*Report/Proposal Template copy

advertisement
PUBLIC SERVICES
Review of the Implementation of the Human
Resource Management System (HRMS)
Final Report
For Chief of Review Services
Department of National Defence
AUGUST 2003
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Contents
1.0
Synopsis ........................................................................................................... 1
2.0
Executive Summary .......................................................................................... 3
Review Objectives and Scope .......................................................................... 3
Background....................................................................................................... 3
Methodology ..................................................................................................... 3
Overall Assessment .......................................................................................... 3
3.0
Review Objectives ............................................................................................ 5
4.0
Background....................................................................................................... 5
5.0
Scope................................................................................................................ 7
6.0
Methodology ..................................................................................................... 7
7.0
Lines of Inquiry.................................................................................................. 8
8.0
Review Findings................................................................................................ 9
Change Management ..................................................................................... 10
Expected Benefits ........................................................................................... 10
Data Integrity/Quality ...................................................................................... 11
Interfaces ........................................................................................................ 13
Support Infrastructure ..................................................................................... 13
Project Management....................................................................................... 15
9.0
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 21
10.0
Recommendations .......................................................................................... 22
11.0
Management Action Plan................................................................................ 23
Annex A – Risk Assessment ..........................................................................................A-1
Annex B – Benchmarking Review..................................................................................B-1
Annex C – Recommendations and Management Action Plans .................................... C-1
Contents — Page (i)
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
1.0 Synopsis
This report presents the results of a review of the implementation of the PeopleSoft Human
Resources application within DND and the Canadian Forces. PeopleSoft has been adopted as the
departmental integrated Human Resource Management System (HRMS) for end-to-end HR
business processing for both military and civilian personnel.
The Defence Integrated Human Resource System (DIHRS) Project had a difficult inception. Our
review encountered a project that has experienced significant budgetary/cost increases, as well as
schedule delays. An excessive number of customizations were initially performed to meet
specific DND/CF requirements. Approximately 46 per cent of software code was changed, as
compared to usual industry accepted maximum levels of 20-25 per cent. Over the course of the
project there was constant pressure to expand functionality processes to meet evolving business
practices and needs. As well, the project suffered from user resistance, lack of executive level
acceptance and sponsorship, and incomplete integrated business process design. As well, despite
increasingly positive views on the part of more regular users, the image of the System has been
set back by data integrity problems as well as differing views on intended functionality.
Notwithstanding the difficulties to date, the Department has implemented a DND and CF-wide
HR system. The initiative has led to greater standardization and automation of business
processes, increased functionality in certain areas, and the HRMS has eliminated many older
legacy systems. More recently (i.e., since the start of Phase 2), DND has actively begun to
address many of the identified problems and have demonstrated better management of the project
e.g., decreased customization, improvements to project management disciplines and controls,
system access and reporting tools.
Like many other large IT projects, given its scale and complexity, the implementation of the
HRMS remains a high-risk initiative. Many serious issues still exist and without proper attention,
the project is unlikely to achieve the desired level of operational performance, data quality and, in
general, level of acceptance by the user community.
Key recommendations include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Develop a formal change management strategy and obtain more visible senior
sponsorship to manage expectations, gain buy-in from the user/client communities and
facilitate change within the Department;
Develop appropriate resourcing strategies to promote more effective usage of HRMS;
Follow through on data quality improvement initiatives;
Improve the HRMS user/client experience, through greater system access, ongoing
training and enhanced reporting capabilities; and
Build user confidence and discourage/reduce the use of parallel systems.
Page 1/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
It is encouraging to note that a number of actions have already been taken and others are
planned to address the above recommendations – these are identified in the management
action plan included at the end of this report and in Annex C.
This review was conducted as part of the approved Branch Work Plan. The review conclusions
do not have the weight of an audit and must not be regarded as such. While sufficient to enable
the development of recommendations for consideration by management, the assessments
provided, and conclusions rendered, are not based on the rigorous inquiry and evidence
required of an audit. Accordingly, they are not represented as such, and the report reader is
cautioned.
Page 2/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
2.0 Executive Summary
Review Objectives and Scope
In 2001, the Defence Integrated Human Resource System (DIHRS) Project was reviewed by
KPMG Consulting, under the guidance of Chief of Review Services. The focus of the review was
to assess the success of the Human Resource Management System (HRMS) implementation in
relation to its defined objectives, and to identify potential areas for improvement. The review
specifically included an evaluation of the DIHRS project management capability, an assessment
of user/client satisfaction levels, and the documentation of lessons learned using feedback from
project stakeholders and benchmarking information.
The scope of the review included both the military and civilian components of HRMS, and
covered the period from the project’s inception in 1996 to the end of Phase 2 Roll-out 1, 2001.
The scope specifically excludes the activities of the PeopleSoft cluster group, except to
understand the context in which DND/CF operates in relation to the Government of Canada
version of PeopleSoft.
Background
The DIHRS Project was established in 1996 for the implementation of the PeopleSoft Human
Resource Management System to support human resource administrative and analytical
requirements for military and civilian staff. The overall objectives of the DIHRS Project were to
develop a system which could be used by all levels of management and employees to readily
access information, support HR business functions and serve as a catalyst for business process reengineering. Expected benefits included improvements in functionality, long-term savings in
system support and the provision of an HR service with fewer staff.
Methodology
Findings from the review were based on a number of information sources, including user/client
and project team interviews using a structured interview guide on specific lines of inquiry,
documentation review, benchmarking analysis (risk assessment and benchmark review of similar
organizations) and KPMG Consulting’s experience of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
projects.
Overall Assessment
During this review, we encountered a wide variety of views on each line of inquiry topic,
however, there were some key themes which emerged through our discussions and analysis. The
themes discussed in this report are common to many organizations implementing software on a
similar scale and complexity level as DND/CF’s HRMS solution.
Page 3/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
The DIHRS Project had a difficult inception. An excessive number of customizations were
performed to meet specific DND/CF requirements. The project suffered from user resistance,
lack of executive level acceptance and sponsorship and incomplete integrated business process
design. Inadequate levels of resources were assigned to the project for key activities. As a result
of these difficulties, the project has gone over budget and it’s original timeline.
Notwithstanding the difficulties to-date, the Department has implemented a department-wide
Human Resource Management System. The system has been operational since April 1998. This
in itself is a major achievement. The system has established an integrated HR foundation within
DND/CF. Previous legacy systems have been replaced by an integrated standardized system, and
functionality increases have been achieved in a number of HR functions, e.g., personnel
administration. However, it has been difficult to determine whether expected savings (due to
reductions in support costs and the resources to deliver HR services), have materialized in the
absence of quantitative data. The original business case did not provide a quantification of the
benefits expected to be derived through the implementation of HRMS. The general perception
from the interview process is that these savings have not been achieved.
Comparisons made between the current Project Charter assumptions (project plan and budget)
and the original Charter reveal significant differences. The budget and timeline estimates for the
completion of the system as of Dec 01 were $83,122,000 and April 2004 respectively. The
original Project Charter forecasted an implementation costing $27,813,000 to be delivered by
March 1999. Explanatory factors have included implementation issues, management practices
and broadening of project scope described in the “Findings” section. The implementation of
formal Project Delivery Management in Phase 2 of the project has had a positive impact on the
management of the project and improved control over the budget and scope. Formal strategies
such as the minimization of customizations, use of business cases for the change request process,
and introduction of working groups for new modules have contributed to a greater control of
scope creep, and the ability to keep the project on track. In addition to project management
controls, efforts have been made by the project team and key HR stakeholders over the last
2 years to promote greater user involvement, increase communications and enhance the quality of
data, support services, reporting and training.
