Minutes - April 20, 2006
Present: Allen Berger, Tracy Bigney, Dick Campbell, Ralph Caruso, Tracy Elliott, Frank Gerry, Jon Henry, Tom Hopkins, Dick Kimball, Sharon Nadeau, Tom Potter, Laurie Pruett, Rosa Redonnett, Bill Wells, Joanne Yestramski, Alison Cox (for Cindy Mitchell).
No representation from UMFK & UM.
1. Welcome
Allen welcomed the group and suggested changing the agenda to begin with the PeopleSoft Financials Post Go-Live Assessment by Ralph Whedon.
- PeopleSoft Financials Post Go-Live Assessment
Assessment Objectives:
- Does the system meet the Sponsors’ objectives?
- Identify operational problems, risks, improvement opportunities
- Identify opportunities to strengthen project management for future project phases
Scope: Identification and examination of--
- New and improved processes, existence of internal controls, extent of training
- Opportunities for further improvement
- Integration of PeopleSoft systems, legacy data, and plans for decommissioning
- Information available to campuses
Executive Summary:
Opinion:
- Installation was superior to the HRMS
- Close cooperation between the campuses and Project Enterprise
- Improved communication, training and project management
- System meets most of the Sponsors’ technical and functional objectives
- Effective campus-PE partnership essential for success
- Good progress toward identifying and resolving remaining system issues (report highlights some of these challenges)
Observations:
- Moving go-live to fiscal year end was a good decision
- Staff directly involved with the project have been overwhelmed; many project issues at go-live due to insufficient staff resources
- Staff find PeopleSoft data entry arduous; reporting capabilities should outweigh data entry shortcomings
- Campuses and project team have identified and are resolving lingering issues
- Most problems solvable by sharing timesaving tips, techniques and customizations
- Some members of the project team would benefit from professional project management training
- Users would benefit from an issues list
- Business process redesign needs to be further considered in future projects; in particular, reporting needs to be analyzed
Internal Audit Assessment Methodology:
- Questions and criteria for review developed by reviewing Sponsors’ objectives and Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology (CobiT) standards
- 60 interviews with participants in campuses and the System Office
Ralph presented specific observations and recommendations in each of the following areas (fuller details can be found in the report itself):
Readiness & Staffing
Accounting
Purchasing
Security
Reporting
Project Management
System-wide Help Desk
User Issues List
Training
Business Continuation
Legacy Systems
Business Process Improvements
Management Response (Joanne Yestramski):
- Post go-live clean up responsibility of Controller (Tracy Elliott)
- Organize accounting department/Internal Audit department – clean up before
next phase
- Need to focus one high-level person on area of internal reporting; suggest Bill
Gilfillan, Director of Internal Reporting, with team to assist working through the reorganization
Ralph Caruso Observations:
- No protocols, second-level help desk plan; coordinate with campus help desks
- Committees need to be put in place, not enough resources to address all issues – priorities first
- Comprehensive back up plan costs money….dependent upon budget and availability of resources
- Business continuity plan of little value, no money for redundant systems
- Strive to get alignment on how decisions get made “sponsorship/ownership” to achieve the right dialogue
- Time to change governance model and move forward
The Steering Committee accepted Ralph’s assessment document as a final product for the Audit Committee meeting on May 3rd with a suggestion to include a table of contents.
3. PeopleSoft Updates and Decisions
Degree Audit Issues/Concerns
- Link to calendar for Student
- How will degree audit system handle exceptions?
- Campuses requested to submit nominees for IDP degree audit participants to Alison Cox
- IDP meeting frequency: 2 weeks, 3 days per week; to begin late September 2006
- Dick Campbell concerned that we not develop campus expertise only to later pull it back to a centralized function
- Dick Kimball - degree audit needs to be done on campus with campus-based expertise
- Joanne Yestramski – value of centralized resource expertise
4, Shared Processing Center (Jon Henry, Laurie Pruett)
- Re-design of flow – how will documents be handled in the future?
- Document management update
- Sharing documents across institutions--a big change for admissions
- Working on floor plan
- Allen Berger—encourages relocation of loan collections people at Orono; cross train for back-up
- Jon Henry – review of critical path checklist
The following positions for the center have been planned:
- 5 Data Processors (classified-represented)
Note: Per Frank Gerry – members of COLT unit will have first opportunity to apply for these 5 positions
- 1 Professional position for Data Operations Manager (regular procedure for advertising – UMPSA not spoken to about this position yet)
Note: Rosa suggests that international, law and graduate school be included in applicant pool for this position
Next meeting: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm – Side B of the Board Room at the System Office. Lunch included.
Topics for discussion:
1) Consultant’s report on readiness for Center, Admissions, and Campus Community go-live; formulation of recommendation to the presidents;
2) Report on plans related to loan collection; decision on how to proceed;
3) Report on suggestions for changes in governance; recommendation on how to proceed.
Homework:
- Laurie and Jon will provide Shared Processing Center update at May meeting
- Laurie will investigate legal questions related to imaging and report back in May
- Joanne to invite Miriam White to join us in May
The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Jeanie Rogers for Eddie Meisner, Recorder