FMIS 5TH ANNIVERSARY REVIEW
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RETROSPECTIVE
In the early 1990s, under significant pressure from an unfavorable audit, the University of
Hawaii (UH) initiated a short-fuse replacement of its old Financial Information System
(FIS) as part of its mandated Corrective Action Plan. The University selected a system,
Software AG’s Financial Reporting System (FRS), that was in production at a number of
major research universities and which was based on the software technologies best
understood by the internal technical staff. The core of the new system, known as
Financial Management Information System (FMIS), went into production on schedule and
within budget in July 1996. It replaced the FIS system, which although 30 years old, was
a custom built financial application system designed and programmed to meet the
specific needs of UH users in central offices and in the field. Since 1996 new FMIS
subsystems and services such as accounts receivable and departmental checking have
been implemented while ongoing maintenance activities have addressed major
requirements such as Y2K and GASB 35.
As UH approached its 5-year anniversary of production-level operations with the system,
a review was undertaken to identify shortcomings and to understand the greatest current
needs and whether FMIS could meet those needs over the short- and long-term. The
review process utilized individual and group meetings with key stakeholders of different
types from throughout the UH system.
MAJOR NEEDS
There were four major general areas of need identified. The first two are functional
limitations within FMIS as currently implemented, the third is the need for improvement of
the extent and friendliness of services provided to end-users in the field, and the fourth
reflects concern over the management of FMIS priorities.
In comparison to the old FIS, FMIS lacks two critical elements for appropriated funds:
budgets and fiscal controls at an appropriate operational level; and a budget monitoring
capability that includes payroll projections. In addition, the FMIS interface and services
have not kept pace with the changes in technology that have occurred since FMIS was
selected, most notably user-friendly, web-based on-line services for the field including
business offices, principal investigators and managers. Renewed attention is needed to
involve users in how additional functional requirements are identified and how priorities
are established, resourced and met.
1) Level of Budget/Fiscal Control
Currently, FMIS budget and fiscal controls are at the campus level 3. While there are
differences among the major units as to the specific budget and accounting levels at
which decisions are made, most units require fiscal control within the campus at the
college/ school level, and possibly program within the college/school. In addition,
units want to execute budget changes among programs within the unit without
involving the central budget office as long as overall allocations are respected. A
process is needed that “pushes down” or gives an allocation to the unit by the budget
office, and then “rolls up” the multiple subsidiary program budget allocations under
Page 1
that unit and ensures that these two levels of totals agree. Reporting and rollup
reporting and comparisons at all levels are needed. The old FIS provided this kind of
fiscal and cash control at the college/ school level and FMIS currently provides it only
at the campus/ appropriation level.
2) Budget Monitoring and Management
Payroll projections, which represent the major portion of the budget for almost all
units, are not incorporated into FMIS. FMIS also currently lacks the ability to track
other projected, planned, pending or in-transit transactions, such as
interdepartmental sales to bookstore, facilities, telecom and documents that have not
yet reached the stage of a formal encumbrance. The community colleges and certain
Manoa units formerly had a VAX-based front-end system that tracked in-transit
commitments and funds available. Many field business offices have created and
maintain their own “shadow systems” that track their budgets and in-transit items.
Considerable time and effort are spent on duplicate data entry and reconciliation
between these shadow systems and FMIS. In addition to representing extra work,
these activities create additional opportunities for potential errors to be introduced.
Yet the lack of funds control and summarized reporting at the program level under
FMIS make this work critical to program management. The task is made even more
difficult by the FMIS report formats which are not considered readable or useful by
many users.
This area is further complicated by the new emphasis on funding sources other than
the general fund. An urgent need is timely rollup reporting of multiple sources of
funding at the program and department levels to show actual revenue and
expenditure relative to budget. Although summary reporting at the school level 5 is
available in FMIS, without budgets and projections in the official system, and without
consolidations of multiple funding sources, summary reporting from shadow systems