However, while improvements have been made many serious issues still exist with regards to this
project. Without proper attention, the HRMS initiative is unlikely to achieve the level of
operational performance, data quality and level of acceptance that would be necessary to achieve
the objectives established for this system. If the Department does not address these issues, the
system will continue to have credibility problems within the wider user and client community. A
number of key areas requiring attention include:
Development of a formal change management strategy and more visible senior sponsorship
to manage expectations, gain greater buy-in from the user/client communities and facilitate
change within the Department.
Develop appropriate resourcing strategies to promote the more effective usage of the HRMS.
Build on current efforts, and develop formal activities to improve the quality of data in the
system, with active participation and accountability of all appropriate groups.
Department-wide commitment to reducing parallel systems.
Page 4/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Improvement to the HRMS user/client experience, through the provision of greater access to
nominated user/client groups, development of an ongoing training program and continued
efforts to enhance the HRMS reporting capability.
3.0 Review Objectives
In September 2001, the Chief of Review Services (CRS) engaged KPMG Consulting to undertake
a review of the DIHRS Project, which uses the Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) product,
PeopleSoft Human Resources software, as the foundation information and management system.
The focus of the review was to assess the success of the HRMS implementation in relation to its
defined objectives, and to identify potential areas for improvement. Specific review objectives
included the:
Evaluation of the project management capability, in terms of the effectiveness of
management processes, benefits realization, and a comparison of results against initial
objectives (costs, schedule and deliverables).
Assessment of the satisfaction level of users and departmental personnel with the HRMS.
Documentation of lessons learned using feedback from project stakeholders and
benchmarking information.
4.0 Background
The DIHRS Project was established in 1996 to implement the HRMS to support human resources
administrative and analytical requirements for both military and civilian staff.
The major driver for this project was to replace a number of existing Human Resource (HR)
systems which were becoming increasingly difficult and costly to support, especially in the
context of changing business and legislative requirements. As the full impact of Y2K on the
legacy systems and the PeopleSoft HRMS Version 5 became apparent in 1998, it was deemed
more cost effective to re-direct resources towards the implementation of a new integrated Y2K
compliant HRMS system than to continue with the existing HR legacy systems.
From the 1996 Project Charter and Statement of Operational Requirement, the overall objectives
of the DIHRS project were to develop a system which could be used by all levels of management
and employees to readily access information, support HR business functions, and serve as a
catalyst for business process re-engineering. The PeopleSoft Human Resources software module
was selected during the development/definition stage of the project as it was found to have a
satisfactory fit with the HR requirements of the Civilian, Regular and Reserve Force components
of DND/CF. In addition, the implementation of HRMS was deemed to be the most effective
means of meeting these requirements by the original project completion date of March 1999. The
original documentation indicates that this estimate was based on a detailed cost fit/gap analysis
and a pilot project.
Page 5/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
The DIHRS Project was initiated in 1996, under the sponsorship of COS ADM (HR). A project
management framework was established to conduct the project, and the specific roles and
responsibilities were described in the 1996 Project Charter. In brief, the management framework
consisted of the following key elements. The role of the Senior Review Board (SRB) was to
provide key project team members with the sufficient authority, guidance and direction for the
proper conduct of the project. The SRB monitored project progress, approved any major scope
(time, cost or performance) changes and provided the appropriate resolution of significant project
management issues. The SRB was composed of senior members of the Department’s stakeholder
organizations, including ADM (HR Mil), ADM (HR Civ), DDCEI, DCPS, DISPD and DIRPM.
The Project Director, from the Director Human Resources Information Management (DHRIM)
organization, reported to the Project Sponsor and was responsible for working with key groups
within the Department on the definition, reconciliation and implementation of HR requirements
and processes. The Project Director was also assisted by Associate Project Directors from the
military and civilian groups who, in addition to the duties listed above, were also responsible for
the main liaison with their respective user communities. The project delivery responsibility
resided under the Director General Information Management Project Delivery (DGIMPD)
organization, formerly Director General Information Resource Management (DGIRM). The
Project Leader from DGIMPD was the SRB Chair and responsible for the overall management of
the project. Specific individuals and organization names have changed over the course of the
project, however, the roles and responsibilities of the management groups have largely remained
the same.
The DIHRS project was established as a multi-phased implementation to provide a solid Human
Resources foundation upon which the Department could build additional functionality to meet
specific military and civilian HR requirements. This phased approach also served to mitigate risk
elements in the delivery of requirements that had not been finalized in the original project plan.
The focus of phase 1, from the original project charter, was to replace the traditional HR
functions/systems, and to provide basic HR functionality for the military and civilian
communities. This functionality included Personnel Administration (including interface to
military pay), Civilian Classification, Military Occupational Group, Position Management,
International Assignments, Staffing and Statistical Analysis. The key objective for Phase 2 was
to develop an integrated end-to-end HR process, and to focus on the remaining HR system
requirements not met by Phase 1. The initial project charter from 1996 estimated a project cost of
$27,813,000 (net of GST) for a two-phased implementation to be completed by March 1999. The
original project budget included the estimated cost of customizations to the PeopleSoft HR
software. In Phase 1, the PeopleSoft HR software module (Government of Canada version) had
been customized to meet specific DND/CF requirements (46 per cent). This DND/CF version
was named “Enterprise”. The project budget and timeframe have been significantly revised over
the course of the project, and stood at $83,122,000 in Dec 01 for a three phase implementation
due to be completed in April 2004. The level of customization has been reduced to 26 per cent.
Roll-out 1 of Phase 2 has been completed, with overall completion of this phase due in July 2002.
Phase 3 is due to be completed in 2004. The project team, in Dec 01, was defining the scope of
Phase 3. It is likely that there will be further revisions to the current estimates of time and
budget.
Page 6/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
The business case from the original project Synopsis Sheet contained specific key benefits
expected to be derived from the implementation of the HRMS. These benefits have been listed
below, and were used as the basis for assessment for this engagement.
Provide HR services with fewer staff.
Significantly increase the functionality that the system would deliver.
Likely provision of savings in direct technical support costs in the long term.
Use of COTS software to reduce support costs.
5.0 Scope
The scope of the review included both the military and civilian components of the HRMS, and
covered the period from the project’s inception to the end of Phase 2 Roll-out 1.
The scope specifically excludes the activities of the PeopleSoft cluster group, except to
understand the context in which DND/CF operates in relation to the Government of Canada
version of PeopleSoft, and how other government departments have implemented the PeopleSoft
HRMS and what best practices were used.
6.0 Methodology
This section provides an overview of the approach and methodology adopted for the three key
activities of this review.
HRMS Implementation Review
This activity provided the main focus of the review. The key tasks included:
User/Client and Project Team Interviews
Specific “lines of inquiry”, described in section 7.0, were incorporated within a structured
interview guide, which contained both quantitative and qualitative questions. This standardized
guide was used as the primary tool to obtain input from the user and client communities, mainly
through face-to-face interviews and workshops. The guide enabled us to probe into critical areas
of the review, and to gain feedback in a common format. The interview results were entered into
a database for further analysis and summarization. In-depth questions were developed for key
HRMS project team personnel in order to gain a more detailed understanding of project activities.
