1. Steering Committee Meeting Sunflower Project Statewide Financial Management System Update December 12, 2008

2. 2 Today’s Topics Project status – Kent Change Control – Peggy Project risks – Peggy Agency activities and issues – Gary Set-off replacement – Gary Labor distribution analysis – Gary

3. 3 Project Kick-off Oct 6 th Begin FMS Team Training mid-October mid- November Begin Conference Room Pilots Analysis Complete for COA, KDOT, SRS and Treasurer Systems mid-January Interface Standards Complete and Published to Agencies Mid-April The 1 st Six Months of the Project Build-out of Data Center Including SHARP II mid-March

4. 4 All State positions filled except for 5 positions for a total of 44 team members Accenture has ramped up to approximately 25 consultants on-site Team chemistry is very good – several team building events have helped – but real team building is being catalyzed by the challenge and the importance of the project Teams have self-organized in terms of roles and division of responsibilities State functional team members are rapidly gaining knowledge of the PeopleSoft software and Accenture’s methodology and making strong contributions to their teams Project Team

5. 5 Functional courses completed General Ledger A/P & Purchasing A/R Billing Query Asset Management Grants Expenses Numerous courses for technical team Final functional courses e-Procurement Project Costing and Contracts Technical training will be on-going for the next six months Team Training is Wrapping Up

6. 6 Identifies gaps between Kansas’ desired future business processes and requirements against the processes directly supported by PeopleSoft Concluded December 11 th – 66 CRPs have been conducted Good agency participation – 42 agencies attended one or more sessions Not without problems (space was tight for early sessions, agencies want more agency-specific attention which will come later) Identified gaps in the software which are being addressed in the following manner: Eliminate the requirement (little relevance and impact) Work-around Modification Conference Room Pilots (CRPs)

7. 7 Determining number of GL business units Extensive analysis being performed Impacts amount of work required to modify SHARP Impacts what data agencies see in drop down menus May impact “PCA” chartfield Consulted other states, STA, Oracle and no clear consensus opinion – each approach has pros and cons Will determine tentative approach by end of January and finalize decision by end of February or early-March Foundation Decisions

8. 8 Beginning build-out of data center for Development and Testing environments Initial set of servers have arrived (DEV, TST) DISC is in the process of installing servers After physical installation DISC will pull wires, install operating systems and tie servers into the network Environments scheduled to be available by early-February Data Center Hardware & Build-out

9. 9 Surveys out to agencies for reporting needs, QA capabilities, labor distribution (non-core agencies) Request for detailed project plans for interfacing agencies and agencies that are de-commissioning systems – due December 15 th “Visioning” session to be held with Director of Division of Purchases (12/18) to develop long-term strategy for rolling out additional purchasing-related functionality Final draft of Security Assessment Plan complete Five (5) deliverables (paid and non-paid) submitted to date – all due dates have been met Twenty (20) deliverables due in January! Miscellaneous Project Activities

10. 10 Parking lot for scope elements and requirements not included in the July 2010 “go-live” Working on KITO quarterly submittal Preparing for IV&V review First bi-monthly newsletter will be published this month Contest for naming the system… over 100 entries… results to be announced soon…. Miscellaneous Project Activities

11. 11 Held first meetings to discuss software gaps (from CRPs) Process starts with review of requirements (20 - 200 requirements per module) in CRPs by functional team and agency participants Examples of potential mods from Purchasing CRP sessions Delivered software does not provide the ability to include the distributor name and number in catalogs Agencies do not currently track distributor information and see no need to capture this information Resolution: remove requirement Delivered software does not provide fields to maintain information on recycled content and percentage Agencies are required to report on recycled materials Resolution: small modification to create indicator and quantity of recycled content Delivered software can only store 254 character description for contracts/catalogs Specific agency has this capability in their current purchasing system Resolution: work-around by using available field Change Control – Enhancements & Mods

12. 12 Authority for Change Requests Change Request AuthorityCost ImpactScope ImpactImpact on PS Code Base Schedule ImpactAgency ImpactLaw, Reg, Policy Impact KITO KITO OfficeAll changes over 10% Depends on impact to cost or schedule Schedule impact of 20% Level 1 Executive Sponsors TBD Any change affecting the “Go-live” date TBDAny changes affecting laws, regulations or other non-A&R policies Level 2 Steering Committee Changes over $50K “Significant” impact on project scope (+/-) TBDRecommends 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

13. 13 Changes to the Contract and/or Statement of Work Minor wording changes and clarifications Minor change for use of different software for developing training material Change Control Log

14. 14 1.Availability of DPS/A&R/DISC resources may cause delays in accomplishing required development of SHARP II 2.State functional team members may not acquire required level of knowledge to support users post “go-live” 3.Agency requirements may be more extensive and specialized than expected 4.Lack of (agency) volunteers to train end-users 5.DISC networking group is in the midst of a major upgrade Top 10 Project Risks

15. 15 6.High workload for State team members could result in turnover 7.Lack of “trickle down” communication within agencies 8.Availability of end-users to attend training 9.Large and/or high-impact agencies not ready for go-live 10.Inadequate (agency) SMEs to assist/learn agency-specific configurations Top 10 Project Risks

16. 16 Briefed Regents Controllers on project status, chart of accounts changes and other central business process changes – follow-up ½ day meeting planned for mid-January Briefed RITC (Regents IT leadership) on project status, request for project plans, QA assessment DOL to discuss agency path forward – depends on labor distribution decision Veterans’ Affairs to discuss integration of new financial system with STARS and FMS SRS regular meetings for FARMS and Central Cashier State Treasurer for replacement of Treasurer systems Agency Activities and Issues

17. 17 During negotiation Accenture proposed to replace Set-off using PS customization – approx $500K fixed price cost seemed very pricey and proposed solution (developed within PeopleSoft) would probably have been klugey Based on above, Set-off replacement was removed from the Accenture contract/SOW Set-off replacement system was built using 3 rd party contractor for approx $90K in two months; system is being deployed this month SOW includes provision for Accenture to draft a change order for configuring FMS to interact with Set-off and to design required interfaces Interfaces between Set-off and FMS will be developed and tested by Treasurer’s Office Strategy will result in approximate $300K savings to the State and provide a better solution (cheaper, better, faster) than the original course of action Set-off

18. 18 Drafting analysis document Major sections include: Background – originally targeted agencies and why this is important to them as well as results from surveying other agencies Presentation of alternatives and pros/cons of each alternative (including impact on agencies of no central labor distribution solution) Recommended alternative Estimated project costs: Software Implementation services (Accenture & State) Estimated post “go-live” operational roles (A&R, DPS, DISC) and required FTEs to support central labor distribution solution Estimated post “go-live” operational roles and required FTEs in agencies Will provide Steering Committee members copy of draft analysis on 01/05/09 Will present analysis and recommendation to Steering Committee on January 9 th Labor Distribution Analysis

19. 19 Questions and Answers? For additional information on the project, please see the project website: http://www.da.ks.gov/ar/fms/