has become the means of knowing “where we stand”. A tremendous amount of effort
and time is spent in collecting, organizing, inputting, summarizing and reconciling
data from the “official” system to get to a starting point of doing the real work.
3) Interface and Services
There has been a sea of change in technology since the 1993 selection and 1996
implementation of FMIS. Clearly the emergence of the World Wide Web and related
Internet-based technologies is significant. UH deployed FMIS using Internet-based
network technologies, such as TCP/IP and PCs running tn3270, so the UH
infrastructure is already Internet-ready. And while for many business offices, the
implementation of FMIS in 1996 was the first encounter with a computer workstation,
today the use of the web and the Internet is commonplace in the daily work of
administrators and support staff. The UH community now expects online services
including transaction support and access to information and reports that use friendly
interfaces and are available as close to 24x7 as feasible. In this regard the current
user interface to FMIS needs improvement. This is especially important as more
people with varying backgrounds need to access FMIS services – from new
employees who have never experienced an FMIS “green screen” to experienced
managers and principal investigators who want direct access to information.
Page 2
The pressure for straightforward and intuitive FMIS services is amplified by the many
other changes its users face. There have been any number of specific changes in
human resources and financial processes that have involved new forms and
procedures, from both UH and RCUH. And at a much more fundamental level, the
University's entire approach to financial management has changed substantially since
the introduction of FMIS with the retention of tuition, a new philosophy of revenue
generation and the concept of "autonomy." The entire University has had to keep up
with waves of both detailed and high-level changes, some of which have struck
during critical peak processing periods. This pace of change will not slow down, so
users and managers at all levels – project offices, business offices, central system
offices – need to be supported with first-rate tools that don’t require intensive training
and that make their jobs easier, not harder.
4) FMIS Project Management and Communication
The University has implemented the primary modules in the core FRS product –
general ledger, accounts payable, purchasing, fixed assets -- and developed UHspecific subsystems – contracts and grants, accounts receivable, budget level
summary, departmental checking, cash receipts -- while successfully accomplishing
the Y2K and GASB 35 transition with no additional resources. The UH component of
the FMIS project team over the various implementations has included about eleven
functional and six technical staff. The FMIS project office is currently staffed by a
manager and two functional support staff. There is a technical support staff of about
six, depending on assignments, and additional staff are assigned by the central and
field offices on a project basis.
Initially, the focus of FMIS activities was primarily directed at ensuring compliance
and required central system office processing, e.g., correctly producing vendor
checks and financial statements. However, following the Y2K transition, along with
required regulatory changes such as GASB35 and required RCUH interfaces, the
requirements of users in the field offices have received increased attention. This
focus needs to be enhanced by by formalizing the involvement of the university
community in FMIS project directions and priorities.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
FMIS Technology
Based on the review discussions and subsequent analysis, there is no compelling
reason to abandon FMIS. Currently, the Adabas Natural environment is familiar and
operationally stable. Most of the required financial data is there, and the major
functional needs can be met given adequate resources and priority. The need for
integration among the major application systems will become more urgent and may
become the compelling factor in eventual replacement of enterprise systems.
However, in the short term, meeting current needs with FMIS will be less expensive
and more timely than replacing the entire system with another off-the-shelf, albeit
more modern, product. New services can be deployed through modern technical
architectures and tools using FMIS as the backend General Ledger such that the
front-end services can be migrated to a new backend if desired when FMIS is
ultimately retired.
Page 3
FMIS Management and Communication
In addition to identifying needed services, the study indicates that improvements in
FMIS process and support should be made. Users need better education and
information about the capabilities and nuances of the system so that its full power can
be exploited. A process for meaningfully engaging users in decisions about project
priorities and communicating status is also needed.
SPECIFIC REPRESENTATIVE REMARKS FROM THE DISCUSSIONS

