Building a Kuali Chart of Accounts
Jim Corkill, University of California, Santa Barbara
Mark McGurk, University of Arizona
Kim Yeoh, Cornell University
Agenda
I. Key KFS Chart Features
II. Laying the Groundwork
III. Experiences and Challenges
- Cornell University
- UC Santa Barbara
- University of Arizona
Kuali Financial System (KFS)
Key Chart Features
KFS Chart Features
• Chart
– Ability to have multiple charts
– Charts are hierarchical
• Organization
– Hierarchical
– Facilitates reporting, workflow, controls
• Account/Sub-Account
– Report up through organizations
– Allows for further division of an account for internal
reporting purposes
Organization Hierarchy with
Accounts/Sub-Accounts
University
University of California System
University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB)
Campus
College
College of Science - 3100
Department
Astrophysics
Program A
111480 Black Hole Research
Program B
Account
4801 Cost Share
Physics - Unit 3102
Account
Sub-Acct 1
Sub-Acct 2
KFS Chart Features
Extended Attributes
• Can be used throughout Chart (e.g. Orgs, Accounts, Object Codes,
etc.)
• What is it?
– Additional field to “tag” chart objects with a unique identifier
• How to use
– Use to “link” chart objects that are not naturally linked for
reporting purposes – i.e. tool for pre-existing reporting
requirements that don't fit neatly into hierarchical structure
• Example
– Interdepartmental activities, link unrelated organizational units
(cross functional teams, etc.), inter-disciplinary activities
Laying the Groundwork
Laying the Groundwork
General questions to consider:
• Just because it can be changed, should it?
– What currently works, what doesn’t?
– Implications for historical comparisons
• What are the reporting requirements?
–
–
–
–
Institutional financial reporting (external)
Summarized management reporting
Departmental detail
Ad hoc reporting
Laying the Groundwork
Chart questions to consider:
• Does the institution need multiple charts?
– For separate campuses
– For auxiliary operations
– For high level institutional financial reporting
• Will interfaced systems be able to accommodate
multiple charts?
• Will it add confusion for users?
Laying the Groundwork
Organization questions to consider:
• What should be the basis for the organizational
hierarchy?
– Lines of authority
– Lines of business (disciplines, auxiliaries, etc.)
– Financial reporting requirements
• How should the org structure relate to other
administrative systems (e.g. HR)?
• Do orgs need to be grouped in a way other than
hierarchical?
• How narrowly should org attributes (e.g. type) be
defined?
Laying the Groundwork
Account questions to consider:
• Should existing account structure be preserved or should
entirely new structure be created?
• If new structure is used, can a map from old to new be
created?
• Should fund/sub-fund attribute perpetuate fund
accounting or represent a different way of grouping
accounts?
• Should accounts be self-balancing, or should the
institution use the “flexible claim on cash” option?
• How should sub-accounts be used?
Experiences and Challenges
Cornell University
•
•
•
•
•
Cornell Environment
Decentralized campus
High level and broad support
Varying receptiveness to change
“Homegrown” system on mainframe
Third financial system discussed
Cornell University
•
•
•
•
•
Campus Involvement
Demos of FIS (Feb – Apr ’05)
KFS Release 1 Demos (Apr – Aug ’06)
Local COA team (Jun ’05 – present)
Kuali Days
Kuali Implementation Team (Jan ’07 – present)
– meetings with campus financial leaders
– inventory of current business processes, reports, and
interfaces (both central and campus)
Cornell University
Cornell Chart of Accounts Team
• Membership
– main KFS implementation group
– central financial affairs staff (accounting, reporting, business
analysts)
– college/unit financial officers
– budget and planning office staff
• Objectives
– compare and contrast the IU/KFS chart structure at a conceptual
level with Cornell’s
– determine how the chart fields will be used to meet the
university’s financial management and reporting needs
– identify any gaps that exist
Cornell University
Challenges
• Thinking “out of the box”
– organizational hierarchies
– self-balancing accounts vs. flexible offsets (assets
and liabilities as object codes, not accounts)
• Making sense of current attributes
• Standardization vs. flexibility
• What rules should be established?
Cornell University
Challenges
• Meeting reporting requirements
–
–
–
–
external vs. management reporting
FASB vs. GASB
faculty reporting
“funding year” reporting
• Coming to consensus!
University of California,
Santa Barbara
Challenges
• Where do we start?
Solutions
• Created a UC Kuali Team, consisting of
campus project managers, programmers,
and controllers, with a shared vision of a UC
Kuali
University of California,
Santa Barbara
Challenges
• Will Kuali work for us? Our biggest concern
is the Chart of Accounts.
Solutions
• Document our current Chart of Accounts
• Perform a Gap-Fit analysis with our COA
and Kuali
– Hired rSmart for the analysis
University of California,
Santa Barbara
Challenge
• Our Current Chart of Accounts utilizes a
data element called “fund” (different than
the Kuali “fund”), which identifies funding
source and used by our Office of the
President for reporting
Solution
• Use the “Extended Attribute” in Kuali to
accommodate “fund” information
University of California,
Santa Barbara
Challenge
• Each campus has a different Chart of
Accounts, yet we rollup as one for financial
reporting
Solution
• Kuali enables multiple charts, which would
allows for consolidated reporting.
University of California,
Santa Barbara
Next Steps
• Evaluate Results of the Gap-Fit Analysis
– Options for Implementation
– Potential for Data Migration
• Reviewing one module at a time with the
help of campus SMEs and consultants
when needed
University of Arizona
Starting the Conversation
•
•
•
•
Meet with campus business leaders
Demo application or mocks
Include campus in KFS SME teams
Develop implementation plan with Central
IT group/Administration involvement
University of Arizona
3 Data Conversion Points
• Accounts
– FRS – Current many to one vs. self balancing
• Balance sheet general ledger (assets, liabilities,
FB)
• Sub-ledgers for income & expense (many
accounts)
• Vendor File/Purchasing
• Fixed Assets
University of Arizona
Conversion of Object Codes
• Determined we need 2 Charts
– Institutional Chart
• AHSC
• Main Campus
– Management or Reporting Chart
• Roll-up for Financial Reporting
University of Arizona
Unit Hierarchy
• Utilize Budget Roll-up Structure
– (e.g. Executive – College – Dept.)
• Allow creation of sub-units within
– (e.g. Dept. – Sub. Dept.)
• Prohibit creation of roll-up of units at this
time
– (e.g. Dept. – Dept. – Dept. = Unit)
Kuali Financial Systems
Questions?