ERP Strategic Assessment Update May 2018 Hank Schottland | ERP Steering Committee |
ERP Strategic Assessment Cabinet requested an assessment of our ERP Strategy in mid-2016. We formed a steering committee later that year and an executive stakeholder committee in 2017. ● Steering committee: Tammy Billick, Jody Potter, Loraine Schmitt, Andy Freed, Tonya Booker, Bonny Vosu, Julie Kinney, Samantha Hopf, Cheryl Scott, Dieterich Steinmetz, Mike Arnold, Hank Schottland ● Executive stakeholder committee: Sylvia Kelley, Jim Langstraat, Lisa Bledsoe, Mark Goldberg, Eric Blumenthal, Karin Edwards, Rob Steinmetz, Katy Ho, Michael Northover
ERP Strategic Assessment Goal of the Assessment ● Recommend whether to remain on our decades-old “Banner ecosystem” (40+ apps), and invest to modernize it, or initiate an effort to replace it ● Assess current state & potential future state ● Consider the business implications (risk/reward, costs, organizational impacts) associated with either path ● Outline the high-level path forward
Adobe Access Visio Creatve DB Advisor Vantose Suite Track Tutor Agilys Track Touch- AIM net Alma / Terra- Ex dotta Libras Appli- Team Dyna- cant mics Tracker Tablea Argos u Our Ecosystem: Symme- Asset- try works Dependencies / Access SQR Aviso Integrated Programs SAS BanWeb Over 40 external programs interact Sales Base Force with Banner in one way or another D2L Resrce (Desire 25 to 25 Live Learn) Banner E- RAVE Builder Enroll- Qual- ment trics RX QAS Enterp. Pro Sky Print- Equi- shop tract Pro Pay- Excel metric Org Grad Sync Image- Plan MBS In- Jump Now Design
ERP Strategic Assessment Activities during Summer 2017: ● Engagement with PointB consultants ● They conducted district-wide outreach to assess current state from the users’ perspective: 46 teams interviewed, ~200 staff ● Asked: ○ what was and was not working ○ desired future state ○ concerns about change
ERP Strategic Assessment: Pain Points Challenges % Mention Challenges % Mention Reporting / Analytics 85% Naming Protocol/Consistency 35% Integration 73% Access/Rights 31% Intuitive / ‘Clunky’ 73% Student Relevance 31% Memorization / Depend on Others 69% Productivity 27% Not User-Friendly 65% Work-Arounds 27% Work flow/Tracking 62% Duplication 23% Manual/Paper Processes 54% Outdated Technology 23% Training 50% Processes 23% Dependency on IT or IE 46% Multiple Browser Requirements 19% Customization / Ad Hoc Changes 42% Communications 19% Error Notification 42% Documentation 19% Too many steps/screens 38% Real Time data 19% System Performance / Stability 38%
ERP Strategic Assessment: What’s Working; Ideal World; Concerns about Change Good % mention “Perfect World” % mention Dashboard / Tabs 35% Data Integrity 31% Modern 31% Custom reports 19% Mobile 15% Know how to work the system 8% Imaging 8% Portal 8% Single sign-on 8% Change Concerns % mention Data Conversion 38% Training 38% Won't be better 35% Losing what's working 27% Learning curve 23% Time 19% Culture 15% Resources (lack of) 15%
ERP Strategic Assessment: 2 Major Options Status Quo • Continue using our existing installation of Banner and supporting applications, and build it out with additional “bolt-ons” (NC Registration; CRM; student on-boarding, planning, scheduling; employee on-boarding/off-boarding; budget planning and management; …) New ERP • Select a new cloud-based software-as-a-service (SaaS) ERP application, plus a new reporting solution.
ERP Strategic Assessment: Risks & Impact Staying w/ the Status Quo: Moving to a New ERP: high high risk impact • Massive Change • Cannot support strategic initiatives moving forward • High Cost • Knowledge leaving the institution • Culture Shift • Expensive to maintain • Process redesign • Significant productivity loss (“50%”) • Perceived loss of power and/or • Vendor support issues control • Branding / Student Recruitment • Employee Satisfaction
Solution Options & Decision Factors Vendor Strategy Flexibility Support Org Sustainab Options Capability Cost Enablement Adapatability & Readiness ility Viability Initial TCO Invest. Status quo New ERP Positive Moderate Challenging
ERP Strategic Assessment: Costs Annual Costs Licensing, Hosting and Application Support for Each Option Option 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Status Quo * low low low low low low New ERP high high high high high high * Hosting, application support, and disaster recovery costs are not included in Status Quo Implementation Costs Option Costs Status Quo low New ERP high Implementation costs include the vendor’s professional services costs and the cost to bring in full-time temporary PCC staff during the implementation. Caveats: • The costs for all three options are high level estimates. They would need to be refined during a formal software selection project. The ‘Status Quo’ option is expected to be much higher than the currently provided estimate, once DR • and future hardware replacement costs are added in.