The most frequent request was to be able to “know where we stand” from a financial
perspective at various levels – detailed account, by program, by department, by
campus, by specific fund, by type of funding source, etc. Information is needed for
actual and projected revenue and expenditure, informed by past performance and
activity. This request came from all levels, the fiscal staff as well as management
levels, from field business offices and central system offices.

The most frequent complaint was the reporting – needing to go to multiple reports to
get status, unreadable format and codes, waste of paper, not knowing how to read
the report or how the report could be used. The comment came from fiscal staff and
managers.

Another frequent complaint was the unavailability of the system: scheduled limited
daily hours, perceived non-availability on weekends, few days close at every monthend, few weeks close at year-end; and seemingly frequent unannounced
unscheduled unavailability of the system. With substantially more data entry in the
field offices, especially for purchasing, and heavy reliance on the online capability for
reporting and status given the “unreadable” printed reports, greater and more
predictable availability was requested.

FMIS users would strongly prefer “one system” of policy and processing, philosophy
and guidance, rather than dealing with two entities (UH and RCUH) and two sets of
management objectives.

Many comments were not so much criticisms of specific features of the system but
questions on how to use the system: understanding and knowing where and how to
navigate the system; to gain access to and use the data.

It was often suggested that a financial “data warehouse” would address the problems
of reporting and system availability as it would be easily accessible by the end-user,
separate from the production operational environment. It would need to be refreshed
sufficiently frequently (e.g., nightly) to support timely management decisions.

There may be some structural limitations within FMIS that should be addressed.
These include the two-digit numeric school code which limits Manoa to 99 such units,
identification of an account with one particular special or revolving fund, 35-character
one-line limit on vendor name and linking of vendor “families”. These limitations
need further study to determine if they are resolvable without substantial revision to
the FMIS data structures.
Page 4

FMIS prints too much paper. The paper count increased substantially from FIS to
FMIS and continues to grow, while users indicate that the paper reports provide
limited value to their operational needs.

Visual identification of the account – what program and who (what department) it
belongs to – was lost when the generic 6-digit account code replaced the 14-digit
number. The seemingly random assignment of the account code and the general
ledger/ subsidiary ledger entity relationships have complicated operations, especially
as the volume of accounts increased and impacted the number of accounts that any
given user needed to be familiar with. The increased number of accounts is believed
to be a factor in the errors made in account assignment and data entry, and in being
able to keep on top of the status of relevant accounts.

Nonetheless, as unhappy or frustrated as the user community may be, no one said
“dump FMIS”. Even the most vocal critics noted that the information we need is
within the system but that we need to be able to use it more effectively. Users felt
that we’ve got too much invested in FMIS to just dump it. Field users indicated that
they have been and continue to be willing to work with the FMIS application system
and the central offices. These users are willing to do more work to get the information
and processing they need. For their efforts, they want to be recognized as having a
stake in the system as a whole, to have their concerns heard, to know what the plans
and projects are, and to have a say in setting the priorities for system development
and improvement.
ACTION ITEMS
Based on the general and specific findings, the following action list was developed by the
Financial Management Office and Information Technology Services and will be
incorporated into the units’ operational plans, resource assignments and priorities:
1. Establish a formal FMIS advisory committee:

Re-examine the in-progress projects and establish priorities;

On an ongoing basis, identify and jointly define and develop the priority list and
communicate that list and status to the user communities;

Create a list/ web page that shows current projects in-progress with a summary
description, milestones, contacts.
2. Accomplish some “quick wins” that have long been on the request list but are fairly
easy to accomplish, e.g. update the quick reference manual; provide descriptions and
use of reports; update the FMIS web site with hours of operation, scheduled downtimes and contact information; put the training material, user guides and “short cuts
and tips” on the web; update the administrative procedures.
3. Increase the daily system availability times and reduce the month-end and year-end
shutdown periods.
4. Improve FMIS reports and their utility:

Reformat the useful standard reports to consolidate data into readable formats
and make them more accessible on-line for web viewing, local printing on
demand, and downloading in common formats;

Provide guidance in using the reports and available information and in defining
Page 5
the general ledger and subsidiary ledger relationships.
5. Develop new status reports at program and organizational levels:

Include payroll projections;

Include pending and in-transit items, e.g., from the e-purchasing and web travel
applications;

Allow flexible aggregation of accounts of different types and across organizational
boundaries;

Include budget allocations at relevant levels to provide budget tracking and
budget-to-actual reporting.
6. Stop central printing and distribution of the rest of the reports.
7. Investigate reported coding limitations, cleanup the existing codes (account
attributes) and mapping of accounts; provide “visual” account identity to reduce errors
in account assignments, enhance vendor coding including relationship of “families”
and history, and address any other structural issues relating to the chart of accounts
and data structures.
8. Implement tools to assign fiscal and budget controls at multiple levels to meet needs
of units for assigning varying levels of responsibility and accountability.
9. Implement FMIS data warehouse for reporting and ad-hoc queries (also related to
items 4 and 5 above), with pre-formatted reports and additional point-and-select
parameters for customized formats, with adequate security on reporting access.
10. Complete on-going projects and initiate new projects to improve processing and webenable FMIS:

Complete development of journal vouchers for payroll, general, accounts
receivable, inter-departmental sales, year-end; selection of charges -- and make
this available as a web-based service;

Finish e-purchasing redesign including interface from SuperQuote as well as a
generic order that identifies in-transit documents;

Continue to enhance P-Card program, establish a Travel Card program;

Complete travel website as recommended by travel task force;

Automate account creation leveraging data available in specialized systems, such
as ORSIS, and reduce re-keying of critical data elements;

Improve inventory process for identification of controllable assets, physical
inventory and related reporting;

Implement other process enhancements and corrections identified in this review.
Page 6
ATTACHMENT
FIFTH YEAR ANNIVERARY FMIS REVIEW
REVIEW SESSIONS, June – August 2001
Name
Asato, Paula
Au, Dave
Andaya, Juanita
Au Hoy, Joy
Awakuni, John
Ball, Jane
Chang, Annette
Chun, Elaine
Cutshaw, Kathy
Daida, Dale
Enokawa, Marvin
Enos, Greg
Fountain, Blanche
French, Sandy
Fujii, Don
Fujishige, Wayne
Fujiyoshi, Lois
Hamakawa, Shirley
Hamura, Betsy
Hatakenake, Irene
Hirata, Susan
Hiromoto, Edlyn
Hiyoto, Eric
Ho, Wendall
Inafuku, Derek
Inouye, Susan
Ishikawa, Shirley
Iraha, Janet
Ito, Henry
Jorgenson, Emily
Kamei, Wes
Karimoto, Carol
Kashimoto, Kalvin
Kashiwada, Susan
Katahira, Jack
Kataoka, Dwight
Kawamoto, Barbara
Kawata, Janet
Keliikuloa, Susan
Kikuchi, Paul
Kinningham, Ann
Kuroda, Gilbert
Lassner, David
Leialoha, Mike
Luke, Pat
Masutani, Carol
Miyake, Russell
Morita, Janis
Morton, John
Nagafuchi, Mike
Title, Affiliation
Admin Officer, Intercoll Athletics
Admin Officer, Pacific Biomed Research Center
Admin Officer, SOEST
Fiscal Acctg Spec, Gen Acctg & Loan Collection
Fiscal Officer, Library Services
Asst Dir, HI Institute Marine Biology
Admin Officer, Social Sciences Dean’s Office
Fiscal Acctg Spec, Gen Acctg & Loan Coll
Director Admin, SOEST
Fiscal Acctg Spec, Honolulu Comm College
Director, Office of Research Services
Admin Officer, Kauai Comm College
Admin Officer, Co-Curricular Activities
Admin Officer, Cancer Center Research HI
Financial Management Office
Director, Aux Enterprises
Admin Officer,UH Hilo
Admin Officer, Office of VP for Student Affairs
Fiscal Acctg Spec, Fiscal Srvc Ofc
Budget Specialist, Budget Office
Budget Specialist, Budget Office
Fiscal Acctg Spec, Gen Acctg & Loan Coll
Fiscal Acctg Spec, Gen Acctg & Loan Collection
Fiscal Acctg Spec, Treasury Office
Admin Officer, Windward Comm College
Director, Info Tech Srvcs, Mgmt Info Systems
Secretary, Admin Services, UH West Oahu
Admin Officer, Chancellor’s Office for Community
Colleges
Director of Fiscal Systems, Fiscal Services Office
Proc & Prop Mgmt Spec, Proc Real Prop & Risk Mgmt
Admin Officer, Aux Enterprises
Admin Officer, Natural Sciences Dean's Office
Director, Facilities, Grounds & Safety
Fiscal Acctg Spec, Gen Acctg & Loan Collection
Arts & Humanities Dean’s Office
Fiscal Acctg Spec, Prop & Fund Mgmt
Director, Cashier’s Office
Fiscal Admin Officer, School of Medicine
Asst Director, Disbursing & Payroll
Director, Gen Acctg & Loan Collecn
Director, Admin Services, Kapiolani Community College
Admin Officer, Leeward Comm College
Director, Info Tech Services
Admin Officer, Hawaii Comm College
Account Clerk, Aux Enterprises
Admin Officer, Kapiolani Community College
Director, Financial Mgmt Office
Admin Officer, Sea Grant
Provost, Kapiolani Community College
Business Mgr, Intercoll Athletics
Page 7
(for Judy Rubano)
(for Shirley Hamakawa)
(not attend)
(not attend)
(not attend)
(not attend)
(not attend)
(not attend)
(not attend)
Name
Nagao, Bob
Nagoshi, Lyn
Nakahara, Ken
Nakamoto, Michele
Nakamoto, Sharyn
Nakamura, Claire
Nakasone, Nancy
Nishihara, Wallace
Nishino, Dennis
Nobriga, Robert
Okihara, Bert
Omuro, Clayton
Oride, David
Ozaki, Shelby
Pang, June
Patterson, Myrna
Robb, Allan
Rubano, Judy
Sakaguchi, Rodney
Sakamoto, David
Sakima, Larry
Shigano, Jill
Tagawa, Mike
Tanaka, Suzanne
Tanaka, Mike
Tashima, Sheryl
Tomori, Jeff
Unebasami, Mike
Uyeda, Alex
Vandevender, Tammy
Wakabayashi, Wayne
Whittaker, John
Wong, Kathleen
Wong, Leighton
Wong, Mike
Wong, Ruddy
Wong, Sandy
Yago, Jaime
Yamamoto, Cindy
Yamamoto, Norene
Yano, Mike
Yoshida, Carol
Yoshimura, Mike
Zwald, Duff
Title, Affiliation
Manoa Budget Dir, Sr VP/Exec Vice Chancellor's Office
Fiscal Support Specialist, Institute for Astronomy
(for Larry Sakima)
Assoc Dir, Info Tech Srvcs, Mgmt Info Systems
Fiscal Acctg Specialist, Fiscal Services Office
Institutional Analyst, Institutional Research
Dir, Sys Admin Affairs, SVP Admin Office
Admin Officer, UH West Oahu
Director, Fiscal Affairs, Chancellor Office for Comm
Colleges
Prog & Budget Mgr, Budget Off
School of Medicine
Dir, Bursar’s Office
Admin Officer, Arts & Humanities Dean’s Office
(for Jack Katahira)
Fiscal Officer, Honolulu Comm College
Fiscal Acctg Spec, Gen Acctg & Loan Collection
Fiscal Acctg Spec, Gen Acctg & Loan Coll
Fiscal Acctg Spec, Gen Acctg & Loan Collection
Director of Bus/Hosp Affairs, School of Medicine
Director of Fiscal Services, SOEST
(not attend)
Director, Budget Office
Office of Internal Audit
Assistant Director, Institute for Astronomy
(not attend)
Admin Officer, Intercoll Athletics
Interim Dean of Instruction, Kapiolani Comm College
Fiscal Officer, Outreach College
Admin Officer, Facilities Planning & Mgmt
Admin Officer, UH Press
Fiscal Acctg Spec, Gen Acctg & Loan Collection
Vice Chancellor for Admin Affairs, Chancellor's Ofc for Comm Colls
Director, Office of Internal Audit
Computer Spec, Info Tech Srvcs, Mgmt Info Systems
Fiscal Acctg Spec, Office of Research Services
Vice Chancellor for Admin Affairs, Admin Affairs, UH Hilo
Account Clerk, UH West Oahu
Admin Off, Lang Ling & Lit
Director, Disbursing & Payroll
Director, CTAHR Admin
Fiscal Acctg Spec, Gen Acctg & Loan Collection
Computer Spec, Info Tech Srvcs, Mgmt Info Systems
Fiscal Officer, Maui Comm College
Acct Clerk, Co-Curricular Activities
(for Shirley Hamakawa)
Director of Admin Services, UH - West Oahu
Admin Officer, Director’s Office, Facilities, Grounds and Safety
Acting Dir of Budget & Plan, Chancellor's Office for Comm Colls
Director, Proc, Real Prop & Risk Mgmt
Page 8