‘Conference Room Pilots’ Phase Steering Committee # 2 3 June, 2015 Core Business Applications...

‘Conference Room Pilots’ Phase

Steering Committee # 2

18 April 2023

Core Business Applications

Study

2

Agenda

1. Progress report

2. Presentation of the solutions

3. Results of the technical study

4. Results of the functional study

5. Conclusions and recommendations

3

1. Progress report

• Study launched in March 2004 in collaboration with Accenture

• Initial recommendation made in June 2004

- To adopt a common solution- To pursue the off-the-shelf option

• As a result of the recommendation

- Expanded the scope to include PhD, Faculty Affairs, Development, and External Relations

- Conduct Conference Room Pilot (CRP) study

4

1. Progress report

CRP Workshops conducted with two selected vendors:

• PeopleSoft:

– Technical workshop conducted on 14 September and 6 October – Functional workshop conducted on 11 & 12 October

• SunGard/SCT:

– Technical workshop conducted on 13 September and 5 October – Functional workshop conducted on 25 & 26 October

• CRP Workshops participation from:

– MBA, EMBA, EDP, PhD, Faculty Affairs, Development, External Relations, & IT

• Over 60 staff participated across two campuses

5

1. Progress report

Held formal and informal departmental debriefing sessions

• Follow-up sessions requested by the Business Experts ONLY with PeopleSoft.

– Student Administration on 9 & 10 November

• Additional CRP workshops with PeopleSoft:

– CRM on 8 November (no CRM solution from SunGard/SCT)

– CMS on 22 November (HR Recruitment module)

6

Agenda

1. Progress report





7

Timeframe of the Conference Room Pilots StudyWhere are we?

2. Presentation of the solutions Structure of the Banner solution for INSEAD

Self Service Components

Core Banner System

Campus solution

Student Administration Financial Aid

Xtender Solutions Advancement

Pocket Recruiter

Luminis portal

Banner

8


2. Presentation of the solutions Structure of the PeopleSoft solution for INSEAD

Self Service Components

Core PeopleSoft System

Campus solution

Student Administration

Campus self servicesGradebook

Contributor Relations

Enterprise Portal

CRM Portal Pack

CRM solution

Marketing Online Marketing

Sales Order Capture

9

Agenda

1. Progress report





10

3. Results of the technical study Main steps undertaken during the technical study

The technical study consisted in the following elements:

• Technical presentations were organised with SCT and PeopleSoft vendors:– Banner IT presentations were conducted on the 13th September and 5th October– PeopleSoft IT presentations were conducted on the 14thth September and 6th October

• A deliverable has been realised to compile the information collected and compare both packages using standard technical characteristics

• A complementary study has been completed in order to clarify certain aspects of the technical architecture and components of both solutions (e.g. characteristics of Banner coming version 7.0, etc.)

• A deliverable has been realised to analyse the specific concerns in INSEAD’s context– Realisation of an ‘As-Is’ applicative map– Interviews with IT Managers to collect specific concerns and expectations– PeopleSoft’s integration capability with MS SharePoint, – Etc.

11


3. Results of the technical study Presentation of the solutions’ technical architectureBanner

Self-Service Web Server

• Oracle9iAS server V9.0.3• Http: Apache or IIS

Banner Database Server

Students, facultyHtml

Administrative usersJava Enabled Web browser

Native JVM

Core Application Web Server

• Oracle9iAS server v1.0.2.2.2 • Http: Apache or IIS

PortalLuminis portal /

DirectoryServer

DirectoryServer

LDAP

Legacy systems

Lu

min

is EA

I

(or o

ther E

AI)

adapter

12


3. Results of the technical study Presentation of the solutions’ technical architecturePeopleSoft

Reporting batch server

(Windows)

Web Server(WebSphere, WebLogic…)

Application Server• Tuxedo server

Database Server:( Oracle, DB2, SQL

Server, Sybase)

Web browser

(Html 1.0) DirectoryServer

DirectoryServer

LDAP

Inte

gra

ted

m

essa

ge

bro

ker

Legacy systems

adapter

Portal

MS SharePoint/ PeopleSoft portal

13

3. Results of the technical study Thematic technical comparison of both solutions-1/2

14

3. Results of the technical study Thematic technical comparison of both solutions-2/2

15

3. Results of the technical study INSEAD’s main technical concerns

• The main INSEAD’s concerns collected during our interviews with IT Managers were the following:

– Multi-campuses constraints versus centralisation of data

– Convergence with ongoing projects (MS SharePoint Portal, Active Directory)

– Technology standardisation

– Data mass-updates and tracking

– Data migration

– Upgradeability

16

3. Results of the technical study As-Is applications map – Department view

Each department has its own tools

Lack of reusability

Complex maintenance

Lack of standardisation

Integration needed

17

3. Results of the technical study As-Is applications map – Functional view

But the applicative map reveals that

similar functions (or “services” in a SOA

architecture) are used by different

departments

IT and business architectures integration is

needed

18

3. Results of the technical study Diagnostic – technical environment

• INSEAD information system was developed on specific needs

• No harmonisation between departments Multiple information systems with complex data synchronisations

• Almost one specific application for each need and department Data Management complexity

• Multiple data validation interfaces

• Complex and duplicated authentication system

• Need of common and restricted technology directions

The integration need should be the main technical goal while INSEAD will implement the new core business application.