The selected interviewees in the Headquarters and the regions were identified by CRS in
conjunction with the relevant personnel from various Level 1 organizations throughout the
Department. Specific users/clients were nominated in order to ensure adequate representation of
HRMS functions and DND/CF organizations. In total, 129 individuals were interviewed. The
major groups represented included DHRIM, DIHRS, DCDS, VCDS, CAS, CMS, CLS, ADM
(HR Mil), ADM (HR Civ) and 5 regions. The Regions included input from the Navy, Air Force,
Army and the Service Centres.
Page 7/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Document Review and Best Practice Research
Relevant project documentation was also reviewed in order to gain an understanding of the
quality and comprehensiveness of project management activities and deliverables. KPMG
Consulting’s experience in conducting Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) implementations and
best practice research were used to assess and validate the findings.
Project Risk Assessment
The risk assessment was one of two benchmarking activities conducted in this review. Interviews
were held with key DIHRS project team personnel to assess and benchmark the current level of
project risk. The specific tool used was an IT project risk assessment questionnaire owned by an
associate organization of KPMG Consulting.
Benchmark Analysis
The second element of the benchmark activity consisted of an assessment of similar
implementation projects in other public sector organizations within Canada and abroad. A
questionnaire was developed and sent, with the assistance of CRS, to key personnel within these
external organizations.
The findings from these activities were consolidated and summarized within section 8.0.
7.0 Lines of Inquiry
The lines of inquiry, used to assess the success of the HRMS implementation, were developed
and agreed upon in conjunction with CRS during the Planning Phase of this review. The lines of
inquiry are presented below. Specific questions and statements pertaining to these lines of inquiry
were used to gain user/client input during the interview process.
Expected Benefits
Project Management (including risk
management)
User/Client Satisfaction
Change Management
Data Integrity
Interfaces
Support Infrastructure
Software Implementation Strategy
Lessons Learned / Sharing of Best Practices
System Performance
System Security
Each line of enquiry was given an overall rating, between 1 and 5, to assess the maturity of the
capability. The ratings were derived from our assessment of the HRMS capability, based on
previous experience of other ERP/PeopleSoft implementations and input from the results of the
interviews and document reviews. The five ratings were:
1
Non-existent / underdeveloped
2
Early stage of
development
3
4
5
Adequate
management practice
Advanced
management practice
Industry best practice
Page 8/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
8.0 Review Findings
This section presents the key findings of the review. The graphic below shows KPMG
Consulting’s assessment of the overall rating for each line of inquiry (with the exception of
“User/client Satisfaction”), and identifies key areas of strength and where further improvements
are required.
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Ex
pe
ct
ed
Pr
Be
oj
ne
ec
fit
tM
s
U
an
se
ag
r/C
em
lie
en
nt
t
Sa
t is
Ch
f
ac
an
tio
ge
n
M
an
ag
em
en
D
t
at
a
In
te
gr
ity
So
S
I
u
ftw
nt
pp
er
ar
or
fa
e
tI
ce
Im
nf
s
pl
r
as
em
Le
tru
en
ss
ct
on
ta
ur
tio
sL
e
n
ea
S
tra
rn
ed
te
,B
gy
es
tP
ra
Sy
ct
ste
ic
es
m
Pe
rf
or
m
an
Sy
ce
ste
m
Se
cu
rit
y
Rating Level
Line of Inquiry Rating Summary
Line of Inquiry
The HRMS project has been ongoing for the last 5 years, and in that time the project team has
carried out many different implementation activities, including two software upgrades, numerous
interfaces and the implementation of over 10 HR functions to date. Some interviewee
(user/client/project team) perceptions have changed over time, as DND/CF has become more
experienced in implementing HRMS. The rating level of “3” (adequate management practice) for
the “User/Client Satisfaction” line of inquiry reflected the average result from the interview
process. This rating revealed the interviewees’ current perception of how well the HRMS meets
their expectations, in terms of system access, level of user/client input to requirements, data
integrity, business process efficiencies, resource capability, and the adherence to the original
requirements. It should be noted however, that specific responses varied significantly among the
interviewees.
There was no significant difference in the results between the military and civilian personnel
interviewed. However, it was found that those interviewees who used the system on a regular
basis were generally more positive about the HRMS. No formal satisfaction survey has been
conducted on a regular basis throughout the duration of the project, so this rating reflects current
perceptions only.
Page 9/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
During this review, we encountered a wide variety of views on each topic, however, there were
some key themes which permeated through our discussions. These themes are common to many
organizations implementing software on a similar scale and complexity level as DND/CF’s
HRMS solution. Thus we have organized our findings around the key themes only within the
most important lines of inquiry.
Change Management
The perceived lack of visible, senior level sponsorship for the HRMS was raised repeatedly
throughout the interview process. This has meant that the buy-in required from all groups within
the Department has not been universally strong, leading to such issues as the establishment of
parallel systems, and the lack of formal accountability for data entry and maintenance.
The lack of effective communication was also seen as a key issue within the Department. While
it was recognized that effective communication was difficult within DND/CF given the size of the
Department and its organization structure, this was perceived to be a weak area which required
significant improvement.
A formal change management strategy (and communications plan) was not developed and carried
out in the initial stages of the HRMS implementation, which has contributed to the two issues
identified above. Its importance in effecting and managing changes within the organization has
now been recognized by the Project Director and team, and greater efforts have been made to
improve this area. However, a formal change management strategy has not been developed and
implemented to date for Phase 2. A number of communication vehicles have been put in place,
including the HRMS web site, system broadcast messages, fax fan outs, visits to bases / Orderly
Rooms, and the establishment of working groups for new modules. From the interview process,
the perceived effectiveness of these vehicles is mixed, however, the usage of working groups, and
the continuation of site visits are seen as vital to effectively involve the different communities and
help bridge the communication gap. Further work is required to improve this area, although
significant efforts have been made by the project team to date.
Expected Benefits
In the original project documentation, the benefits of moving towards an ERP, HRMS solution
were identified at a high level in the original Statement of Capability Deficiency document, dated
June 1996, but no formal approach was developed to quantify the expected benefits of the
solution. The performance measures used to assess the success of project performance have
mainly focused on standard project management indicators such as “on time / on budget”, rather
than measures to determine whether expected benefits have been achieved. During the review,
DHRIM stated that they were considering the use of more formal return-on-investment
techniques for the implementation of Phase 3. With the absence of quantitative savings figures, it
is difficult to substantiate whether expected benefits have been realized. From our review, the
general perception is that expected savings in headcount and support costs have not been
achieved.
Page 10/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
A key benefit of HRMS from the original business case was expected to be the reduction of
personnel required to deliver HR services. Resourcing was a key issue repeatedly raised during
this review. The lack of resources at appropriate levels (especially in clerk positions and support
areas) to enter and maintain HRMS data, and provide an adequate level of service in some areas
was a major concern. While the downsizing initiative was outside the scope of the HRMS
implementation, it has had a significant impact on processing workloads and the general
effectiveness of HRMS throughout the Department. Canadian Forces and civilian workforce
reductions starting in 1994, were followed shortly thereafter by the amalgamation of the Admin
and Pay Clerk trades into the Resource Management Systems (RMS) Clerk trade. This was
further complicated by the amalgamation of the RMS and Admin Officer Branch into the
Logistics Branch. These events worked against a smooth implementation of the HRMS Phase 1
and Rollout1 of Phase 2.
Fewer resources may be required in the future if there is an increased emphasis on activities such
as further business process re-engineering, reduction of duplicate/triplicate data entry (by
decreasing parallel systems), improved access to HRMS information and greater use of new
technologies such as self-service. However, to date, the perception is that HRMS has not
facilitated the reduction of personnel envisaged. In fact, additional resources are required
(especially at the clerk level) to support the proper administration of HR functions in the current
environment. Some interviewees stressed the time consuming nature of entering the required data
into the HRMS, mainly due to process requirements and design factors.
