ERP at the University of Florida: Selection, Implementation and Implications

1
ERP at the University of Florida Selection,
Implementation and Implications

• Mike Conlon
• Director of Data Infrastructure
• November 15, 2004

2
Three reasons to implement ERP

• Must replace finance systems (SAMAS/FLAIR) and
  payroll system provided by the state
• Improve operations reduce administrative time
  and effort
• Reduce operating costs

3
University Vision

• Integrated, on-line, secure, self-service
  processes for university business
• Eliminate dependence on State of Florida Systems
• Implement Vanilla adopt the PeopleSoft
  processes
• Eliminate costly mainframe technologies
• Implement Finance, Human Resource, Student,
  Portal and Data Warehouse

4
Selection Process

• Eleven evaluation teams 2 technical, 1 support,
  8 functional
• Four vendors SAP, Oracle, PeopleSoft and
  SCT/Banner (now SunGard SCT)
• Four Schools FAMU, FSU, UF, UNF
• Eleven months
• 150 page RFI.
• Three 80 hour presentations 40 hours technical,
  40 hours functional
• Eleven reports, 120 people for the read backs

5
From Selection to Contract

• PeopleSoft selected July 2002
• Conference Room Pilot six weeks in
  Tallahassee mid-Aug to end of Sept 2002
• Contract with PeopleSoft September 30, 2002
• Project staffing Oct, Nov, Dec 2002
• Development and portal Infrastructure in place,
  Dec 2002

6
From Contract to Go-Live

• Portal launched March 31, 2003
• Data warehouse and Enterprise Reporting Cognos
  Business Intelligence launched August 8, 2003
• HR and Finance pre-launch June 18, 2004
• HR and Finance full-launch July 1, 2004
• Eighteen PeopleSoft modules. Largest single
  launch in higher ed.

7
Implementation

• UF Bridges, a new organization to create new
  services, created off-site in October 2002.
• Three-way staffing model
• Existing UF staff 60
• Temporary UF staff 25
• Hourly Consultants 15
• Project Management Office Fred Cantrell, Mike
  Conlon, Mike Corwin, Warren Curry
• Matrixed teams

8
Project Organization -- Matrix
9
Methodology Overview

• Fit/Gap
• What must be done? What does PSFT do?
• Design
• How to address gaps? BP? Bolt-on? Product?
• Development / Data Conversion
• All UF data must be accounted for
• Testing
• Unit, Integration, Load, Legacy
• Training
• Core users, end users. Modalities
• Deployment
• Conversion, stabilization

10
Implementation Challenges Before Go-Live

• Product Knowledge
• Consultants know the product, or claim to know
  the product. UF staffers do not know the product
• UF Knowledge
• UF staffers know UF, or claim to know UF.
  Consultants do not know UF
• Keep it Vanilla
• Changing UF business processes. How much change
  can we handle?
• Decision Making
• Advisory committees, stakeholders, deans, vice
  presidents, executive sponsors

11
Implementation Challenges After Go-Live

• Some facts about UF
• Very distributed processes. Ten times the number
  of Finance users expected by PeopleSoft
• Very low staff turn over. Staff had no
  experience with other systems or processes
• Very low management overhead. Staff members work
  independently. Managers are typically academic
  with other responsibilities

12
Implementation ChallengesAfter Go-Live Training

• Difficult to get people to training before
  launch. 48,000 seat-hours filled
• Multiple modalities. In class, on-line,
  readings, web videos
• Training environment and pilot environment
• Discrepancies between training materials,
  environment and production

13
Implementation ChallengesAfter Go-Live Change
Management

• PI needs to pay person from a grant
• Staff not familiar with chart fields
• Chart fields not populated for grant
• Grant money not in appropriate accounts
• Staff not familiar with payroll distribution
• Administrators not authorized to perform
  functions
• Bottom line person does not get paid from the
  grant, person gets paid from other funds, must do
  transfers, sponsors not billed appropriately
• Effort throughout each process to enable payroll
  distribution from grants. Improving each pay
  period

14
Implementation The Good News

• On-time and On-budget
• Project costs (29 mill) were 1/6 that of peer
  schools, saving UF over 150 mill
• All modules implemented
• Payroll has run smoothly
• Finance, grant administration improving

15
Implications

• Operational improvements
• Payroll, grants, finance, hiring, benefits,
  self-service, portal, purchasing, expense,
  warehouse
• Operational savings
• Budget, warehouse, shadow systems, staff
• Savings could be 50 mill per year
• Position for future
• E-commerce, system integration, scalable,
  low-cost platform

16
Additional Info

• Bridges Web Site
• Status reports, presentations, AUC/Stakeholder
  minutes, training registration
• http//www.bridges.ufl.edu
• Web Portal
• News, PeopleBooks
• http//my.ufl.edu
• PeopleSoft Customer Connection
• Webcasts, white papers, technical docs
• http//www.peoplesoft.com/cc