Replacement of Financial and Human Resources Systems Project of the Long Range Plan for Information Technology Infrastructure and Administrative Systems

1
Replacement of Financial and Human Resources
Systems Project of the Long Range Plan for
Information Technology Infrastructure and
Administrative Systems
2

• LRTP VISION
• Provide affordable access, appropriate to the
  data and informational needs of any USNH user,
  that will be available at anytime from anyplace.
  
• WITH GOAL
• Provide a reliable information technology
  infrastructure with sufficient capacity and
  responsiveness to support the ongoing operational
  and functional requirements of USNH

3
Governance Structure
Board of Trustees
Financial Affairs Committee
Chancellor
Administrative Board
Information Technology Planning and
Advisory Council (ITPAC)
Information Technology Coordinating Council (ITCC)
Steering
Committees (1) Decision Support (2)
Facilities (3) Finance

(4) Human Resources (5) Student
Information (6) Library (7)
Alumni/Development (8) Technology/Telecommunicati
ons
4
Eight LRTP Projects

• Project 1 Replace FIS and HRIS
• Project 2 Implement research admin system
• Project 3 Analyze alumni/development
• Project 4 Implement Library tech projects
• Project 5 Continue space inventory system
• Project 6 Authentication/authorization system
• Project 7 Network mgmt and analysis system
• Project 8 Consolidate voice, data, video comm.

5
FIN/HR Replacement
New Research/Admin.
UNH Alumni development
Enhance catalogs
Electronic Archives
Add UNH-M
Jstor
Media delivery
Migrate to C/S
Authentication/Authorization
Network mgmt system
Improve and Consolidate Communications, Voice,
Data and Video
6
PWC Management Letter, 1998

• The current financial and human resource systems
  that are in place at USNH expose the University
  System to increased risks due to the systems age
  and the outdated platforms on which they runThe
  incompatibility of applications, hardware, and
  operating systems, and relevant upgrades to the
  respective pieces, may cause disruption to system
  usage and processing, and instability in the
  production environment.

7
PWC Management Letter, 1998

• The risks that USNH incurs by continuing its
  exposure to such an unstable environment include
  irregularities in critical processes and
  operations, potential non-compliance with
  regulatory requirements, and disruption of
  services to the campus, system users and key
  business functions.

8
Risks Associated with the Operation of Current
Financial and Human Resource Systems

• Systems operate on VAX hardware that is no longer
  manufactured
• Systems rely on VMS system that is obsolete
• CUFS software is no longer vendor supported
• 1032 database and Cobol derived software were
  developed internally for human resources

9
Implementation Oversight Structure
10
Resource/Costing Assumptions

• Functional areas have responsibility to fund
  FTEs to support LRTP implementation beyond
  budget.
• Campus responsibility to provide staff support
  for on-going local training/consulting
• Campus responsibility to replace necessary
  desktop hardware/software on 3-4 year cycle.
• FIN/HR project assumes accelerated process and
  selection of low cost vendor, commitment to zero
  modifications, capability to fill key positions,
  and responsiveness of selected vendor.

11
Decisions Made as a Result of the Scout Team
Process

• History
• Recommendations and Conclusions
• Other Assumptions

12

• Replacement of both HRIS and FIS with external
  products is feasible
• Enterprise-wide solutions are available
• The selection process should be limited to those
  vendors providing integrated solutions already
  installed at some higher education site
• Concurrent implementation is preferable

13

• Vendors should be able to provide 90 of current
  functionality
• Vanilla or zero modification is the goal
• The task of the Core and the CURT will be to
  determine
• what functionality will be lost/gained?
• can USNH adapt its practices to fit the product?
• can the product adapt to fit USNH?

14
Responsibilities for Selecting New Finance and
Human Resource Systems
15
Everyone

• Know that what is decided in this selection
  process will determine how we do much of our
  business for the next 10-20 years
• Read, understand and discuss the RFP, vendor
  proposals, and other information on the web site
  (fresh.unh.edu)
• Attend vendor presentations
• Give your views to the appropriate
  Representatives and members of the Core Team

16
Campus User Representatives (Campus User Review
Team)

• Review computer system proposals from your campus
  and individual professional perspective
• Under leadership of your campus Core Team
  representative, collect information from
  perspectives of other key campus constituencies
• Determine how your current business procedures
  would have to be changed for each system proposal
• Report to your Core Team representative on the
  pros and cons of each proposal

17
Resource Representatives

• Review computer system proposals from your
  individual professional perspective, considering
  this professional perspective across the
  University System
• Includes areas such as Accounting, Audit,
  Benefits, Budget, Purchasing, Research,
  Technology Infrastructure, etc.
• Determine how current business procedures in your
  business area would have to be changed for each
  system proposal
• Report to your Core Team representative on the
  pros and cons of each proposal