ERP Strategic Assessment: Vendor Options • Point B’s scoring categories included over a dozen factors (capability, cost, strategy enablement, flexibility, vendor support & viability, user interface, workflow…) for “core ERP” incl. finance, budget, HR, student info, financial aid • Evaluated Ellucian, CampusManagement, Jenzibar, Unit4, Workday • Workday scored highest, followed by Campus Management, Unit4, Jenzabar, then Ellucian
Staffing a New ERP Project PCC Staff: ● We would need to allocate subject-matter experts to the project on a full-time basis and backfill them, including SMEs in Finance, HR/Payroll, IT, Academic & Student Affairs, Institutional Effectiveness. Similar to what has been done for Bond projects. ● Other PCC staff would need to participate on a part-time basis during key design and business process re-engineering discussions, as well as some validation testing at the end. Non-PCC Staff: ● The implementation will require a significant number of non-PCC employees. ○ System integrator (SI) - most of the consulting $$ would be spent here 3 rd party firm to help manage the project to provide a Change Management, ○ Project Manager and other leadership roles if needed - a critical role
PointB’s Recommendation PCC Should Adopt a New ERP with a Phased Approach The majority of the challenges with the status quo will not be resolved without re- implementing Banner or spending a significant amount on customizations. Netting out all factors, a new ERP, phased in over multiple years, would best meet PCC’s strategic needs. Phase I Human Capital Management (HCM) – foundational layer and tends to be the most • mature component of cloud-based ERPs BI / Analytics • Phase II • Finance – builds on top of HCM. Phase III Student Information Services (SIS) including Financial Aid – tends to be the least • mature component at this point in time
HIGH LEVEL RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS FOR EACH PHASE OF PCC’S ERP PROJECT & EXPECTED OUTCOMES PCC leaders aligned around the need, The business begins to understand Business finalizes their design is ready People and processes are smoothly transitioned to a new platform and level of investment and vision for how new technology will improve the to validate new ways of working success way work gets done & prepare for across people, process and new ways of working ✓ ✓ change technology ‒ Go-live plan successfully ‒ ERP Needs and Implementation ✓ ‒ Current State Process executed Strategy defined ‒ Test Data in Place ‒ Business Case & Level of Documented ‒ Design finalized ‒ Training Conducted ✓ ‒ Go Life Performance Metrics Investment Understood ‒ Future State Process Design ‒ System Configured ✓ ‒ Future State Role and ‒ Training and Audience Specific realization ‒ Alignment on case for change ‒ Organization has transitioned to ‒ High Level Roadmap Created Organizational Design Communication Complete ✓ new way or working ‒ Go Live Criteria Confirmed 3. PRELIMINARY 7. DEPLOY Complete DESIGN 5. REFINE & BUILD 1. ALIGN NEXT STEP : Go / No Go Decision and Receive 4. SELECT 6. TEST 2. SCOPE 8. OPTIMIZE Funding . The enterprise has evaluated products & SIs and made their selection and contracted with vendors Functional leaders understand The business has validated that The business fully owns the solution priority areas of scope and the quality has been achieved in test and is optimizing performance to ‒ Product Selected measures used to define success environments and is ready to realize ROI ‒ SI Selected ✓ transition ‒ Defined ROI ‒ Identification of Functions & ‒ Transition to Sustaining ‒ Defined Budget Major Processes in Scope ‒ Test Cases Executed Operations ‒ Detailed Program Plan for all Work ‒ Key Successes Measures for ‒ Go Live Criteria Met ‒ ROI / Success Realization streams Business and Organizational ‒ Transition and Training Team ‒ On-going optimization roadmap ‒ Deployment Strategy Confirmed Performance Activated and health checks ‒ Program Organization Defined
Recommend
More recommend