One of the key areas of disagreement was on the vision for the HRMS and who/what the system
was meant to support. Some interviewees believed that the HRMS was a tool geared for
transaction processing only; others viewed it as a corporate, strategic system that had limited
benefit for lower level users. A general view was that the HRMS did not adequately support the
needs of middle management, due to factors such as the lack of sufficient access and data quality
problems described below. The perception is that the HRMS is not currently used as an
empowerment, advisory tool.
Despite the issues raised in this report, a number of tangible benefits have been achieved through
the implementation of the HRMS. These have included the provision of an enterprisewide/integrated system, greater standardization and automation of business processes, increased
functionality in particular areas (e.g., position management and civilian training modules),
excellent user tools (e.g., Coach Version 7.5) and the potential as an effective HR management
tool for the Department. The HRMS has also fostered closer working relationships between
various HR groups in the Department due to its integrated nature; this was more difficult to
achieve under the legacy system environment.
Data Integrity/Quality
The overall perception from both military and civilian personnel is that the quality of the data in
the HRMS is gradually improving, but significant further effort is/will be required to reach an
acceptable level. Many interviewees said that they were unable to trust the data in the system,
and therefore, maintained parallel records and systems. The major contributing factors raised for
the data quality problems included:
Page 11/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
The lack of accountability of units to enter data into the HRMS. From the interview findings,
some units were entering data when time permitted, or not at all. This problem is
exacerbated in units where data entry clerks are required to enter the same data into multiple
systems.
There is a backlog of data entry in the processing units (Orderly Rooms, Service Centres and
the Human Resources Information Centre) due mainly to resource shortages and the timeconsuming process of making data corrections. Some interviewees mentioned that it can take
months for actions such as acting appointments, deleted positions, and existing data
corrections to be reflected in the HRMS. The ability to correct data using “correction mode”
was a key issue for military HR personnel (Orderly Rooms and units). For the civilian
community, the Service Centres have correction mode for specific HR functions such as
compensation and classification. However, the majority of data changes are performed and
controlled by the Human Resources Information Centre (HRIC), because of the impact of
changing historical data. This strict control minimizes some risks, but also contributes to
time delays in updating data in the system. Most organizations delegate this responsibility to
key individuals in the support organizations and nominated senior personnel.
Information that resided in the legacy systems was used to initialize HRMS. The
amalgamation of this information into a single system made visible data inconsistencies.
Certain data elements are still incorrect from the original data conversion.
Dual entry into Online Pay and the HRMS by the Service Centres has caused some issues
with the timeliness of data entry into the HRMS. Processes have been put in place to
mitigate this problem (comparison reports between the systems, and data entry standards),
however, these rely on manual enforcement only. The original interface between these
systems (using the middleware, Online Ramp) was decommissioned as the architecture was
judged to be too unstable, partly due to the numerous changes made by PWGSC. The HRMS
Cluster Group are reviewing this interface, but there are currently no firm dates for when this
interface will be re-implemented.
There are still a number of mismatches between the HRMS and the Central Computational
Pay System (CCPS), although the interface is considered very stable. Some discrepancies are
due to data errors existing from previous systems, and the mis-interpretation of business
policies/functionality in the HRMS causing downstream impacts on CCPS.
Formal data quality initiatives are already underway within the Department. These include the
efforts of the HRIC data quality team (fast response) working with the civilian Service Centres,
and to a lesser extent on the military side. A data quality group has been established by the
Service Centres, including participation from the PeopleSoft Implementation Support (PSIS) staff
and the Human Resource Business Managers (HRBMs) to focus on the accuracy of specific data
elements (including Universal Classification Systems data elements). However, from a military
data perspective, there have been fewer formal data quality initiatives undertaken.
Page 12/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Interfaces
The key issue under this line of inquiry was the number of parallel systems (both automated and
paper-based) currently operating within the Department. One of the impacts is the requirement
for dual and triple data entry into these systems, thereby contributing to the data quality issues
and resource shortage issues described above. However, of more concern, is the number of
systems being built which contain similar functionality to the HRMS. From the interview
process, a number of reasons were given for this, including the lack of access of clients to the
HRMS, lack of adequate reports and the view that the HRMS does not contain the required
detailed data elements to meet operational requirements. For certain systems, such as the Military
Civilian Management Information System (MCMIS), there is an understanding that their
functionality will be built into the HRMS in the future. However, for other systems, there is a
general concern that they are being developed with inadequate communication between the
project team and client groups, and will duplicate the HRMS functionality.
When speaking with client groups, it was apparent that there is confusion surrounding the
vision/objectives of the HRMS and where its boundaries lie with the Department’s operational
systems (data architecture). Best practices suggest that the HRMS should not be customized to
include unique data elements/functions that are better maintained in specific operational systems.
However, stronger commitment and co-operation by all groups within the Department to use
existing HRMS functionality is vital, in order to reduce the occurrence of parallel systems. In
addition to data quality and resource issues, organizations typically experience cost increases, inefficient business processes and “stove-pipe” cultural attitudes.
Support Infrastructure
This line of inquiry pertains to the overall support of the implementation, in terms of training,
documentation, system support, system access and reporting. From our findings, the key themes
were: access to the HRMS, reporting and the provision of ongoing training. It should be noted
that in mid 2001, the responsibility for in-service support was transferred from the DIHRS Project
team to DHRIM.
One of the key issues raised during the interview process was the lack of access to the HRMS, in
terms of both the online system and reports. The focus of Phase 1 was to establish the HR
foundation and to provide direct access to HR professionals only. The current implementation of
Phase 2 has increased this access to include the HRBMs for the civilian training module.
However, there has been a significant increase in the demand for access, both to the online system
and the Output Products site (reports) over the course of the project. Many interviewees, mainly
in the HRBM and client communities, have been frustrated by their lack of access over the last 34 years. In addition to receiving reports, many believe that view only access within the online
system to their personal data and to the units’ data (managerial view) would improve their ability
to use the HRMS data more effectively. The project team is currently developing the Employee
Member Access Information (EMA) application as an extension to the HRMS, which will meet
some of this requirement. EMA was piloted in Esquimalt and Winnipeg, and the scope of the
first phase was to provide “view-only” access to a staff member’s tombstone data, employment
Page 13/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
record and leave information. It is likely at this stage, that managerial views (unit data) and
update access will be implemented post Phase 3 and the self-service functionality will enable
managers and members broader access to the HRMS
The second aspect relates to the access and quality of reports available to users/clients. The
users/clients who use the services of the Output Products and Ad Hoc Reporting groups are
generally satisfied, and our finding was that significant improvements have been made in this
area, e.g., the availability of data extracts has allowed users/clients to develop their own reports
and manipulate the data. Currently 120 staff members have access (account and password) to
data extracts. However, a number of interviewees stated that the overall reporting capability
required further improvement. The major issues raised and requiring attention included:
There is still a general lack of understanding of what reports/information are available from
the Output Products site.
Many clients requesting reports have not had training on the HRMS, and require assistance to
interpret report results, understanding data structures and define report requests. This
situation appears to have improved over the last two years, as the experience level of the
Business Analysts responding to the report requests has increased. However, there still are a
number of clients who would like basic training in order to increase their understanding of
what data can be provided by the HRMS.
The Output Products site is currently refreshed weekly. A number of users/clients
commented that more up to date information is required. The project team is currently
reviewing this area and are considering the provision of nightly refreshes of data.
