HRS Project Overview

November 17, 2008

Agenda

• Project Retrospective• Project Progress To Date• Project Tools• Relevant Items for Grants Managers

2

PROJECT RETROSPECTIVE

3

Background

• Current legacy system has served the needs of UW since approximately 1975

• Over 40,000 administrators, faculty, staff and student workers from all campuses are paid through this system

• Both technology and the needs of higher education have changed since the legacy system was implemented

4

History

• The HRS Project follows the failed attempt to implement another ERP solution– APBS, 5 years, $26.5 Million

• University of Wisconsin System contracted with CIBER, Inc. to conduct a Project Charter effort and subsequently a Fit / Gap analysis for the implementation of PeopleSoft’s HCM Solution version 9.0

5

Project Objectives

• One integrated University system of record for human resources, benefits, and payroll

• Accurate, timely, mandatory and legal delivery of benefits and pay to all employees

• Improve the quality of institutional and employee data – increase data integrity, control and records management

• Empower end-users with access to integrated data

6

Project Objectives

• Minimize duplicate and triplicate entry of data• Increase the degree of standardization for

policies, practices, and service delivery related to HR, Benefits, and Payroll

• Implement a flexible system that allows for future development

7

Project Principles

• Formal project management• Inclusive project governance• Transparent project decision making• Open and effective communication• Balance of scope and needs• Commitment of resources to support the

legacy system and the implementation of HRS and UW related projects

8

PROJECT PROGRESS TO DATE

HRS Timeline

• HRS Project Charter completed in October 2007

• Initiation Phase: January to March 2008– Project preparation, planning for process reviews

• Fit/Gap Phase: March to July 2008• Intersession: June to mid-September 2008• Implementation Option Planning and

Budgeting: Begins September 2008

HRS Timeline

• Selection of Implementation Partner: November 2008– If partner not selected in November follow on phases

will slip accordingly

• Planning Verification Phase: Start November 2008 – 60-90 days of review, verification and finalization with

Implementation Partner

• Fall Walk-thrus: November 2008 thru December 2008

HRS Project Status

• Fit / Gap began in March of 2008– One-week to two-week long sessions with core

team by business / module area– Summarized findings and review presented to

campuses in regional meetings– Resulted in a high level review and validation of

all major areas but it did not get us to the level of detail we needed

• We created INTERSESSION

12

HRS Project Status

• HRS Project Intersession consisted of two major activities:– Configuration of a base HRS system for learning,

prototyping, analysis, etc.– Work on decisions, sub-projects and other

analysis required for option planning

• The configuration of the base system was done in 15 days and accurate pay checks were produced

HRS Project Status

• All business processes reviewed for Fit or GAP– Validated against APBS list of business processes– Gap solution development underway

• Team is working on sub-projects / decisions– Analyzing options and prototyping using the system

created in Intersession

• RFP for Consulting Services– Vendor reviews underway with hope of having

partner on board in November

Project Scope in HCM TermsIn Scope HCM Modules• Human Resources

– Talent Acquisition Manager • Benefits

– Base / Benefits Administration• Payroll

– Absence Management– Time and Labor

• EPM (data warehouse)• Self Service• Workflow• Finance

– Commitment Accounting

Out of Scope• Budget • Health and Safety• ePerformance• Enterprise Learning Management

PROJECT TOOLS

16

Project Tools

• Decision Making• Communication• Program Release

17

Decision Process

• All HRS Project decisions are logged into JIRA as Decisions– They are basically choices we have to make on the

project

• Each decision is assigned an Advocate (someone from the Decision Council) to ensure that the appropriate parties are informed and involved

Decision Making Goals

• For the HRS Project the decision making process should be:– Rigorous – analysis, options, communication– Structured – approach and methodology– Documented – clear, concise, understandable– Represented – appropriate representation from

impacted parties– Defensible

19

Decision Making Conundrum

• There are many groups / teams that are either directly connected to the HRS Project or loosely affiliated with the Project

• Need to clarify the who’s:– Who is responsible for driving the decision– Who we need to involve in the process– Who makes the decision– To whom is the decision communicated to

20

Current Decision Groups / Teams

• UW Service Center Executive Committee

• UW System Service Center Advisory Committee

• UW HRS Project Steering Committee

• Executive Sponsors• Project Management Office• Project Team / Core Team• Sub-Project Teams• Related-Project Teams

• Site Leaders• Subject Matter Experts• Other Affiliated Groups

– HR Directors– Payroll / Benefits Managers– CIOs– Common Systems Review

Group– DoIT– Madison’s Administrative

Council– Controllers

21

Decision Council AuthorityThe HRS Decision Council was approved by the HRS Project Steering Committee at its May 2008 meeting. The Decision Council, a subset of the Steering Committee, is designed to achieve a more expeditious and flexible decision-making process. The Council will meet more frequently and look into options and decision analysis much more comprehensively than would be possible with the full Steering Committee.

The Decision Council has been given the authority to make decisions on behalf of the entire Steering Committee about any and all HRS projects, sub-projects, and business process issues. All decisions will be reviewed with the Steering Committee and detailed analyses will be shared for further discussion and resolution when requested by the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee may determine that a proposed decision should more appropriately be directed to the UW Service Center Executive Committee for further review and resolution.

Decision Council Responsibilities

23

Decision Council Member

Lorie Docken BU BU BU BU X BU BU BU

Diane Mann BU X X

Ed Meachen X X X X X X BU

Kathy Pletcher BU X X BU

Carla Raatz BU BU BU X X BU

Donna Weber X X X BU

Sue Chamberla in BU BU BU X BU

Renee Stephenson X

Dwan Schuck X

Associated Groups Service GroupsExecutive Groups Project Governance

HRS Communication

• Public website: http://cs.uwsa.edu/hrs/default.aspx

• HRS Communication Hub:– http://comsys.uwsa.edu – Used for sharing of files, discussion groups, surveys,

calendar of events– You can request a login (this is open to UW staff)

• Bi-Weekly Emails– Updates to Site Leaders on project activities

24

HRS Communication

• Monthly WisLine Web Sessions– One line for each campus, three for Madison– More detailed project update to campuses

• Road Shows– Stevens Point November 6 and 7– Madison: scheduling underway

• Education – Small bite learning opportunities to begin to raise

awareness of the upcoming change25

HRS Program Release

• The HRS Project will require that a number of other projects, related to but not within the scope of HRS, follow the same timeline for analysis, design, development, etc.

• These projects will be managed as a Program Release – coordinated and consistent project management – across UW System

HRS Program Release – Related Projects

• UDDS• SFS

– SCT– SENC– SFD– WISDM– WISPER– ECRT– GL Interface– And on and on

• IAM• Kronos• Student Systems• Pay Data• Budget System• Mail Drop / Building

Code• Business Continuity• Security

27