Steering Committee Meeting Sunflower Project Statewide Financial Management System Update May 8, 2009

Today’s Topics Project status and activities – Kent Change control – Peggy IV&V review and report – Peggy Decisions to-date and pending decisions – Gary Agency visits and interactions – Gary Enterprise readiness – Donna Harold

Project Timeline “Go-live” only 1 Year Away! January February March April May June July Change Agent Launch End Analyze Phase & Begin Design Phase 1st Set of Environments Available End Design Phase & Begin Build Phase Agencies Begin Working on Interfaces and Systems Configuration Workshops Conversion Workshops Interface Standards Complete and Published to Agencies Configure System, Develop Mods Develop Reports, Build Interfaces, Run Data Conversions

Project Status and Activities Phase 2 of the Project Plan (Build, Test and Deploy) approved by KITO Completed review of most Design phase deliverables Reports (agency and central) are in functional design Shifting gears to the Build phase, i.e. configuring the system by developing configuration data spreadsheets for control data and setting system parameters Developing test conditions and test scripts

Project Status and Activities Requests for additional interfaces (e.g. inventory for State hospitals, encumbrances/POs for KCI) Data conversion workshops held on May 5th: Approx 150 attendees Provided overview of conversion process Discussed data conversion strategies and considerations such as on-line vs. automated Reviewed agency and project responsibilities and timeline Data Warehouse Advisory Group Held 1st meeting Engaged group with lots of good ideas Homework assigned – prototype a management dashboard for CFO or other high-level manager Hands-on workshop in late June using data warehouse and query/reporting tools and dashboards

Project Status and Activities Concerns that agencies do not have all necessary information to design changes to systems and interfaces Piloting a “one-stop” shop approach to answer all pressing agency questions in a single meeting – SRS, KDOT, Regents Planning additional sessions for other interfacing agencies Held three coordination workshops that included functional and technical staff to identify and address barriers impacting agency progress on design of system changes and interfaces: KU, KUMC, KSU WSU, ESU SRS

Project Status and Activities Held project retreat for State team members: Decisions made to-date and pending decisions Recognizing and coping with stress and burnout Next phases of the project (Build, Test, Deploy) and inter-team dependencies Preliminary plans for maintaining much of the State project team during the 1st year of operations Developing a demo of SMART for agencies to better understand and visualize the system and interaction of modules and interfaces

Project Status and Activities Bumps in the road: No Finance Team members at 1st interface Workshop – fielded a lot of questions that the Tech Team could not answer; publishing the Q&A No deposit interface layouts available for the A/R interface workshop Data conversion layouts 30 days late Revised interface layout for additional field (EIN/SSN) needed but has not been made available to agencies Sent invite to Regents for data conversion workshop – no data conversion Use of remote access is working fine and reducing travel requirements

Upcoming Project Activities Change Agent Network meeting – May 20th, 9 - 11:00am, Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library Data conversion workshops for: Assets POs and purchasing contracts Projects and grants A/R and customers Workshop for Regents interfacing to SHARP and publish SHARP interface layouts

Change Control Change orders approved since last Steering Committee meeting Note: Credit of $97K for FARMS replacement, i.e. decrease in the fixed-price cost due to use of delivered functionality vs. custom code; minor mods required to add approx 12 SRS-specific data elements, security, data warehouse, etc.

Change Control Agreement by Sponsors and STO to proceed with Option 2 Background: Warrant Tracking System operated and maintained by the State Treasurer Office (STO) is obsolete and needs to be replaced/rebuilt Was not included in original scope but should have been Three options considered: STO re-build warrant tracking system Perform warrant tracking in SMART (requires mods); STO maintains control of the business process Outsource warrant tracking to UMB Recommended Option 2 Higher cost than Option 1 in the near-term but Option 2 is in the best long-term interest of the State, i.e. Maintainability – fits under an enterprise infrastructure Consolidates all warrant information in SMART (except KDOR satellite warrants for tax refunds) Service level agreement between DISC and STO Agreement by Sponsors and STO to proceed with Option 2

Change Control Balance of hours for mods and enhancements Total Accenture hrs used = 8,163 (8,002 last month) Total available contract hrs = 19,130 % Used = 42.3% % Remaining = 57.7%

IV&V Review Second of five scheduled reviews Two week review – one week reviewing documents and one week on-site Interviewed 25 individuals from Sunflower team (State and Accenture), DISC, Sponsors and SRS and KDOT Reviewed 26 documents including 11 deliverables

IV&V Report “The IV&V Team assessment is that the Sunflower Project status and overall ‘health’ continues to be very good.” “It is clear that the State continues to emphasize planning and preparation for the coordination and communication necessary to successfully accomplish the Sunflower Project.” Key risk identified (same as in previous report): Schedule risk – due to the scope in terms of number of modules and number of agencies; delays in publishing the COA, interface standards and data conversion layouts to agencies increase the risk to agencies with extensive workloads Recommend monthly critical path reviews of “at risk” agencies’ project plans

IV&V Report Report noted previously identified risk and actions to resolve these risks: QA Organization – Improve understanding of Accenture QPI role and recommendation that Accenture QPI group periodically meet with the State QA team and inform them of recent QPI activities Technology – Concern regarding scope growth in the number of environments has been resolved Contingency Planning for Scope Risk – Developed a “Go-live” Decision Making Framework and Contingency Plan – “The IV&V Team commends the PMO for their initiative in this initial contingency planning exercise.”