19

3. Results of the technical study Diagnostic – IT organisation

• IT organisation has a single dimension

• Most activities are focused on day-to-day operations and applications’ maintenance

• No global technical coordinator exists to ensure that the expression of needs goes through a single channel

There is a lack of service-oriented and coherent project management that considers global directions and strategies

The objective should be to implement a Service-Oriented Architecture which would be supported by a technical architect involved in the translation of business functional requirements into technical design, with the help of integration tools

• The same objective should be followed up for the business team in charge of the translation of business strategies and needs into functional solutions.

20

3. Results of the technical study Diagnostic – Integration with MS Share PointBanner

• This integration has never been done so far, and a third party product or a specific development would be necessary (Luminis portal, even with Banner v7)

• It should be possible using XML flux and translators

BANNER

LDIS

Ad

apte

rs

XM

L T

ran

slat

ors

XML messaging

APIs

SharePoint Portal

WebPart

WebPart

SSO

SSO

21

3. Results of the technical study Diagnostic – Integration with MS Share PointPeopleSoft

• This integration has been done by Microsoft and a white paper (which indicates how to do it) is available

• PeopleSoft and Microsoft use the wsdl standard to be full compliant without buying PeopleSoft portal.

• Reuse of INSEAD forms is possible

SharePoint Portal

WS

DL

WebPart PeopleSoft

ApplicationServer

App Server:Windows Server

2003 WS

DL

WebPart

SSO

SSO

WS-Security

Visual Studio.Net

Office, etc. .Net business processesAD applicationsPortal SSO integrationWS-Security

22

3. Results of the technical study Other general concerns

• Multi-campuses constraints versus centralisation of data : • The business unit logic of Peoplesoft (a global unit + some business unit with own

currency) is a very good response

• No special feature for Banner (one unit – one currency)

• The database is unique, in Fontainebleau for both products with performance tools and focus

• Convergence with ongoing projects (MS SharePoint Portal, Active Directory)• Peoplesoft is fully compliant with Active Directory (Microsoft logon system) and ready for

portal integration (forms)

• Banner need specific integrations

• Technology standardisation• PIA is technology up to date and web services ready

• Banner has some API, but each integration point is specific

• For the last points, they are detailed in the deliverable, Peoplesoft and Banner provide some features without a decisive gap :

• Data mass-update and tracking

• Data migration

• Upgradeability

23

3. Results of the technical study Technical decision criteria

Banner PeopleSoftTechnical compatibility with INSEAD’s technical direction

(-) No previous experience with SharePoint.

(+) Possible integration with SharePoint and AD

Equal Support to multiple campuses (-) Important specific development needed

(+) Business Units, Process Scheduler

Technical flexibility of the solution to support modifications

(-) Few basic controls on user fields data

(-) Limited by Forms

(+) Fully parametrisable

Ability to interface to key systems already existing (-) Business : no metadata

(+) Technical possibility to use LDIS

(-) Technical : development in AD

(+) Business: metadata, existing adapters

Upgradeability of the solution (-) No clear roadmap (+) Personalised support

(+) Known roadmap

24

3. Results of the technical study Summary

• Considering :– the strong integration needs and the products offers on this aspect

– the applicative coverage

– the architectural principles

– the standard (Forms vs Peoplecode) developments tools and functions capabilities

– the support

We do recommend the implementation of Peoplesoft while anticipating the common known road hazards of such a large packaged software implementation

25

3. Results of the technical study Risks identified on the technical side

Banner

• Specific development needed to answer the simple integration needs

• Third party integration tools needed

• Inability to merge with an “up to date” technology (web services, etc.)

• Lack of editor’s experience in complex IT schema

PeopleSoft

• New skills

• Learning curve

• Lack of coherence due to unlimited flexibility and easiness

• Campus Solution never implemented in France

26

Agenda

1. Progress report





27

4. Results of the functional study Main steps undertaken during the functional study

The functional study consisted in the following steps:

• Functional presentations:

– A Banner functional two-day CRP was conducted on the 25th - 26th October

– A PeopleSoft functional two-day CRP was conducted on the 11th - 12th October

• Formal and informal debriefing sessions held within each Department concluded that there was a general request for follow up sessions with PeopleSoft, but not with Banner

• Additional business cases have been proposed, compiled and integrated in the follow-up session’s agenda

• Follow-up sessions with PeopleSoft

– Student Administration: A two-day PeopleSoft follow-up CRP took place on 9th – 10th November

– CRM: A complementary PeopleSoft CRP of their CRM solution was organised on 8th November (no CRM solution on SCT Banner’s side)

– CMS: a presentation of the Recruitment module of PeopleSoft HR solution will be held on 22nd November to assess the functional fit with CMS needs.

