1. UT System ERP Planning Project Financial Area Representatives April 22, 2009

2. UTSA’s ERP Environment   UTSA uses UT Austin’s DEFINE system for HR & Financial applications   IBM Mainframe-based   Flat file – not a relational data base   Partially web enabled   Highly customized   Highly automated campus workflow   Not a comprehensive HR system   DEFINE is inexpensive – less than $400,000 per year for access & maintenance   Does not include UTSA IT or DEFINE administrative staff   UTSA uses UT Austin’s DEFINE system for HR & Financial applications   IBM Mainframe-based   Flat file – not a relational data base   Partially web enabled   Highly customized   Highly automated campus workflow   Not a comprehensive HR system   DEFINE is inexpensive – less than $400,000 per year for access & maintenance   Does not include UTSA IT or DEFINE administrative staff 1

3. UTSA’s ERP Environment   DEFINE functionality is controlled by UT Austin   Major overhaul to HRMS system in progress   No shared governance or service level agreement   Some system enhancements / changes are not always shared   DEFINE functionality is controlled by UT Austin   Major overhaul to HRMS system in progress   No shared governance or service level agreement   Some system enhancements / changes are not always shared 2

4. UTSA’s ERP Environment   Banner Student is our system of record for all revenue, scholarship and financial aid awards and other important student information.   No integration with the DEFINE financial system   Custom interface between Banner & DEFINE required to create financial system records   Currently, reconciliation is manual   Banner Student is our system of record for all revenue, scholarship and financial aid awards and other important student information.   No integration with the DEFINE financial system   Custom interface between Banner & DEFINE required to create financial system records   Currently, reconciliation is manual 3

5. TEXSIS Project   TEXSIS Project is a pilot for a shared service implementation of the Campus Solutions (Student Administration application) by   UT Dallas   UT Tyler   UT Arlington   Funded by Board of Regents in 2006 using Permanent University Funds (PUF)   Staggered implementation – “go live” during 2009   TEXSIS Project is a pilot for a shared service implementation of the Campus Solutions (Student Administration application) by   UT Dallas   UT Tyler   UT Arlington   Funded by Board of Regents in 2006 using Permanent University Funds (PUF)   Staggered implementation – “go live” during 2009 4

6. TEXSIS Project Goals & Objectives   Improve and streamline business processes   Implement IT system using higher education best practices   Shared governance project model for implementation & ongoing maintenance   Minimize software modifications   Share best & common practices amongst institutions   Pursue value added new initiatives   Improve and streamline business processes   Implement IT system using higher education best practices   Shared governance project model for implementation & ongoing maintenance   Minimize software modifications   Share best & common practices amongst institutions   Pursue value added new initiatives 5

7. UT System ERP Planning Project   Following success of the TEXSIS project, UT System contracted for a cost analysis and feasibility for a similar project for Finance & HR.   UT Dallas is using a very old software package (SCT+) for Finance and Human Resources (Payroll) that will no longer be supported by the vendor.   UT Dallas must do something now to protect its administrative computing viability   Following success of the TEXSIS project, UT System contracted for a cost analysis and feasibility for a similar project for Finance & HR.   UT Dallas is using a very old software package (SCT+) for Finance and Human Resources (Payroll) that will no longer be supported by the vendor.   UT Dallas must do something now to protect its administrative computing viability 6

8. UT System ERP Planning Project   UTSA participated in a survey regarding campus requirements and readiness to implement an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system   Collaborative effort with OIT, HR & Financial Affairs   Alvarez & Marsal (consultant team) analyzed & issued a report in December 2008   UTSA participated in a survey regarding campus requirements and readiness to implement an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system   Collaborative effort with OIT, HR & Financial Affairs   Alvarez & Marsal (consultant team) analyzed & issued a report in December 2008 7

9. Survey Findings   Most campuses (other than Dallas) are not ready for a major system implementation project   Dallas has no choice   Other campuses may want to migrate from DEFINE but are not prepared   No funding for a major project   Inadequate staffing to take on additional workload   Insufficient IT staff for ongoing maintenance and support   Most campuses (other than Dallas) are not ready for a major system implementation project   Dallas has no choice   Other campuses may want to migrate from DEFINE but are not prepared   No funding for a major project   Inadequate staffing to take on additional workload   Insufficient IT staff for ongoing maintenance and support 8

10. Survey Findings   Consultant recommended PeopleSoft to meet the campus’s major functionality requirements   Not many choices – SCT Banner, Oracle, Datatel, SAP   TEXSIS is using PeopleSoft, so they will have an integrated software suite & experience with PeopleTools, as well as the physical environment (data center at UT Arlington)   Shared implementation costs result in overall savings   Will require a great deal of cooperation between participating campuses   Consultant recommended PeopleSoft to meet the campus’s major functionality requirements   Not many choices – SCT Banner, Oracle, Datatel, SAP   TEXSIS is using PeopleSoft, so they will have an integrated software suite & experience with PeopleTools, as well as the physical environment (data center at UT Arlington)   Shared implementation costs result in overall savings   Will require a great deal of cooperation between participating campuses 9

11. Estimated Project Costs   PUF funds are currently not available to support project implementation   UT System will cover software maintenance & 2 staff for project management   Project implementation costs estimated for consultants, backfill and travel:   $9M per campus if 8 campuses participate   $10M per campus if 5 campuses participate   $15M+ if campus goes it alone   No estimates for ongoing costs   PUF funds are currently not available to support project implementation   UT System will cover software maintenance & 2 staff for project management   Project implementation costs estimated for consultants, backfill and travel:   $9M per campus if 8 campuses participate   $10M per campus if 5 campuses participate   $15M+ if campus goes it alone   No estimates for ongoing costs 10