Decisions To-date

Pending Decisions Encumbrances – recommended option is to use a combination of PO and G/L; require a PO if the vendor is known and use G/L encumbrances for “blanket” when vendor is not known; universities use of encumbrances in SMART is TBD Interfunds – recommended option is to use A/R and A/P modules and modify SMART to match the paired transactions so that an agency can view both sides of the transaction (A/R and A/P), establish agency-to-agency notifications, and eliminations – modification will be required Auto-numbering – recommended option is to follow “best practices” and use auto-numbering functionality, but allow agencies to choose “smart” numbering to avoid major change management issues with agencies Additional interfaces: State hospitals would like an interface from SMART Purchasing module into their consumable inventory systems – this interface would be of value to multiple agencies

Agency Visits and Interactions Meetings held to discuss scope and interfaces: KDOT Health Policy Commerce DOL SOS KDHE KPERS Education Aging Insurance Regents SRS KCI Corrections Sentencing Commission Legislative And others… All agencies except 2 (Office of Administrative Hearings and INK), have been visited at least once and “confirmation document” approved by agencies’ fiscal and IT leadership

Knowledge Transfer Plans Donna Harold – Accenture ER Lead

Knowledge Transfer Objectives Transition knowledge and skill from Accenture to State staff to help enable them to perform their roles on the project and in the Post Go-Live Support Organization (PGLSO) Define and gain acceptance of the PGLSO early Effectively engage State staff with activities that focus on knowledge enhancement and skill development Use a variety of activities and methods to transfer knowledge Steve is the MC Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved.

Knowledge Transfer Approach Identify Structure of the Post Go-Live Support Organization Determine Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSA) No Kick-Off Target KSA Level Met? Determine Knowledge Transfer Activities Update PLPs Execute PLPs Yes Develop Initial Personal Learning Plans (PLPs) Knowledge Transfer Complete Knowledge Transfer Kick-Off: Individuals Personalize PLPs Monitor and Report on Knowledge Transfer Progress Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 21

Personal Learning Plans Central to the Sunflower Project Knowledge Transfer Approach is the use of a Personal Learning Plan (PLP) Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved.

Personal Learning Plans Enables the State and Accenture resources to objectively and proactively plan and manage knowledge transfer activities to completion Lists the skills and/or knowledge that is required to successfully execute tasks for a particular role in the project or PGLSO Identifies project activities that will transfer knowledge Formalizes knowledge transfer, along with identifying the target date by which the knowledge transfer completes Each State project team member has a PLP that they maintain specific to their role Once resources are identified for the PGLSO their PLP’s will be updated (or created) to include KSAs needed Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved.

Knowledge Transfer Scorecard Reports on overall Knowledge Transfer progress at the team level Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved.

Knowledge Transfer Timeline by Project Phase Design Build Test / Deploy Post Go-Live Support Initial PLP Knowledge Transfer Activities / Update Personal Learning Plans PGLSO / Help Desk Structure & Processes Help Desk Set-up & Training PGLSO Operational Submit Personal Learning Plans to Enterprise Readiness Team 3/13/09 10/15//09 3/15/10 6/15/10 9/15/10 Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved. Knowledge Transfer Scorecards

Questions and Answers ? For additional information on the project, please see the project website: http://da.ks.gov/smart

Authority for Change Requests Cost Impact Scope Impact Impact on PS Code Base Schedule Impact Agency Impact Law, Reg, Policy Impact Level 1 Executive Sponsors TBD Any change affecting the “Go-live” date Any changes affecting laws, regulations or other non-A&R policies Level 2 Steering Committee Changes over $50K “Significant” impact on project scope (+/-) Recommends changes to Executive Sponsors Level 3 FMS Mgmt Team (CCB) Changes under $50K “Moderate” impact on project scope (+/-) All mods approved by FMS Mgmt Team Any change affecting KITO milestones or other key (internal management) milestones Any decisions/ changes “adversely” affecting agencies Any changes affecting A&R policies and procedures Level 4 Managers All changes affecting cost (+/-) approved by FMS Mgmt Team “Minor” impact on project scope (+/-) “Minor” impact on project activities that do not adversely impact a milestone Configuration decisions benefiting agencies that do not impact cost or do not impact a milestone