The length of time required to obtain information for a “quick and dirty” query from the Ad
Hoc Reporting Group/Help Desk was considered too long by some client staff.
The third key theme under the Support Infrastructure line of inquiry dealt with training. As an
overall finding, staff who attended formal training as part of a module roll-out were generally
satisfied with the quality of training provided. This was specifically true for hands-on classroom
training, much less so for presentation style training. Coach Version 7.5 was universally
acknowledged to be an excellent tool. In addition, the Canadian Forces School of Administration
and Logistics (CFSAL) began teaching a course on the HRMS last year. However, the real issue
was the absence of a formal ongoing training program (in addition to Coach), to build upon the
initial training delivered as part of the implementation roll-out. Ongoing training would be used
to train new staff (especially relevant for the frequent rotations of staff in the support
organizations), offer basic HRMS concepts training for the users of reports, and provide refresher
courses for existing staff. The refresher courses could include advanced courses and broader
level training on business process and roles/responsibilities of different groups within the
Department. It is interesting to note that the implementation of an enterprise-wide ERP, with
standardized business processes should facilitate a greater retention and transfer of knowledge
within the Department. However, these benefits have not been fully realized to date.
Improvements to training, access and reporting should help to achieve these benefits.
Page 14/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Project Management
The focus of this section is to provide an assessment of how well the project has been managed
since 1996. We have included the results of the risk assessment and benchmarking activity to
provide an external comparison of performance.
Project Management Review
Comparison of Project Plan Budgets, Timelines and Scope
The table below provides a comparison of budget, timeframe and scope between the original
estimates in the 1996 Project Charter (15 November) and the revised project plan prepared in
1999. Major differences are noted in the “Comments” column.
Budgeted Project Cost
and Timeline
Initial Project Plan
(1996)
Revised Project Plan (1999)
Budgeted project cost system development
(net of GST)
$27,813,000 (Project
Charter 15 November
1996)
$83,122,000 (Synopsis Sheet 9
December 1999)
The project budget has
increased by a factor of 3.
Budgeted maintenance
cost (average cost p.a.)
$4,100,000
$10,847,000 budget for
2001/2002 (Synopsis Sheet 9
December 1999)
The estimated cost of
maintaining the application
has more than doubled.
Projected Completion
Date
2 phases due to be
completed by March
1999.
3 phases due to be completed by
April 2004.
This shows a change in
delivery approach (increasing
the number of phases to
deliver functionality) and
significant time extensions.
Deliverables (Project
Charter and the
Statement of
Operational
Requirement).
($20,500,000 over a
5 year lifecycle –
Synopsis Sheet
15 November 1996)
Key dates were:
Jan 97 – Phase 1 start
Apr 98 – Phase 1
complete
Mar 99 – Phase 2
complete
15 HR Requirements
to be implemented in
Phases 1 and 2:
Position
management
Personnel
Administration
Military
Occupation
Structure
Assignments
Appraisal
Cost Moves
Forecasting
Key dates were:
Jan 97 – Phase 1 start
Oct 99 – Phase 1 complete
Apr 00 – Phase 2 approval
Jul 02 – Phase 2 complete
Apr 01 – Phase 3 approval
Apr 04 – Phase 3 complete
Revision of 15 initial HR
Requirements due to re-planning
and some scope changes. Phase
report cards show the following
status:
Phase 1: Delivered (SRB July
1999)
Position management
Personnel administration
Military Occupational
Structure
Staffing
Assignments
Interface to CCPS
Page 15/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Comments
The original 15 HR
requirements were due to be
implemented by March 1999.
The 15 requirements, with
some scope changes as shown,
has been rephased over 3
Phases. Unplanned for scope
changes and costs with respect
to the original Project Charter
include:
Y2K upgrade to HRMS
GC Version 7.1 and GC
Business Process Reengineering upgrade to
HRMS GC Version 7.5
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Budgeted Project Cost
and Timeline
Initial Project Plan
(1996)
Revised Project Plan (1999)
Training
Grievance
Tracking
Recruiting/
Staffing
Health and Safety
Workflow
Time and Labour
Establishment
Modeling
Statistical
Analysis
HR Planning
Interface to CCPS Re
Upgrade to Version 7 (Y2K
compliance)
Phase 1 went live initially
without reports
Phase 2: Delivered/Will be
Delivered (SRB Jan 2001)
Upgrade to Version 7.5
Recruiting (CFRIMS)
Civilian Training
Staff Relations
Reserves
Short-term strategy to
provide an interface
between HRMS and
Reserve Integrated
Information Project
(RIIP)
Health & Safety
Some interfaces were
included, but were
not specified in the
Project Charter
Military Training
Establishment Modeling
(Operational Personnel
Management System)
UCS (on hold)
Phase 3: Potential Delivery
Scope (SRB Jan 2001 and
interviews)
Reserve pay interface
Employee access via web
enablement
Appraisal and grievance –
dependent on Protected B
environment being in place
Cost Moves Forecasting
Time and Labour
Workflow
Comments
(Total of $21.4M
additional cost)
Inclusion of Reserve
Forces within HRMS
(1997 scope change)
instead of interface to
Reserve Integrated
Information Project
(RIIP). ($5.5M additional
cost)
Interface to CCPS Re
Discussions with the Project
Team have indicated that
additional functionality has
been provided above that
originally envisaged in some
modules, e.g., Canadian
Forces Recruitment
Information Management
System (CFRIMS)($3.1M)
and HRMS to the Reserves.
The specific scope of Phase 3
is still to be determined. Once
this has been confirmed, there
will potentially be an impact
on current estimates of
timeframe and budget.
The modules to be provided
have remained largely the
same over the course of the
project. However, as BPOs
and users saw the potential of
the HRMS, there was constant
pressure to expand
functionality and processes
within the modules which
resulted in significant scope
growth; however these
changes were necessary to
meet evolving business
practices and needs.
Key Progress to Date (against the Revised Project Plan 1999)
Actual costs to date, provided by the project team in January 2002, were $40,714,000. Actual
project costing data was retrieved based on an analysis of information in the FIS, FMAS
Version 1, FMAS Version II and the approved SS (PPA) December 1999 (for FY 1997/98 and
1998/99). This cost figure incorporates the following: Phase 1 definition and implementation,
Phase 2 definition and implementation to date, and the definition costs to date for Phase 3. Total
Page 16/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
cost from the 1999 revised project plan was budgeted at $64,646,000 for the same phases (i.e.,
not including Phase 3 implementation costs). Note: If Phase 3 implementation costs are included,
the total becomes $83,122,000 as shown above.
Current project status in terms of the delivery of project phases is as follows:
Phase 1 (Roll-outs 1 and 2) was completed in October 1999. From the original estimates
both Phases 1 and 2 should have been completed by March 1999. Key reasons for the project
slippage were documented in the July 1999 Senior Review Board (SRB) meeting. These
included: incomplete integrated business process design, client resistance, technical platform
issues, data quality and Version 5 performance problems. In addition, we believe that the
initial project plan did not adequately reflect the level of customisation undertaken in terms
of cost and timeframe.
From the Phase 2, Roll-Out 1 Reconciliation report, the Version 7.5 upgrade was delivered
on time by May 2001. Some delays were experienced for the Civilian Training (5 months),
Staff Relations (5 months) and CFRIMS (2 months with reduced functionality) modules. The
Phase 2 Roll-out 1 Reconciliation report listed a number of reasons for a 5 per cent budget
overrun (which was within the approved project contingency of 8 per cent of the total project
budget). Reasons included a greater use of contractors, poor resource planning of the
Version 7.5 upgrade, delays in completing the CRFIMS Configuration Control Board
process, and the deferral in the Civilian Training and Staff Relations modules.
