Panelists

52%ORGANIZATONS THAT HAVE RECENTLY MODERNIZED

69%EXPECTING OREXPERIENCINGPROJECT DELAYS

● Survey results were almost identical for both state and local government ERP implementations

● Customizations did not meet desired expectations

● 32% of organizations have Shelf-ware – Modules purchased but never implemented

● Additional Lessons Learned & Recommendations:● Minimize Software Modifications - Limit

customizations to Regulatory Requirements● Don’t purchase software licenses until you plan to

implement the capabilities● Stay current with your Vendor’s Software

Releases● Demand Accountability from Software

Vendor/Integrator• Software Bug vs. Enhancement• Beware of ‘Works as Designed’

Perspectives from the

Panelists

State of Alabama

Update: Segmented Approach

● In 2011-12 identified segmented concept focused on greatest need and opportunity for improvement

● Follow the money:● Personnel Cost $2.4B● 40,000+ employees

● Use a best of breed/best of fit approach

● Time & Attendance opportunity● Front end interfaced with current payroll

system ● Standardization

● Considerable Amount of Effort, Time, and Money Required to Maintain State's Current Time and Attendance Processes

● Time And Leave Reporting Errors More Likely

● Labor Law Compliance Risks ● Extensive Use of Paper and Distribution

Cost● Lack of Labor Analysis and Scheduling

Tools 9

● Control and Reduce Overtime● More Accurate Leave Reporting,

Scheduling and Processing● Ensure Labor Law Compliance ● Provide Employee Self Service Facility

(Portal)● Support Automated Workflow and

Online Approvals● Better Secure Employee Information● Provide Ability to Support Future

Requirements 10

● Kronos Contract Signed March 2013● Software● Implementation Services● Time Clocks

● Statewide T&A System● State Employees and Vendor Team ● Phased Implementation ● 24 Months

● Permanent Support Team ● Sustain System, Training, Upgrades

11

Efficiency Gains and Cost Reductions:● Automated Workflow Review and Approval● Replaces Current Paper Based System● Greater Accuracy● Reduction of Labor Wages ● Increased Control over Employee Overtime ● Elimination or Reduction of Paper Documents

12

State of Florida

● Lack of a Governance structure● Governor controls procurement and HR● CFO controls financials and treasury

functions● State does not have a vision/strategy

on how core systems would integrate:● Procurement – Ariba● Human Resources – SAP● Financials – PeopleSoft● Treasury – PeopleSoft

● Lack of standardization resulted in 280 customizations

● Leadership did not understand the impact of significant Project Modifications made in second year of the project (guaranteed a two year extension for the project)● Significant change in software version

that was to be implemented● Changed Chart of Accounts structure

● Significant number of stops and starts for the testing phase – ultimately led to decision to suspend project

● Establish a stronger governance structure

● Develop a business case that recommends a strategic vision for the state

● Establish an independent project that focuses on Organizational Change Management

● Recommending a longer (8-10 years) approach, with several short-term goals that can be achieved during an administration’s 4 year term

Commonwealth of Virginia

National Associationof State Comptrollers

David A. Von Moll, State Comptrollerdavid.vonmoll@doa.virginia.gov

March 21, 2013

Commonwealth of VirginiaCardinal Project

●Department of Accounts (Comptroller’s Office) and Department of Transportation (VDOT) Partnership

● Both needed to replace non-upgradable legacy financial management systems

● IT governance initiatives sought to reduce agency-based administrative systems

● VDOT had funding and agreed to meet statewide requirements as initial step towards statewide base system implementation

●Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) – PeopleSoft

● VDOT decommissions heavily customized PeopleSoft version 6.0

● Comptroller’s Office will decommission 30 year-old statewide legacy system by 2016

●Modern Technology Platform● Essential first step towards providing needed business

functionality to agencies and optimize benefits of full ERP solution so that select agency-based administrative systems can be retired and related systems support cost savings can be realized

20

Year Cardinal Project Timeline/Activities

2004-

2005

VDOT Financials replacement project planning

Develop ERP business case - administrative system duplication/redundancy, legacy system risk

Analyze available ERP software packages - decision to implement PeopleSoft

2006

Original ERP Plan – $318 million total for Financial Management/Budgeting, HR/PR, Purchasing

Governor requested $30 million to get started (e.g., establish PMO, define system requirements)Just $11 million appropriated by General Assembly

2007

“Plan B” – original ERP Plan project scope narrowed to Financial Management/Budgeting

Completed system requirements definition and RFP planning

2008

Cardinal Plan – Economic downturn resulted in no additional funding for Plan B in Governor’s introduced budget

Strategy to partner with VDOT developed

2009

RFP for software and integration services, Accenture and Oracle contracts established

2010

VDOT, Accounts and Accenture work on Cardinal Part 1

2011

Successful go-live date for VDOT (Part 1) – December , 2011

2012

Successful go-live date for Accounts (Part 2) – October, 2012

2013

Statewide rollout (Part 3) planning and kick-off

21

Part 3Statewide RolloutEnterprise Base

System

Rollout:•Wave 1 – 148 Cardinal-only agencies, 469 users (Oct, 2014)•Wave 2 – 130 interface agencies, 1,290 users (Feb, 2016)

• Retire Legacy Financial System (CARS)

Part 1VDOT

Functions in Scope:•General Ledger•Accounts Payable•Accounts Receivable•Project Accounting•Procurement•Time and Attendance

• New Statewide COA

• 5,000 End Users Trained

• Retire FMSIIDeployed December

2011

Part 2Comptroller’s

OfficeEnterprise Base

System

Functions in Scope:•General Ledger•Accounts Payable•Limited Accounts Receivable (Funds Receipt)

• Enterprise Base System scope limited to current functionalityDeployed October

2012

● Gaining Executive Support● Emphasize risk mitigation versus

savings/efficiencies● Manage expectations of cost savings and

functional improvements● One step at a time on savings from agency system

elimination

● Count on roadblocks, setbacks and delays● Patience/ persistence, incremental progress, leverage

● Unique advantages of COVA approach● Partnership

● Leverage VDOT “project” and funding capacity● Proof-of-concept for complex business requirements

● Risk aversion and cost smoothing● Limited functionality of initial enterprise rollout● Phased approach

22

Questions for the Panelists