28


Feedback from INSEAD’s business DepartmentsOverall evaluation from all departments

Overall Evaluation from all Departments

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Marketing and sales

Admissions

OperationsAlumni management

Development

PeopleSoft Banner

29


Feedback from INSEAD’s business DepartmentsOverall comments from all departments

Main comments common to INSEAD’s departments

• On PeopleSoft solution– A better-quality functional coverage (iso-scope)– A good flexibility to adapt to business needs and exceptions– CRM capability – A standard approach to manage multi-campus and multi-currency constraints– A user-friendly interface

• On Banner solution– A disappointment in the software’s evolution between v3 and v6– No CRM capability– Insufficient management of multi-currencies– A non-user friendly interface (v7 could not be demonstrated by SCT)

30

3. Results of the functional study Functional analysisCustomer Relationship Management

• The PeopleSoft solution offers a flexible and user-friendly CRM capability, while SunGard-SCT offers no specific solution for this INSEAD need.

• Main enhancements of the PeopleSoft CRM modules– Comprehensive View of the Constituent (360° view) – Support for Marketing and e-Marketing campaigns and multi-channel communications– Better customer segmentation– Contract Management (from proposal to signature)– More Automation of Processes– Improved Prospect Management– Analytic reporting capability

• CRM would be applicable not only to Marketing and to Sales, but also to Development and External Relations

• CRM online Marketing toolkit may also be used for Admissions, Financial Aid and Operations needs (specific self services, surveys, etc.)

31

3. Results of the functional study Functional analysis

Additional Marketing / Recruitment considerations

BANNER PEOPLESOFT

Management of individuals

(+/-)

Unflexibility + number of screens and steps (v6)

(+)

Management of companies

(-) Solution too individual customer- oriented, even with Advancement

(+)

Also CRM and Contributor Relations

Data integrity (+) Also ‘Translation Manager’ and ‘QAS’

(+) Also ‘First Logic’

Brochures requests management

(+/-) (IT-oriented tracking) (+) with CRM

Events management (+/-) management through survey forms (once ID known)

(+) Also Pocket Recruiter

(+) CRM toolkit allowing personalised SS

Mass-communications (+) (+)

32

3. Results of the functional study Functional analysis Admissions

BANNER PEOPLESOFT

Online application (-) no ability to attach documents (+/-) Flexibility of CRM toolkit (integration with student

Admissions OK)

Checklist requirements (+) (+)

Interviews management (+/-) still not possible to attach interviewers to candidates

(+)

Evaluation process (+/-) staged admissions processes (+/-) staged admissions processes

Acceptance / waitlists (+) (+)

Deferral management (pre-programme)

(+) (+)

Workflow (+) (+)

33

3. Results of the functional study Functional analysisFinancial Aid and Student Financials

BANNER PEOPLESOFT

Fin Aid - Online application (-) no automated transfer into Banner (re-upload) +

consultation limits

(+/-) CRM's Online Marketing toolset (but integration to build)

Fin Aid - Evaluation process (+/-) (+/-)

Fin Aid - Payments of awards (+/-) Link with interviewer (+)

Fees management / account receivables

(-) no currency management (+) currency management

34

3. Results of the functional study Functional fit/gap analysisOperations

BANNER PEOPLESOFTCourses and classes (+) (+)

Pre-requisites (languages, …) (+) (+)

Sectioning & grouping (+/-) report only (+/-) report only

Exemptions (+/-) limited (+)

Registration (-) no mass-registration (+/-)

Add and drop (+/-) conflict management (+/-) conflict management

Campus Xchange / Bidding process (-) integration needed (-) integration needed

Deferral (+) through cohort (+)

Scheduling (-) third-party tool needed (+/-) third-party tool needed

Grading (-) no z-scoring (-) no z-scoring

Evaluation questionnaires (+) (+)

Graduation process (+) (+)

Teaching loads (+/-) (+/-)

