1 What’s Next for Financial Management Line of Business (FMLoB)? AGA/GWSCPA 6 th Annual Conference Dianne Copeland, Director, FSIO May 8, 2007

2 Common Governmentwide Accounting Classification (CGAC) Structure

3 Common Government-wide Accounting Classification (CGAC) Accommodate both standard government-wide accounting-related functions and critical agency-mission-specific accounting functions (data); and Include standardization of such items as Treasury Account Symbol/ Treasury Account Funds Symbol; Internal fund code; Budget fiscal year; Accounting quarter and month; Program; Organization; Project; Activity; Cost Center; Object Class; and Budget function (and sub function code) Project Description: Develop a common accounting code structure, including an applicable set of definitions, which all federal agencies’ new financial management systems must adhere. The common accounting code structure will:

4 CGAC Benefits Create common language and definitions for accounting classification Provide greater specification in future system requirements to ensure all elements needed are being provided by financial systems Reduce need to maintain cross-walks and perform reconciliations Facilitate preparation and transmission of financial reports to OMB and Treasury Facilitate government-wide exchange, comparison, and aggregation of similar data Reduce costs and risks of implementing a new Federal financial management system or migration to a shared service provider through improved portability of an agency’s accounting classification structure Achieve greater consistency and accuracy in government-wide reporting.

5 CGAC Schedule ActivityEnd Date Publish Limited Exposure Draft 9/29/2006 Publish Exposure Draft 11/17/2006 Conducted facilitated review sessions 3/7/2007 Resolve open items with Treasury and OMB 4/25/2007 Update document5/16/2007 Conduct internal reviews6/8/2007 Publish final CGAC Structure6/20/2007 Review draft transition to implement CGAC recommendations 8/2007 Finalize transition paper and review draft Transition Plan10 or 11/2007

6 Relationship of Elements and Derivation Rules Some comments questioned whether derivation rules should be made standard, pointing out that agencies may derive elements differently. FSIO and the agency reps discussed this issue extensively. –Agreement was reached on standardizing the derivation of certain attributes, particularly from the internal fund code and the program code. –There are benefits to standardizing the practice including: Facilitating the implementation process by providing a uniform framework and reducing the number of decisions to be made. Easing the transition when an agency moves to a new financial system or an SSP. The CGAC document will specify derivation rules in the internal fund code and program code. In other areas, it will state that derivation will depend on system configuration.

7 Storage of Data Elements Comments related to mandating storage of data elements were mixed: –Some favored storing to facilitate querying in real time. –Some were concerned about saturating the data base or difficulty in correcting errors. FSIO decided that storage of data elements would be best handled in the Core Financial System Requirements. The real issue of storage was: –To be able to query transactions and view all associated classification data elements, or run a report within a reasonable amount of time. –To be able to audit transactions. References to storage of data elements in CGAC will be removed.

8 Further Activities to Plan CGAC Implementation Refine standard after early adoption at one agency for proof of concept? Modify some central agency systems, then agency systems, then remaining central agency systems? Update core requirements and test product compliance prior to agency implementation? Require adoption by some or all feeder systems? Implement in agencies using current software products? CGAC implementation is complete Possible implementation options Agree on a standard structure Define implemen- tation options Refine standard after early adoption at one agency for proof of concept? Update core requirements and test product compliance prior to agency implementation? Require adoption by some or all feeder systems? Implement in agencies using current software products? CGAC implementation is complete Modify some central agency systems, then agency systems, then remaining central agency systems?

9 Business Process Standardization

10 Business Process Work Stream Sequenced activities for core business processes Data objects participating in a business activity Relationships among the objects as they exist in the actual business activities Data elements and definitions used by these objects Business rules governing these objects Project Description: Develop a standard set of business practices for core financial management functions (funds control, payables management, receivables management, reporting) to be adopted by all federal agencies. The document/model will include:

11 Business Process Standardization Funds Control –Exposure Draft released on March 6 th –Currently reviewing 500+ comments to finalize document Payment Management –Ready for internal OMB review April 26 th in preparation for release of exposure draft Receivable Management

12 Business Process Standardization Benefits Lower risk of agency migration to a Shared Service Providers (SSP) Assurance that SSP’s process requirements are addressed/incorporated into the process standards More efficient standardization of interfaces to other systems and Treasury Potential savings and efficiencies on human capital costs Improved integrity of financial management at both the individual agency and Government-wide levels and ensures compliance with financial management laws and regulations.

13 Interface Standards

14 Incremental Test Plans

15 Incremental test coverage includes major new 2006 Core Requirements, new Treasury requirements, and functional capability of Agency interest 1.FMS/GWA - IPAC and P224 reporting and bulk file generation, including TAS/BETC changes 2.Reimbursable agreement establishment and tracking 3.Additional CCR validation edits from the 2006 Core requirements 4.Ability to “capture” additional document information 5.FMS FACTS I and II attributes 6.Advance/pre-payment

16 Incremental Test Schedule ActivityApproximate End Date FSIO Transformation Team accepted proposed test scope 11/16/2006 Executive Steering Committee approved test scope 12/12/2006 Publish draft Requirements Errata5/2007 Publish final Requirements Errata8/2007 Treasury populates IPAC test environment9/2007 Treasury supports FSIO developing test interfaces10/2007 Release draft incremental test materials11/2007 Release final incremental test materials2/2008 Treasury supports vendor pre-testing2/2008 Conduct incremental tests, including Treasury support3 to 8/2008

17 Document Library and Points of Contact FSIO and FMLoB documents on the web site – FSIO main number –