12. Project Constraints, Issues & Concerns   Implementation must be ‘vanilla’ to reduce project costs   DEFINE is highly customized   We will lose some functionality and gain other   One single software instance   Adds project risk   Different from TEXSIS project where each campus has their own instance of the software (more costly, but more flexible)   All campuses must apply fixes, patches and upgrades at the same time & perform system maintenance on the same schedule   Business system interruption vulnerability – no redundancy   Implementation must be ‘vanilla’ to reduce project costs   DEFINE is highly customized   We will lose some functionality and gain other   One single software instance   Adds project risk   Different from TEXSIS project where each campus has their own instance of the software (more costly, but more flexible)   All campuses must apply fixes, patches and upgrades at the same time & perform system maintenance on the same schedule   Business system interruption vulnerability – no redundancy 11

13. Project Constraints, Issues & Concerns   Implementation is based on a ‘big bang’ approach – everything at the same time   This is very difficult   We would recommend phasing if / when UTSA moves off of DEFINE   HR first – including Payroll, interface labor costs to DEFINE   Finance immediately following   Implementation is based on a ‘big bang’ approach – everything at the same time   This is very difficult   We would recommend phasing if / when UTSA moves off of DEFINE   HR first – including Payroll, interface labor costs to DEFINE   Finance immediately following 12

14. UT System Proposal   As a result of most campuses’ reluctance to commit, the following was proposed by the UT System:   Let UT Dallas plan for an implementation starting Fall 09   Set up shared governance structure on the basis of a “soft commitment” of the other campuses to follow with an implementation when ready, within 3 years   As a result of most campuses’ reluctance to commit, the following was proposed by the UT System:   Let UT Dallas plan for an implementation starting Fall 09   Set up shared governance structure on the basis of a “soft commitment” of the other campuses to follow with an implementation when ready, within 3 years 13

15. UT System Proposal   Participation in shared governance will cost UTSA about $50,000/year   Some risk to this approach –   Software versions will change due to vendor support schedule   Timing of our implementation must be carefully considered – we don’t want to ‘go live’, only to have to upgrade shortly thereafter   All decisions about software functionality and system usage will be determined and set with limited opportunity to revise   Will require us to stay very involved with UT Dallas implementation   Participation in shared governance will cost UTSA about $50,000/year   Some risk to this approach –   Software versions will change due to vendor support schedule   Timing of our implementation must be carefully considered – we don’t want to ‘go live’, only to have to upgrade shortly thereafter   All decisions about software functionality and system usage will be determined and set with limited opportunity to revise   Will require us to stay very involved with UT Dallas implementation 14

16. UT System Proposal   Some benefits to this approach –   UT Dallas will be ‘proof of concept’   We can be involved without the immediate pain   We can take the time to evaluate other options   We can begin making business process improvements   We can plan for financial, staffing and other requirements to position us for a major ERP implementation and change initiative.   We will have a CIO on board to assist with the transition.   Some benefits to this approach –   UT Dallas will be ‘proof of concept’   We can be involved without the immediate pain   We can take the time to evaluate other options   We can begin making business process improvements   We can plan for financial, staffing and other requirements to position us for a major ERP implementation and change initiative.   We will have a CIO on board to assist with the transition. 15

17. Opportunities to Explore   Conduct a comparative study of the costs and benefits of implementing SCT Banner HR & Finance   Benefits:   Leverage what we have / know   Physical integration of student financial data with financial application   We control the environment, release/fix upgrade schedule, functionality and degree of customization   Phased in approach at our pace, with our project plan and control   Possible collaboration with other UT campuses using Banner Student   Costs :   UT System does not support this direction   We would bear the full cost of hardware, IT support, maintenance, and software application   Conduct a comparative study of the costs and benefits of implementing SCT Banner HR & Finance   Benefits:   Leverage what we have / know   Physical integration of student financial data with financial application   We control the environment, release/fix upgrade schedule, functionality and degree of customization   Phased in approach at our pace, with our project plan and control   Possible collaboration with other UT campuses using Banner Student   Costs :   UT System does not support this direction   We would bear the full cost of hardware, IT support, maintenance, and software application 16

18. Opportunities to Explore   Evaluate the feasibility / desirability of collaboration with UTHSCSA – they have a mature, full functionality PeopleSoft system.   Begin funding/financial planning for a future ERP implementation   Evaluate business process changes, improvements and staffing/backfill requirements   CIO Involvement is critical   Evaluate the feasibility / desirability of collaboration with UTHSCSA – they have a mature, full functionality PeopleSoft system.   Begin funding/financial planning for a future ERP implementation   Evaluate business process changes, improvements and staffing/backfill requirements   CIO Involvement is critical 17

19. CMO Recommendation   CMO recommended that we opt to participate but explore other opportunities   Will require commitment of UTSA staff time to validate UT Dallas pilot project decisions   Project structure for our involvement will be discussed in the coming weeks with affected areas and staff   CMO recommended that we opt to participate but explore other opportunities   Will require commitment of UTSA staff time to validate UT Dallas pilot project decisions   Project structure for our involvement will be discussed in the coming weeks with affected areas and staff 18