35


Feedback from INSEAD’s business Departments

Evaluation from MBA department

Evaluation by MBA Department

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Marketing and sales

Admissions


Development

PeopleSoft Banner

36


Feedback from INSEAD’s business Departments Evaluation from EMBA department

Evaluation by EMBA Department

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Marketing and sales

Admissions


Development

PeopleSoft Banner

37

Evaluation by EDP Department

1

2

3

4

5

6

7Marketing and sales

Admissions


Development

PeopleSoft Banner


Feedback from INSEAD’s business Departments Evaluation from EDP department

38


Feedback from INSEAD’s business Departments Evaluation from PhD department

Evaluation by PhD Department

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Marketing and sales

Admissions


Development

PeopleSoft Banner

39


Feedback from INSEAD’s business Departments Evaluation from Development and External Relations Departments

Development & External Relations Departments

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Marketing and sales

Admissions


Development

PeopleSoft Banner

40

4. Results of the functional study Applications’ functional coverage

The following schemes show which applications would be replaced by Banner or PeopleSoft:

41


Analysis of impacts on existing applications

• We can classify impacts of the new Core Business Application on existing applications as follows:

– No impacts: some applications will be simply replaced by the new system without any supplementary impacts.

– Data migration: For some replaced applications, we have to migrate data from legacy databases to the new system. This can generate an important charge considering the complexity of the current data model at INSEAD.

– Interface automation: manual interfaces have to be automated in order to communicate with the new system.

– Interface adaptation: For some applications, interfaces would have to be adapted to the new system.

– Review technology: In case of compatibility problems, the technology of the application may be reviewed.

42



Application Name

Replaced by

No impacts

Data migration

Automate interface

Adapt interface

Review technology Banner PeopleSoft

Banner V3 Yes Yes

ICARE Yes Yes

Room booking Yes Yes

PHD Database Yes Yes

Web to Banner Yes Yes

MBA Brochure requests Yes Yes

Web Questionnaires Yes Yes

E-Services Yes Yes

E-Services validation Yes Yes

CSP Lead Tracking No Yes

MBA online application No Yes

Business Objects (BO) No No

TPHi Scheduler No No

43



Application Name

Replaced by

No impactsData

migrationAutomate interface

Adapt interface

Review technology Banner PeopleSoft

EDPSYS No No

MBA Bidding system No No

MBA Events Management No No

Scholarship management No No

Campus Exchange No No

CMS Online No No

Alumni validation No No

CMS Future No No

Oracle Financials No No

AMPHI No No

SharePoint (Minerva/Interact) No No

E-Learning courses No No

MBA Intranet No No

Net Vestibule No No

MBA Exchange No No

44


Banner ‘to-be’ scheme

45


PeopleSoft ‘to-be’ scheme

46


Summary

• The functional coverage is not a main distinct factor between Banner and PeopleSoft, as they often have the same limits (e.g. scheduling, sectioning and grouping, etc.)

• The quality of the functional coverage is not the same though

• PeopleSoft’s flexibility as well as usability are key differenciators for business experts

47

Agenda

1. Progress report





48

• The technical study is completed

• So is the functional study - with exception of CMS workshop on 22/11

• The implementation costs and efforts are key elements for the decision making on next steps

• The scope and the phasing of the implementation effort is essential


Conclusions

49


Reminder: decision criteria identified

Functional Criteria

• Ability to adapt to INSEAD’s business strategy • Ability to manage business processes at institution/programme/campus levels• Ability to manage business exceptions • Baseline delivery of online services • Usability and user-friendliness• Tracking capability• Workflow management • Data integrity• Data confidentiality management

Technical Criteria • Compatibility with INSEAD’s technical direction• Equal support to multiple campuses• Technical flexibility to support modifications• Upgradeability• Ability to interface to other key applications

Cost Criteria

• Cost of implementation• Cost of maintenance• Timeframe of implementation

Implementation Risks Criteria

• Early player• IT risks (learning curve)

Vendor Criteria

• Reputation• Multi site support

50

Our recommendations are the following:

• Choose PeopleSoft as your new institutional Core Business Application

• Implement PeopleSoft on the following scope: – Functional scope: marketing & sales, recruitment & admissions, financial aid,

operations, participant financials, alumni management, and fund raising

– Organisational scope: MBA, EMBA, EDP, PhD, Faculty Affairs, Development, and External Relations

• Parallelise specific technical projects (portal, LDAP, …) with the Core Business Applications project


Recommendations

51


A possible roadmap (draft)

01/05 07/05 01/06 06/06 12/06 07/07

Recruitment/Admissions (1/2) Admissions (2/2)

CRM (part I ) CRM (part II)

Financial Aid

SF Student Financials

Operations

CMS

E-Learning

HR

CS

CR

MH

R

Contributor Relations

52

Questions and Answers

• Next steps

• Agenda for the next Steering Committee (3rd of December)

‘Conference Room Pilots’ Phase Steering Committee # 2 3 June, 2015 Core Business Applications...

Documents

Transcript of ‘Conference Room Pilots’ Phase Steering Committee # 2 3 June, 2015 Core Business Applications...