hris systems

Document Sample
hris systems Powered By Docstoc
					                                 HRIS/Finance Systems Project
                                       Project History
       Project teams representing functional areas including finance, budget, payroll, purchasing
human resources and grants were formed in June 2003 for the purpose of seeking a Title III
Grant to assist in funding the Human Resource Information System (HRIS) & Finance Project.
The Project Teams accomplished the following major tasks:

           1. Surveyed current system users identifying numerous concerns and weakness in
              our current operating systems
           2. Documented workflows, interfaces and reporting needs
           3. Reviewed vendor websites and identified current software functionality beyond
              our current systems
           4. Conducted informational sessions with 4 Vendors (SCT, Oracle, PeopleSoft, &
              DATATEL) allowing the project teams to experience current software capabilities

       The need to replace the payroll system, have a full fledged human resource information
system, and an updated finance system, was shared with the Board at the 2003 August Board
Retreat. The Board supported the project and directed that the focus be on a fully integrated
software solution that supported the Board’s multi-institution structure similar to STUDENT.

        In late 2003, in working with an expert on Title III Grants, it was determined that the
grant proposal was not likely to be funded as it was too administrative in nature and not directly
linked to students, a major focus of Title III grants. At that time, the project began to be re-
structured as a technology project in support of the efficiency and enhanced services goals
identified in the Opportunities for South Dakota report.

        After discussing the project again with the Board in January 2004, it was agreed that the
replacement of the systems was necessary to make progress on the administrative efficiencies in
the finance and human resource areas. The replacement of the systems was to be considered
along with all other projects on the System IT Plan.

       The project was accelerated when Dr. Perry and Dr. Alley reviewed the System
Information Technology Plan with the Council of Presidents and Superintendents in February of
2004. The Council of Presidents discussed the Board of Regents’ Plan for System-wide
Information Systems. The installation of a Human Resource Information System including the
replacement of PayPerS with a new payroll system, and the upgrade of our Financial Information
System were identified as the next major priorities on the plan, following the implementation of

        With a renewed focus and commitment to the project at all levels, the first task was to
identify project leadership and appropriate campus and system involvement. Monte Kramer was
identified as the Project Director. A full-time special projects manager, Elaine Hayes, was hired
to work full-time in developing materials, coordinate project communication, schedule and
identify project milestones and deliverables. The project was to be led by a Steering Committee
made up of subject matter experts identified by the Project Director.

         The supervisors of the individuals asked to serve on the Steering Committee were very
supportive of the project and agreed to commit their employees to the project. The Steering
Committee members all volunteered to serve on the project knowing they would still be expected
to fulfill their regular duties. The members of the steering committee and their subject matter of
expertise follow:

                      Monte Kramer, BOR – Project Director
                      Elaine Hayes, BOR – Project Manager
                      Jeff Siekmann, SDSU – Finance
                      Darby Ganschow, USD – Purchasing
                      Marilyn Fowle, DSU – Budget
                      Sharon Reid, SDSM&T – Grants
                      Janice Price, BOR – Human Resources/Payroll
                      Jan Wiersma, SDSU – Human Resources/Payroll
                      Dave Hansen, RIS – Technology

       The institutions were also asked to identify members to serve on module groups in
support of the functional areas on the Steering Committee. The Module Group members would
be responsible for developing the Request for Information (RFI) and reviewing software
functionality. The committees were easily staffed with subject matter experts with full support
from supervisors and university administration.

        The process of identifying vendors interested in partnering with the South Dakota
Regental System to bring to realization the goals of efficiency and enhanced services identified
in the Opportunities for South Dakota report has included the following milestones:

