IMANAGE Design Review

1
I-MANAGE Design Review
Summarization and Conference Closeout

• Strategy for defining system responsibility
• I-MANAGE (Enterprise)
• Program / Site (Mission)
• Conceptual review of the approach for integration
  of performance, budget, and financial accounting.
• Conceptual review of the accounting flexfield.
• Conceptual review of the managerial cost
  accounting approach.

2
I-MANAGE Design Overview
Enterprise vs. Mission Specific Systems

• How do we distinguish between these?
• We will take a structured approach based on an
  enterprise architectural model
• Identify systems that may possess overlapping
  functionality.
• Analyze the systems to define mission specific
  business processes vs. enterprise business
  processes.
• Develop a conceptual systems model that clearly
  identifies each group of processes.
• Work with the owning organization to establish
  the costs / benefits of the system.
• Develop alternative solutions that entail
• Elimination of the legacy system, and transfer of
  business processes to a system within the
  I-MANAGE suite of applications.
• Annexation of the enterprise business processes
  by I-MANAGE, and integrating / interfacing the
  mission specific business processes in the legacy
  system.
• Seek approval of the recommended alternative
  through the appropriate levels as previously
  identified.

3
I-MANAGE Design Overview
Enterprise vs. Mission Specific Systems
I-MANAGE Standard Budget System
STARS, Data Warehouse
Appropriation / Cont. Resolution
Commitments, Obligations
Strategic Planning
Congressional Budget
Financial Reporting
Presidents Budget
OMB Budget / Passback
Budget Distribution
Corporate Review Budget
Budget Call
Costs, Outlays
I-MANAGE Integrated Performance Management
Reporting
Enterprise Business Processes
Mission specific Business Processes (ePME, IPABS)
Mission specific business applications for DOE
Program Offices and Operations, Field, and
Regional Offices
4
I-MANAGE Design Review
Integration of Performance, Budget, and Accounting

• Joule will continue as an interim solution.
• Currently built upon a non ANSI compliant,
  proprietary data structure with limited import /
  export capability.
• Eliminates tight integration as a possibility.
• In all probability, would not align with the
  Enterprise Architecture.
• The vendor has indicated that a new version of
  the application will be ported to Microsoft SQL
  Server, and Oracle.
• Targeted for end of FY2003.
• Currently, in technical jargon, this is
  virtual-ware.
• Still, we will work with the Office of PAE to
  evaluate
• the product if/when it is released.

Joule for now
5
I-MANAGE Design Review
Integration of Performance, Budget, and Accounting

• We will continue to work with Oracle to determine
  the status of a fully integrated, federalized
  performance management solution.
• We will continue to review the RGII package
  capabilities to determine the feasibility of this
  solution for the Departments requirements.
• We will further analyze and review functionality
  in the IPABS system to determine its feasibility
  as an enterprise solution to address DOE
  requirements.
• In parallel with those activities, and depending
  on the outcome of todays session, we will
  develop a physical data model that fully
  integrates with the Oracle Federal Financial
  Applications database structure.

TBD
6
I-MANAGE Design Review
Integration of Performance, Budget, and Accounting
Proposed Approach The APP will link to the
Program Segment in the BR
STARS Oracle Federal Financials V11i
General Ledger
Purchasing

• Where will performance metrics be stored?
• As described earlier, where performance metrics
  will reside is TBD initially, in Joule, the new
  I-MANAGE Standard Budget System (e.g. RGII), or a
  new Performance Database tightly integrated with
  STARS and the new Standard Budget System.
• How many levels are required?
• There are no practical physical limitations to
  the number of levels available, however, policy
  will dictate the number of levels required within
  a given set of performance metrics.

Accounts Payable
Accounts Receivable
Fixed Assets
7
I-MANAGE Design Review
Integration of Performance, Budget, and Accounting
Annual Performance Plan
XYZ Performance Plan
STARS Oracle Federal Financials V11i
May or may not have link to APP. May attach to
any level in the Oracle AFF, if desired.
General Ledger
Purchasing

• Will the system provide for multiple sets of
  performance metrics?
• Yes. The system will allow authorized end-users
  to establish different sets of performance
  metrics based on their individual needs.
• These will be logically segregated as
  appropriate. For example, for each fiscal year,
  there will exist a unique set of performance
  metrics for the Annual Performance Plan as
  prescribed by GPRA and OMB Circular A-11. These
  will exist as a logical set of metrics,
  accessible as a whole, segregated from other
  sets of performance metrics.

Accounts Payable
Accounts Receivable
Fixed Assets
8
Accounting Flexfield (AFF) Review

• Will consist of 11 segments as described.
• Must provide more flexibility for site
  maintenance of Local Use segment as discussed in
  the session.
• Will allow ranges to be assigned as necessary,
  within the constraints of the total possible
  values (10 million should be sufficient).
• Will allow maintenance by authorized personnel.
• Will continue to allow funds control for segment.

Oracle Accounting Flex-Field (AFF)
9
Descriptive Flexfields (DFF) Review

• General Ledger (GL) needs DFFs for
• Contract ID (CID used as Purchase Order ID,
  will allow querying and reporting on all costs
  associated with a CID)
• Other Party Indicator (OPI)
• Accounts Receivable (AR) needs DFF for the CID
• All modules need DFF for the Work Authorization
  System (WAS)
• Continue to use DFF in PO, AP, AR, FA to
  capture OPI
• Continue to use PO to capture CID info in PO
  AP

10
Cost Accounting

• Build system to allow capture at level discussed
  in session.
• Cost element data in in last 2 characters of
  object class
• Organizational element in reporting entity
• WBS elements in program, project, and WFO
• Frequency will continue to be monthly
• Program direction within DOE may be allocated
  directly
• Pending review of labor distribution capability
  in new outsourced payroll system.
• Will continue to allocate in interim.
• Work with contractor community to gather
  additional detail if required.