1. Information Technology
Executive Council
Sunflower Project
Kansas Financial Management System
Kent Olson
Director of Accounts and Reports
April 24, 2008

2. Today’s Agenda Project Purpose and Business Case Project Status
Project Governance Structure & Team
Project Timeline

3. Executive Sponsors Duane Goossen Carol Foreman Denise Moore
Secretary of Administration
Carol Foreman
Deputy Secretary of Administration
Denise Moore
Executive Branch Chief Information Technology Officer

4. A&R and Most Programmatic Agencies Have a Collection of Disparate Systems
Asset
Mgmt
Asset
Mgmt
Receipting
Revenue
Receipting
Revenue
A/P
A/P
Agency 1’s
Systems
Agency 2’s
Systems
A/P
Purchasing
Cash
Mgmt
Purchasing
Cash
Mgmt
Grants/
Projects/
Cost Cntrs
Grants/
Projects/
Cost Cntrs
Receipting
Revenue
Asset
Mgmt
STARS &
Other Central
Systems
Purchasing
Cash
Mgmt
Asset
Mgmt
Asset
Mgmt
Grants/
Projects/
Cost Cntrs
A/P
A/P
Agency 4’s
Systems
Agency 4’s
Systems
Cash
Mgmt
Cash
Mgmt
Purchasing
Purchasing 4

5. Financial Management System (FMS)
Definition:
“A comprehensive suite of integrated modules delivered by a single software vendor that provides end-to-end support for statewide administrative services”
The FMS will not include the extensive materials management and manufacturing elements found in many Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems.

6. FMS Will Consolidate Administrative Systems, Integrate
Agency Business Functions and Interface w/
Programmatic Systems
Agency 1
Agency 2 GL
A/P
Asset
Mgmt
Purchasing
FMS
Cash
Mgmt
Receipting
Revenue
Reporting
Data
Archiving
Agency 3
Agency 4 6

7. Business Case for Change
Satisfy the needs of the agencies
Eliminate the proliferation of stand-alone agency systems
Avoid the cost associated with new agency administrative systems
Avoid the cost associated with maintenance/upgrades of current systems
Significantly improve the quality, quantity, and timeliness of information
Effective decision-making
Efficient and accurate research capabilities
Enhanced ad hoc reporting and inquiry functionality
Streamline processing and control of electronic “documents” through workflow management
Facilitates document routing, review and approval

8. Business Case for Change
Streamline and simplify State’s business processes
Financial
Budgeting
Procurement
Other administrative operations
Improve operational efficiency
Commercially-available FMS systems include many features representing best management practices
Support Web-enabled self-service
State employees
Vendors conducting business with the State

9. Business Case for Change
Replace existing disparate systems
Costly to maintain
Difficult to administer
Automate and integrate
State’s financial accounting, procurement, asset management, and other administrative business processes within a single database
Provide single point of entry
Eliminate duplicate points of data entry
Eliminate duplicate databases
Simplify reconciliation
Reduce/eliminate paper documents
Reduce paper and handling costs (e.g., vouchers)
Simplify record retention and audit compliance

10. Business Case for Change
Standard financial analysis was performed using dollar-quantifiable costs and benefits:
- NPV (Net Present Value)
- IRR (Internal Rate of Return)
- Payback Period
FMS Costs
Software
Hardware
Implementation
Upgrades
Ongoing Maint. & Mgmt.
Training
FMS Benefits/Avoided Costs
System Savings
Replacing current systems
Not implementing planned systems
Process-Improvement Benefits
Value Pocket benefits 1 2
vs. 3

11. Business Case for Change
Cost-Benefit Analysis (from 2006 STA Needs Assessment)
Costs
Estimate system cost = $40,000,000
Benefits/Avoided Costs
System Savings:
Estimated system cost savings = $27.6 million over an 11-year estimating period
Process Improvement Benefits:
Estimated FTE-based benefits = $3.5 million annually after discounting
Estimated non-FTE-based benefits = $3 million annually (procurement and postage savings)
Payback in Year 12 (assuming “go-live” in Year 4)
Alto, the FMS will provide a number of significant intangible benefits such as better decision-making resulting from better information, improved level of service to internal and external customers, etc.

12. Business Case for Change
Agencies continue to spend, and have plans to spend, significant amounts on enhancing their existing agency-specific legacy systems or purchase their own agency-specific integrated systems – this funding could be applied toward the implementation of a single, statewide FMS
Redundant, manual work continuing to proliferate, along with smaller custom shadow systems
Previously existing shadow systems getting older, with even less technical support available
Increased retirements in next decade will provide more risk around custom/non-standard approaches, but also increase opportunity to capture savings through process standardization and automation

13. Business Case for Change
PROCUREMENT
Solicitations (RFx)
Catalog Procurement
Reverse Auctions
Inventory Management
Commodity Management
Vendor Management
CORE FINANCIAL
General Ledger / Budgetary Control
Accounts Payable
Accounts Receivable & Cash Receipting
Cash Management
Cost Allocation
Grant Accounting
Project Accounting
Asset Management
HR / PAYROLL
Automated Interfaces to/from SHARP
Common
Database
BUDGET DEVELOPMENT INTEGRATION
Appropriation Budget

14. Project Scope “Big Bang” implementation Software modules include:
General ledger
Purchasing
Accounts payable
Asset management
Project and grant accounting
Data warehouse and reporting
Accounts receivables and billing (optional for pilot)

15. Project Scope
Twenty-three agencies surveyed based on size and interfaces to STARS (central accounting system)
Met w/ representatives of the seven universities and validated current interfaces to STARS and SHARP
Identified approximately 54 agency systems to be de-commissioned (accounting, purchasing, grant/project/contract management, asset management)
Identified 69 agency interfaces that will need to be modified or developed by agencies
Identified numerous central agency interfaces that will need to be modified or developed by Systems Integrator (Set-off, SHARP, BMS)

16. Project Status Three bids received:
Tier 1 software providers
Large multi-national systems integrators
Evaluation of proposals is proceeding
Evaluation team – 16 members from various state agencies
Software demonstrations in May
Final selection expected in July

17. Project Governance Structure & Team

18. Project Timeline Project kick-off Oct 2008 Go-live July 2010
07/01/10
10/ / / / / /10
Planning Design Configuration/Development/Testing Integration Acceptance
Testing Testing
Project kick-off Oct 2008
Go-live July 2010
Twenty-one month duration

19. Project website http://www.da.ks.gov/ar/fms/
Questions
Project website