18
Core Vendor Review Team (The Core Team)

• 16 representatives from each campus and various
  business service areas across the University
  System who will lead the vendor review
• Lead campus and professional area reviews of
  proposals
• Develop evaluation criteria
• Analyze vendor proposals, costs, etc.
• Meet with people who use the proposed systems on
  other campuses
• Prepare the final report for the Executive
  Steering Committee detailing the strengths and
  weaknesses of each proposed system

19
Executive Steering Committee

• 5 people responsible for debating all input and
  deciding which new system will be selected for
  Finance and which for Human Resources
• Composed of Vice Chancellor for Planning and
  Budget (chair), Vice Chancellor for Financial
  Affairs, Director of Human Resources, UNH
  Assistant VP for Computing and Information
  Services, and USNH Controller
• In the final decision, there will be one
  representative for each professional area
  Technology (VC for Planning and Budget), Finance
  (VC for Financial Affairs), and Human Resources
  (Director of Human Resources)

20
Vendor Selection Phase High Level Evaluation
Criteria

• 1. Basic Product Functionality
• 2. Supplemental Product Functionality
• 3. Product Technology
• 4. Total Costs
• 5. Professional Services and Support
• 6. Financial Viability
• 7. Corporate Strategy
• 8. References

21
1. Basic Product Functionality
a. Common Items b. Finance c. Human
Resources d. Research/Sponsored Programs
22
2. Supplemental Product Functionality
a. Common Items b. Finance c. Human
Resources d. Research/Sponsored Programs
23
3. Product Technology
Platforms on which software runs, system
architecture, etc.
24
4. Total Costs
Cost of ownership over the estimated system
life cycle, including anticipated internal costs
25
5. Professional Services and Support
Implementation and on-going a. Basic
Services b. Optional Services, Ideas, and
Proposals
26
6. Financial Viability
Bidders long-term financial viability
27
7. Corporate Strategy
Bidders mission/vision growth, product
strategy
28
8. References
Other higher education institutions for which
bidder has provided similar products services
29
What has been done so far

• . Since February 4 approval of the LRTP by
  Trustees, we have

30
February

• Advertised for Project Director HR Lead
• Appointed RFP Team
• Designed specs for Nesmith Hall operations center

31
March

• Addressed BSC Forum UNH FAC
• Decided on 4 vendors for RFP
• Wrote RFP
• Prepared official responses to vendor RFP
  questions
• Developed LRTP accounting financial reporting
  structure

32
March (continued)

• Attended 3 vendor user conferences
• Appointed Core Vendor Review Team
• Developed first-cut high-level evaluation
  criteria
• Created project web site http//www.fresh.unh.ed
  u
• Created email address mailto
  core.steering_at_unh.edu

33
April

• Addressed BSC Forum
• Selected 4 finalists for Project Director
• Finalized Nesmith Hall RR plans, budget
  funding
• Developing detailed HR evaluation criteria with
  key user groups
• Visited UNH, PSC and KSC to develop detailed
  Finance evaluation criteria

34
April (continued)

• Posted detailed Research evaluation criteria to
  the web site
• Appointed Campus User Review Team
• Appointed Resource representatives
• Held 1st full meeting of Core
• Briefed ESC on user conferences attended
• Held orientation meeting for ESC, Core, CURT,
  Resource reps, and others

35
What still needs to be done?
36
April

• Complete detailed Finance HR evaluation
  criteria
• Review/analyze vendor RFP responses
• Interview (and hire??) Project Director
• Fully fund the LRTP accounts
• Manage renovation set up of Nesmith Hall
• Write article for campus newspapers
• Address UNH FAC other campus user management
  groups

37
May

• Select finalist vendors for on-campus demos
• Move into Nesmith Hall operations center
• Address campus user management groups
• Perform client reference checks
• Perform client site visits

38
May 17 June 18

• Approximate dates for vendor presentations
  demos
• Depends on number of finalist vendors
• Dates, times, locations content to be
  determined later
• Current plan
• Each vendor spends one day at KSC PSC
• Each vendor spends 4 days at UNH
• Each vendor has at least one day of follow-up
  with Core

39
Late June

• Core will collect input from CURT, Resource reps
  all others
• Core will issue preliminary report to ESC on pros
  cons of each vendor proposal

40
July, August, September

• Perform detailed cost analysis
• Perform due diligence
• Finalize report of pros cons to ESC
• ESC negotiates with finalist vendor(s)
• ESC makes decision on vendor, product proposal
• Address campus user management groups

41
October

• Contract signed with successful vendor