Leveraging Project Management Experience for the Future
Improved project management disciplines and controls have had a positive effect on the
implementation of Phase 2, in terms of the better management of scope creep and budget/time
impacts. These formal strategies have included:
Project Management – The Information Management Group had introduced formal Project
Delivery Management by the start of DIHRS Phase 2. This enforced monthly reporting of
project health in the areas of business reengineering, cost, schedule, risk, quality control,
communications, issues, human resources, interdependencies (with other projects and
systems), contracting to senior managers in IM Group. The use of these indicators, and their
associated metrics, introduced a rigor and visibility into DIHRS project management that was
consistent with current industry best practices. Also, increased experience with the ERP
PeopleSoft, led to more realistic estimates for Phase 2. As a result, Phase 2 has avoided
many of the problems encountered in Phase 1 including poor estimates and lack of scope
control.
Customization strategy – The customization level of the initial HRMS application was
46 per cent. The implementation of Version 7.5 reduced this level down to 26 per cent
through a change management approach which involved the project team working directly
with BPOs to first determine current business processes then identify opportunities to utilize
existing HRMS applications more effectively and with less customization. Continued use of
this technique and DND/CF commitment are required to reduce this percentage down further
in the future, and take advantage of best practices embedded within the HRMS application.
Page 17/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Configuration Control Boards (CCBs) – Two types of CCBs have been created. The DIHRS
Project CCB provides greater control over changes to business requirements through the use
of a business case approval process. The Project Manager and Project Director and/or
Associated PDs (Mil and Civ) are co-chairs, and the BPOs are present to defend the business
justification for the changes requested. The DHRIM In-Service CCB ensures that proposed
changes to in-service delivery of the HRMS are coordinated with concurrent DIHRS project
work.
Working Groups – The introduction of working groups for new modules reflects a positive
management approach, to ensure that the appropriate users/clients are involved in the
definition and implementation of HR functions.
Risk Management – A formal risk management strategy was developed in 2001.
Function Point Analysis – This analysis method is used to measure the size of the application
delivered by the project, both for the core modules and for customizations. This provides
project management with the tools to understand, monitor and communicate the ultimate
functionality (and supporting effort and timeframe) provided by the HRMS.
Separation of Development from the In-Service Organization – Up until the end of Phase 1,
the development team ran both the development and production support activities. A
separate In-Service Organization – DHRIM, was not established until 2000 to act as the first
line of the HRMS support for the Department. Since then, greater emphasis has been placed
on improving the level of service of the Help Desk, by re-organizing/increasing the number
of staff and developing formal procedures (e.g., change request process). However, as of Dec
01, there were no formal service standards currently in use, and only basic analysis of
call/enquiry types. The Help Desk wished to put these in place in 2002.
It is extremely important that DND/CF continue to maintain and build on the project management
controls established in Phase 2 for the future. Although the scope of Phase 3 has not yet been
agreed, our view is that increased risks will be involved, due to the complexity and greater
user/client reach of the new self-service (web) applications in Version 8. This complexity must
be adequately built into the Phase 3 project plan and budget estimates. The scope of Phase 3 has
only been defined at a high level to date. Once confirmed, the impacts to current estimates of
timeframe and cost must be reviewed.
Risk Assessment
The diagram below shows the results of the Risk Assessment questionnaire interviews with the
Business and Information Technology Project Managers that were validated against the overall
results of all interviews held during the review. The primary focus of this analysis is on Phase 2,
although some questions were answered based on Phase 1 experience. The level of risk is
measured by the responses given to the specific questions grouped by the risk categories shown
below. Please refer to Annex A for a more detailed discussion on the specific approach, risk
category definitions and the results of the risk assessment review.
The overall risk level was identified at 60 per cent, which, similar to most large IM projects,
reflects the profile of a high risk project. If we look at each of the specific risk categories, we can
see that the majority is in the “caution” zone, where the risk levels are relatively high.
Page 18/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HRMS IMPLEMENTATION AT DND/CF
100
RISK
CRITICALITY
74
PERCENTAGE OF RISK
80
46
51
50
43
47
50
56
60
DANGER
60
CAUTION
33
40
BEST
20
O
L
O
VE
R
AL
L
R
IS
O
M
M
C
G
.&
R
EP
TI
N
AN
G
E
K
.
C
O
N
TR
'T
.
G
N
M
TA
SK
C
T
C
H
D
PL
AN
N
IN
G
EN
TA
TI
O
N
UM
O
C
O
U
ES
S.
&
LEGEND
RISK LEVEL
ST
D
PR
O
JE
G
N
'T
R
C
E
M
AN
IZ
AT
IO
N
R
O
R
G
O
M
C
O
J.
PR
PR
O
J.
B
U
SI
N
ES
S
O
B
JE
PL
C
TI
VE
EX
IT
Y
S
0
1993-2001 THE WILLBERN GROUP, INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
RISK CATEGORIES EVALUATED
Key factors or reasons contributing to the overall level of risk were identified as follows:
Section 16
(2)c) of the
AIA
Project complexity – The HRMS implementation maintains a high degree of complexity due
to factors such as the length and scope of the project, the number/complexity of interfaces
……………………………………………. level of customization, level of difficulty of data
conversion, specific security requirements (Protected B), technical/ architecture requirements
and dependencies (e.g., network capacity, multiple platforms) and the need to manage the
differing requirements of the several end user groups. The degree of project complexity will
increase with the implementation of self-service applications, distributed to a wider user
group.
Change Control – Throughout the duration of the project, there have been a significant
number of changes made to the application (500 – 1000), changes have been requested
frequently (now starting to diminish) and the sources of change requests are from a number
of different end user groups. Stronger controls have been put into place in Phase 2, through
the Configuration Control Board (CCB) to better manage scope creep.
Project Planning – This risk category was high mainly due to the fact that the original
project dates have significantly shifted, and the Project Organization structure, while largely
stable, is still evolving. However, the project team’s status and tracking reports are produced
on a timely basis, and are effectively used for project management.
Resource Management – The key reasons for the high score included the large number of
project resources (over 85) to be managed, 60 per cent turnover over the entire project’s
duration, resource shortages at various stages, and a high proportion of contractors thereby
requiring a greater emphasis on knowledge transfer to DND/CF staff.
Page 19/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Standards and Documentation – The project team uses formal methodologies and
standards (business and IS) to manage the project. The interviewees stated that they were
currently working on making further improvements to technical documentation currency and
standards adherence. Although many quality assurance and monitoring activities exist at key
project points, there is no independent formal quality assurance function overseeing the
quality of deliverables. Given the specific risks identified above, a number of strategies can
be undertaken in conjunction with the specific recommendations outlined in section 10, to
help mitigate and better manage the project’s risk profile. Key strategies include:
Continue with current efforts to better manage and reduce potential scope creep, e.g., directly
involve the Associate Project Directors and Business Process Owners within the CCB, and
continue strategic policy of decustomization of the HRMS application.
Continue with the Working Group approach to build consensus across the end user group to
define common business requirements. Ensure the Business Process Owners and other key
user representatives are actively involved in all stages of the project.
Ensure proper resource management for the project – dedicated project and user/client
resources are available, and DND/CF resources are identified for knowledge transfer. HRMS
Version 8 will involve new functionality and technology (web), therefore, appropriate and
timely training must be given to project team resources.