   •   A project website was developed to provide on-going updates on the project to the
       campus community and other interested parties. The link to the project information can
       be found on the Board’s homepage by going to System Administration and then Finance
       and                Administration.              The              address               is
   •   The project team held a kick-off meeting on April 21, 2003 from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. CST
       on the state-wide DDN system to announce the project to the university community.
       Approximately 60 personnel from the campuses participated in the kick-off. The
       PowerPoint presentation used during the meeting can be found on the BOR website for
       anyone else that is interested.
   •   A six month timeline was developed that identified the deliverables. One of the issues
       driving the aggressive timeline was a software discount offer from SCT allowing us to
       move our current SCT Plus finance system to the current SCT Banner system. This was
       also the reason why we used an RFI rather than an RFP. Trying to preserve this offer and
       being able to determine the best systems replacement software are being balanced.
   •   Preparation and issuance of a Request for Information (RFI) - The Steering Committee
       members working with their module groups completed the work on the Request for
    Information (RFI). The RFI was released on April 23 and ended up being 96 pages long
    providing the detailed functional requirements as well as the specific Board goals and
    direction for an integrated systems approach. The RFI can be found on the Board’s
    project website.
•   Eight vendors had indicated their intent to submit an RFI response. In the end, only those
    vendors that had been identified last fall as having fully-integrated Enterprise Resource
    Planning (ERP) solutions and servicing the higher education market responded to the
    RFI. The Steering Committee completed the review of the RFI responses received from
    SunGard SCT, Peoplesoft, Datatel, and Oracle.
•   A thorough analysis of Lawson, the state’s HRIS, was conducted as part of the review for
    a new system. While the system will not offer us an integrated systems solution, it would
    provide significant efficiencies for interfacing data with the state and would be very
    inexpensive as the state already has purchased the software and has sufficient licenses.
    The criteria for evaluating this system will be different than the other systems we will
    investigate and will likely focus on the opportunities that would be lost from not having
    integrated systems.      Lawson was asked to submit an RFI response as well as to
    demonstrate their software.
•   A contract was signed with Advantiv, a vendor that has developed a highly-successful
    web-based collaboration system and associated databases to facilitate ERP system
    assessment, planning, and acquisition within Higher Ed. The need to purchase and utilize
    such a tool became necessary with the tight timeframe and workload. The Decision
    Director tool proved to be powerful and adaptable, and the Steering Committee and
    module groups across the System used it to evaluate each vendor following their
    presentation. It will be used by the Steering Committee members to make their final
    assessment and recommendations to the Board.
•   RFI responses from DATATEL, Lawson, Oracle, SCT, and PeopleSoft were analyzed
    through use of Decision Director. Response codes provided by the vendor for each item
    of functionality requested were loaded into Decision Director. Summary analysis reports
    were prepared for the Steering Committee’s initial RFI response review.
•   The project Steering Committee invited Peoplesoft, SCT, Lawson, Datatel and Oracle for
    formal vendor presentations to the Steering Committee, Module Groups and interested
    campus personnel. The scheduled visits were as follows:
                 o PeopleSoft - June 2 & 3 at DSU
                 o SCT - June 8 & 9 with HR repeated on the 10th at BHSU
                 o Lawson – June 17 & 18 at USDSU
                 o DataTel - July 1 & 2 at USD
                 o Oracle - July 6 & 7 at SDSU
•   Approximately 60 participants from the system attended each of the vendor
    demonstrations. Campus staff including module members and steering committee
    members participated in assessing software functionality through use of Decision
    Director. Each campus was allowed to record their assessment of software functionality
    according to the functionality requirements identified in the RFI.
•   Steering Committee members recorded their evaluation of “General Vendor Criteria”
    designed to give an overall evaluation of each vendor considering the project goals, again
    using Decision Director. These criteria include items such as ability to satisfy the SD
    Board of Regent’s Integrated System’s Approach, track record in delivering successful
       higher education solutions, reference checks, ability to provide multi-institution
       functionality required, overall vendor demonstrations, implementation services, ability to
       satisfy reporting needs, RFI response, and commitment to higher education.
   •   Steering Committee members conducted general reference checks as well as functional
       reference checks (HR, Payroll, Finance, Budget, Technical, Grants) with an emphasis on
       multi-institution functionality and similar size installations. Decision Director was used
       to record the detailed comments as well as rankings based on the overall interviews.
   •   The project manager, Elaine Hayes, finalized the analysis from Decision Director based
       on assessment of functionality by university personnel and Steering Committee members.
       The analysis included the detailed votes and summary reports for software functionality,
       general vendor criteria and references
   •   The Steering Committee met on July 28, 2004 to review the summary results from
       Decision Director. The committee used a 75% overall functionality requirement as the
       cutoff for vendors to be further considered. The members met for a full day discussing
       pros and cons of each vendor and the vendor’s ability to meet the requirements of the

 In September 2004, Sungard SCT was approved by the Board as the preferred vendor for the
HRIS/Finance systems project.

Shared By: