An ERP to Remember Common Management Systems in

“An ERP to Remember” Common Management Systems in the California State University

“�CMS -- An ERP To Remember” The Project Manager Played by: Hilary Baker The Executive Sponsor Played by: David Ernst The ERP Vendor Played by: Jenny Rickard

HB CMS Facts and Figures • California State University 23 Campuses – 370, 000 students, 40, 000 faculty & staff – • Common Management System - CMS • Target administration environment – Administrative “best practices” – Shared, common suite of PS applications software – Shared data center

HB CMS Facts and Figures 1. Project scope 1. Human Resources, Finance, Student Administration 2. Interface to State Controller Office payroll 2. Implementation approach 1. Single software version; Multiple campus databases 2. Collaborative design and prototyping 3. Pilot approach for Student Administration 4. Central development group 5. Campus rollout to end users

HB CMS Facts and Figures • Project Timeline 1999 - 2006 – Implementation on all 23 CSU campuses – 1 st wave - Self-selecting first 11 campuses – 2 nd wave - Remaining campuses & Chancellor’s Office • Project Cost – $350 -$400 million – Includes redirected staff time and new dollars

An ERP to Remember

HB �Back to Today’s Reality • • • “My CMS” Critical factors Alignment of “the stars” Lessons being learned Current status Success metrics

DE “My CMS”- The Sponsor • A project to improve the efficiency and quality of CSU’s administrative services • A vehicle for achieving a common, best practices standard of administration on all 23 campuses and the C. O. • The largest project of its kind ever undertaken in higher education

HB “My CMS”-The Project Manager • • Human Resources - HR/SA 7. 6 Finance - 7. 5 Student Administration - HR/SA 8. 0 Project plan and associated budget Resources - staff and consultants New data center End to end performance management Risk management

LD “My CMS”-The Vendor • A way of make the “C” in CSU stand for California rather than Cleveland • A chance to establish People. Soft as the vendor of choice for higher education • Prove that People. Soft software solutions are scalable – R 1, mid size and small universities • Prove that People. Soft can be implemented quickly and cost effectively, without giving up flexibility and functionality

DE Why CMS in the First Place? • Campuses looking at financial system replacement • ITS plan • Focus on admin productivity and quality • BPR • Local campus authority and responsibility

LD Proven Success Factors • Successful project characteristics – Executive Sponsorship, vision and leadership – Realistic and well articulated scope – Realistic budget and tight fiscal controls – Strong project management and oversight – Realistic timeline – Project milestones and review points – Ability to keep political issues at bay, keep stakeholders informed and on board – ROI to stakeholders as quickly as possible

DE Political Factors • Tension between local authority and economies of scale • IT deemed a key strategic resource and Chancellor’s Office ready to invest • Planning done and approval gained outside campus CIO organizations • Measures of Success and accountability

HB Political Factors • Scale of CMS project - people management • Collaborative decision making - an oxymoron? • Managing system-wide project issues – Chancellor’s Office history on system projects – Campus concerns with losing system autonomy especially with student systems – Campus resentment to mandated new systems

DE Cultural Factors • Local incentive to replace legacy systems • Acceptance of bargaining power CSU could muster if it acted as one • Willingness to make investment at the system administration level--”off the top” • Chancellor’s mandate

HB Cultural Factors • • • Initial campus resistance to mandated project Lack of confidence that would ever succeed Involvement early and often Communications Build trust Gain momentum

DE Economic Factors • ITS plan made technology a priority resource allocation investment • Analysis showed cost of acting together was 1/3 to 1/4 that of campus by campus • Project initiated at beginning of several years of state budget surpluses • Campus “taxing” strategy virtually “painless”

HB Economic Factors • Need plan to build budget but …. . . given budget before plan! • Revised plan and revised budget but. . . budget constrained by executives! • Manage expectations and budget • Budget for the unplanned surprises

DE Personnel Factors • Engaged campus functional office leadership and existing advisory groups early in planning process • Drove planning outside traditional campus IT organizations to gain buy in/momentum • Central project management and staff all new players • Campus IT staff now playing key roles

HB Personnel Factors • Numerous CMS Teams • Staff Resources – Building central staffing team – Reliance on campus staff expertise • Consultant Resources – Supplemented prior to staffing – Expertise - functional or technical – Implementation partner for Student pilot

DE Management Support Factors • Chancellor and Exec. V. C. are project champions • Campus Presidents and Business VP’s are mostly supportive • Management comfortable talking about project as a best practices/reengineering effort--not a technology project • A regular report item with CSU Exec. Council

HB Management Support Factors • Executive sponsorship familiar with ERP system implementations • Project expectations clearly set for me • Steering Committee actively engaged • Decision making process in place

DE Alignment in the CSU • The whole is greater than the sum of the parts • Need to have the “stars” aligned for some of this to happen at the CSU • Having the success factors plus how the factors interact is important

LD Alignment at People. Soft • CSU opportunity came at an interesting time in People. Soft’s history • We came together to win the business – Every executive and division in People. Soft worked on winning the CSU deal • Impact of People. Soft leadership changes – Dave Duffield to Craig Conway – E&G Industry - regional - E&G Industry • Chancellor Reed and Craig Conway

HB Lessons Being Learned • • • Take enough time to plan Be willing to reconsider earlier decisions Communicate effectively Plan for the unplanned - the “gopher” factor Setting, meeting and exceeding expectations Need lucky breaks too!

LD Lessons Being Learned • What’s working – – Chairman’s Account/Advantage One Project is on track and making progress 2 Campus SA pilot Decision to upgrade to HR/SA 8. 0 • What’s not working • What would I have done differently so far – Wish Campus Portal had been available and part of the deal – More time to migrate from 7. 6 to 8. 0 • Doing it “right” isn’t enough – Unprecedented size, scope and visibility

DE Lessons Being Learned • We are learning that people will respond to strong and fair leadership consistently applied. • It’s more import to leave the dock than to plot all the ports of call ahead of time • You will never get full agreement, but you have to try to get a critical mass • Keep your resume updated at all times

HB Reality of May 2001 • • • 23 campuses are a challenge Multi-campus, multi-year, multi-applications Outsourcing Funding Morale and enthusiasm Resource management

DE Reality of May 2001 • The momentum is building--next few months are critical • Changes in how decisions are being made • Stragglers are coming to life • Hold outs are still holding out • Optimistic about turning the corner from “why” and “if” it will happen to “how” and “when”

LD Reality of May 2001 • How best to help make CSU successful – Want to be involved in as many ways as possible – Balance relationship with Chancellor’s Office and campuses • Manage 8. 0 time crunch – Timing of upgrade scripts to meet go-live targets – CSU an early adopter of R 8 - intended or not! – Challenge of training CSU project team, consultants on 8. 0 asap – Make sure there are no bumps in the road

DE What Constitutes Success Near Term • Implementation successes – Demonstrate that system works – Let software “speak for itself” • Contract data center and network provides reliable and responsive support • No surprises • Campuses unplugging legacy systems

HB What Constitutes Success Near Term • HR and Finance – Live on 11 campuses by July 2001 • Student Administration – First processing of recruitment data for class of Fall 2002 by November 2001 • Support Services – Production ready data center – Ongoing application development maintenance – Service level agreements with campuses

LD What Constitutes Success Near Term • Keep People. Soft involved at all levels of the project to ensure success • Convince CSU to standardize on the Campus Portal • Upgrade 7. 6 to 8. 0 and go live by Feb 2002! • But now, let us fast forward one more time to 2006 and get one last perspective from our three points of view.

An ERP to Remember