Develop a formal quality assurance program. This is a best practice from other organizations
especially for projects of this size and complexity.
Benchmarking
This section provides a summary of the results of the Benchmarking activity. Questionnaire
responses were received from six public sector organizations in Canada, the United States and
Australia. All respondents have implemented PeopleSoft HR software. Please refer to Annex B
for further detail on the survey results and conclusions.
Given the small sample size and limited knowledge of these organizations, we need to be careful
about the inferences to be made from the questionnaire results. From the responses received, the
following conclusions were drawn.
Some organizations have either already implemented Version 8 or are currently in the process
of upgrading to the new version of PeopleSoft HRMS. DND/CF is slightly behind in their
upgrade to Version 8 as the project team decided to focus their resources on providing
additional functionality in the HRMS to meet identified business priorities such as support to
the Reserves and the recruiting and operational communities.
The provision of self-service functionality to employees has improved data quality.
Most participants came to the conclusion that customization should be minimal or moderate.
Some had planned accordingly from the outset, others came to that conclusion after trying to
implement PeopleSoft with significant customization. The organization which implemented
HRMS with substantial customization reported that functionality complexity was a
significant issue in the early and medium stages of their implementation project. DND/CF
has reduced its initial customization levels from 46 per cent in the initial HRMS
implementation down to 26 per cent.
Page 20/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
An effective risk management strategy is one of the factors mentioned to better control
project scope and cost.
The expected benefits which have been the most difficult to achieve in the implementation of
PeopleSoft HR included: the reduction of workload, interface development and the provision
of reports. The sixth participant identified the data quality of legacy systems and system
security requirements as additional issues requiring attention.
9.0 Conclusion
Overall, the implementation of the HRMS has been generally successful in terms of establishing
an integrated HR foundation within DND/CF, and providing information to the HR community.
Improvements to project management disciplines and controls in Phase 2 have had a positive
impact on the management of the project. Formal strategies such as the minimization of
customizations, use of business cases for the change request process, and introduction of working
groups for new modules have contributed to a greater control of scope creep, and the ability to
keep the project on track. The project team and key HR stakeholders have made considerable
efforts in improving the HRMS solution, however, there are a number of key areas which both the
DIHRS project team and DND senior managers must address to improve the effectiveness and
user/client acceptance of the system. These include:
Adoption of return-on-investment techniques to assess and monitor program success and
benefits realization.
Development of a formal change management strategy and more visible senior sponsorship
to manage expectations, gain greater buy-in from the user/client communities and facilitate
change within the Department.
Develop appropriate resourcing strategies to promote the more effective usage of the HRMS.
Formal activities to improve the quality of data in the system, with active participation and
accountability of all appropriate groups.
Department-wide commitment to reducing parallel systems.
Improvement to the HRMS user/client experience, through greater access, ongoing training
and better reporting.
Page 21/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
10.0 Recommendations
The major recommendations from our review of the HRMS project are the following:
Recommendation 1 – The Project Director to lead the development of a formal change
management strategy, including a communications plan and a workforce transition strategy.
Direct involvement is required by the respective sponsors, SRB members and other key
representatives to agree roles and responsibilities of the project team and key HR
stakeholders for the HRMS change management activities. SRB members should be
responsible for ensuring that the HRMS vision, key objectives and communications are
effectively driven down through their organizations.
To date, the effectiveness of the change management and communications activities have
been seen by most interviewees as the responsibility of the project team. However, from our
experience of complex, multi-stakeholder projects, this is not only a project team
responsibility. Greater input and responsibility is required from key staff within the business
community (e.g., CAS, CLS and CMS) to extend the current sponsorship/communications
reach and effectiveness. Further improvements are largely dependent on the chain of
command (e.g., better use of the HRBMs and HR management at the base and wing levels).
Recommendation 2 – ADM(HR-Mil) and ADM(HR-Civ) to review resourcing shortage
issues/impacts (especially at the clerk level, and in the support organizations) and develop
appropriate strategies. These strategies should include an assessment of further business
process re-engineering opportunities (including policy simplification where appropriate), and
a reduction of unnecessary multiple data entry activities.
Recommendation 3 – The Project Director and Project Leader to develop a formal returnon-investment approach/performance measures for the remainder of Phase 2 and Phase 3, and
develop appropriate monitoring mechanisms.
Recommendation 4 – Active sponsorship is required by DHRIM to build on current data
quality efforts, and establish short-term and ongoing program solutions for the HRMS data
clean-up. An appropriate level of resources must be available to undertake this activity. The
establishment of formal accountabilities down to the unit level, data quality working group
(military), and the appropriate devolvement of correction mode are recommended solutions.
Recommendation 5 – COS ADM(HR Mil and COS ADM(HR Civ), supported by
ADM(IM) to sponsor a review of those major systems which potentially duplicate the HRMS
functionality, in order to minimize the number of parallel systems currently operating within
the Department. A fit/gap analysis should be completed to both inform user/client groups on
the functionality available within the HRMS, and to determine a formal solution to handle
requirements not currently met by the system. Strong sponsorship and flexibility on all sides
will be crucial to this review’s success. Active participation from ADM IM will be important
to ensure consistency with the conclusions of the Department’s IM/IT strategic review.
Recommendation 6 – The DHRIM to determine appropriate access levels to nominated
user/client groups (especially view-only access to the online application).
Page 22/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Recommendation 7 – The DHRIM to develop an ongoing HRMS training program within
the Department, in conjunction with the key HR stakeholders. The program must identify
what training would be provided, how it would be provided, roles and responsibilities of the
project team and HR organizations, and the funding mechanism to be used.
Recommendation 8 – The DHRIM to improve and communicate the reporting capabilities
available to users/clients.
Recommendation 9 – The DHRIM to continue strategy of decustomization of the HRMS
application for the Version 8 implementation. Best practices suggest no more than
20 per cent customization is advisable, however, our experience has shown that the
implementation of a vanilla system/minimum customization provides benefits in terms of a
reduction in system complexity, and implementation and maintenance costs. This strategy
also provides the organization with the ability to take advantage of best practices in the
software, potentially leading to business process improvements.
11.0 Management Action Plan
The following provides a summary of the recommendations made in this report and the related
consolidated comments from ADM(IM), ADM(HR-Mil) and ADM(HR-Civ) which identify:
•
Management Response: to provide additional clarification of issues raised; and
•
Actions Taken or to be Taken: to identify actions taken since the review was conducted,
to address the recommendations, as well as further actions to be taken in the future.
Recommendation 1 – The Project Director to lead the development of a formal change
management strategy, including a communications plan and workforce transition strategies.
Management Response: To ensure the appropriate level of success and the participation of
senior management it will be the respective Sponsors who lead these activities. It is
acknowledged that it will be the PD Team who will capture and develop them, on behalf of the
HR Groups, for submission and approval by the SRB Core Members. It will involve all ECS
representatives and other key L1 representatives who are otherwise SRB Associate Members.
The PDM oversight that will govern the delivery of Phase 3, requires a Project Management Plan
that includes both a change management plan and a communication plan to be in place and
actively managed.
Actions Taken or to be Taken: For the latter part of Phase 2, a full-time project
communications officer was assigned to meet the requirement for increased communications
including communication plans and an improved web site. For Phase 3 of the DIHRS, a formal
Change Management Strategy and Plan is being produced.
