mass

• Keep your resume updated at all times

DE

Reality of May 2001

• 23 campuses are a challenge• Multi-campus, multi-year, multi-applications• Outsourcing • Funding• Morale and enthusiasm• Resource management

HB

Reality of May 2001

• The momentum is building--next few months are critical

• Changes in how decisions are being made• Stragglers are coming to life• Hold outs are still holding out• Optimistic about turning the corner from

“why” and “if” it will happen to “how” and “when”

DE

Reality of May 2001 • How best to help make CSU successful

– Want to be involved in as many ways as possible– Balance relationship with Chancellor’s Office and campuses

• Manage 8.0 time crunch– Timing of upgrade scripts to meet go-live targets– CSU an early adopter of R8 - intended or not! – Challenge of training CSU project team, consultants on 8.0

asap– Make sure there are no bumps in the road

LD

What Constitutes Success Near Term

• Implementation successes– Demonstrate that system works– Let software “speak for itself”

• Contract data center and network provides reliable and responsive support

• No surprises

• Campuses unplugging legacy systems

DE

What Constitutes Success Near Term• HR and Finance

– Live on 11 campuses by July 2001

• Student Administration – First processing of recruitment data for class of

Fall 2002 by November 2001

• Support Services– Production ready data center– Ongoing application development maintenance– Service level agreements with campuses

HB

What Constitutes Success Near Term• Keep PeopleSoft involved at all levels of the

project to ensure success

• Convince CSU to standardize on the Campus Portal

• Upgrade 7.6 to 8.0 and go live by Feb 2002!

• But now, let us fast forward one more time to 2006 and get one last perspective from our three points of view.

LD

An ERP to Remember