Also, a comprehensive
Communications Strategy has been and will continue to be developed. These items will be
rigorously applied and monitored for the final phase of the project. The Project Team will work
with DHRIM to include the processes for the In-Service support portion of the HRMS. In
addition, the following committees have been formed to address these concerns:
Page 23/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
•
•
•
Business Process Owner(BPO) Steering Committee (military and civilian focus);
Civilian Process Review Committee (civilian focus); and
HR Management Oversight (military focus).
Recommendation 2 – ADM(HR-Mil) and ADM(HR-Civ) to review resourcing shortage
issues/impacts (especially at the clerk level, and in the support organizations) and develop
appropriate strategies. These strategies should include an assessment of further business process
re-engineering opportunities (including policy simplification where appropriate), and a reduction
of unnecessary multiple data entry activities.
Actions Taken or to be Taken: This is an ongoing activity of the respective HR Groups and the
subject of occupation reviews and other studies. The results of these will be used as reference in
the development of the Change Management Plan.
Recommendation 3 – The Project Director and Project Leader to develop a formal return-oninvestment approach/performance measures for the remainder of Phase 2 and Phase 3, and
develop appropriate monitoring mechanisms.
Management Response: Since Phase 2 is now effectively complete, an ROI approach will be of
no value now. Given the difficulty in determining quantifiable cost benefits for HR systems, it
would be inefficient at this time to revisit history to try and determine the baseline costs to
maintain the legacy systems; these costs would be required to form the basis of the ROI.
Actions Taken or to be Taken: Phase 3 of the Project is a technical, version upgrade with no
functional extension over what is currently there. A traditional approach to ROI for this phase
would be of no significant value. Under the PDM oversight, performance measures were put in
place for Phase 2 and will continue in Phase 3. Performance is now quantified and measured
against pre-defined standards in the areas of requirements, scope, time, cost, procurement,
business transformation, project risks, dependency risks, contribution risks, human resources,
quality, communications, and senior management commitment. This information is recorded in
the Project Performance Management Plan that forms the basis of the monthly Project Status
Reports to the Deputy Project Leader.
Page 24/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Recommendation 4 – Active sponsorship is required by DHRIM to build on current data quality
efforts, and establish short-term and ongoing program solutions for the HRMS data clean-up. An
appropriate level of resources must be available to undertake this activity. The establishment of
formal accountabilities down to the unit level, data quality working group (military), and the
appropriate devolvement of correction mode are recommended solutions.
Management Response: DHRIM and the business process owners have had an ongoing
program to improve data quality. Originally, the HRMS system was populated by data from
legacy systems. The data in these systems was often erroneous but this was difficult to identify at
the time due to the lack of employee/member access to the data in these systems. These data
quality shortfalls became apparent with the increased access and visibility to data that the HRMS
provided.
Actions Taken or to be Taken: A Civilian Data Quality Working Group was established in late
2001, concurrent with the completion of this CRS study. It reports regularly and has had good
success. A similar Military Data Quality WG is being established by DHRIM and will be in
place in late 2003. As directed by COS HR Mil, it will work intimately with the three ECS to
yield measurable improvements by end 2003 and to report its progress regularly. Efforts are
being made to identify key fields and their interrelationships in a series of business processes so
that confidence levels in those business processes can be assessed, including impacts to
accurately measure business process performance metrics.
In order to prevent bad data from entering the system, as new legacy systems are subsumed and
their data is brought into the HRMS, formal user acceptance testing of the data conversion is
performed and sign-off is obtained. This ensures data is converted correctly and has the
additional benefit of identifying erroneous data in the legacy systems that is then marked for
correction by the business community. This process will remain in place for Phase 3.
Recommendation 5 – COS ADM(HR Mil) and COS ADM (HR Civ), supported by ADM(IM),
to sponsor a review of those major systems which potentially duplicate the HRMS functionality,
in order to minimize the number of parallel systems currently operating within the Department.
A fit/gap analysis should be completed to both inform user/client groups on the functionality
available within the HRMS, and to determine a formal solution to handle requirements not
currently met by the system. Strong sponsorship and flexibility on all sides will be crucial to this
review’s success. Active participation from ADM IM will be important to ensure consistency
with the conclusions of the Department’s IM/IT strategic review.
Management Response: The recommendation echoes a finding of the IM Strategy Review.
The problem stems from the situation the Department found itself in, in the period between the
start-up of the DIHRS project and the time of the CRS review. The IM Strategic Review found
that the overall Departmental authorities and accountabilities for IM, during the timeframe this
Page 25/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
CRS review covers, was a contributor to the creation of parallel systems. A specific HR systems
review will be addressed in context with other IM enterprise integration efforts underway within
the Department.
Actions Taken or to be Taken: Since the review was conducted, a task has been added to the
Defence Plan for all Level Ones by way of Horizontal Initiative H13-1-1664, to state that “Senior
Managers are responsible for directing and promoting the use of PeopleSoft HRMS as their
primary human resources tool.”
Many systems that duplicate HRMS functionality are mainly a military concern. COS HR Mil
has formally directed the establishment of a Steering Committee of representatives from each
ECS chaired by DHRIM. One of their key objectives is to resolve this very issue.
IM Review Implementation actions within the IM Group are also complementary and support the
evolution to an enterprise approach to IM and the reduction in duplicate and parallel HR systems.
Recommendation 6 – The DHRIM to determine appropriate access levels to nominated
user/client groups (especially view-only access to the online application).
Management Response - In the period covered by the CRS review (1998-2001), system access
was indeed a problem. Due to the demise of a plan to procure a corporate license for Oracle,
there was a shortage of Oracle licenses, and that required careful control of access to the
application. The Project team and DHRIM rectified this problem in early 2001, however,
knowledge of this improvement was not effectively communicated. The HRMS was to a degree a
victim of its own success. In Phase 1, the intention was to provide an HR transactional
application to support the HR professionals in the organization. Phase 2 was to upgrade the
transactional system and begin its evolution into a management tool. Additionally, Phase 2
provided new functionality that expanded the user base beyond the community of HR
professionals. The HR stakeholders drive determining appropriate levels of access. DHRIM has
responded to these needs by implementing the appropriate access levels, accounting for security
and Privacy Act requirements.
Actions Taken or to be Taken: DHRIM has a comprehensive system to provide appropriate
access levels. Access to the application has been expanded through a more robust set of reports
and data extract tools on the output products web site. This is supported by the deployment of the
Employee Member Access Application (EMAA) that currently provides view access to
approximately 30,000 employees/members of their personnel records in the HRMS. EMAA is in
the process being expanded by DHRIM, to provide access to the Reserves. Access to the HRMS
will be further expanded post Phase 3 that will enable manager and member self serve, within the
context of broader access to HRMS. However, privacy and security requirements will continue to
cause frustration due to the constraints they impose on access to data.
Page 26/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Recommendation 7 – The DHRIM to develop an ongoing HRMS training program within the
Department, in conjunction with the key HR stakeholders. The program must identify what
training would be provided, how it would be provided, roles and responsibilities of the project
team and HR organizations, and the funding mechanism to be used.
Actions Taken or to be Taken: DHRIM has been reorganized to more effectively address
sustainment training. As well, a variety of training techniques are being offered: distance
learning, web-based training, video conferencing, train-the-trainer programs, and national
training database.
Recommendation 8 – The DHRIM to improve and communicate the reporting capabilities
available to users/clients.
Actions Taken or to be Taken: This is a DHRIM responsibility that is being acted upon. User
guides and appropriate training are being developed and in some cases are available now. There
is considerably more that must be done to accomplish the optimum level of reporting. A formal
Output Products Reporting communications plan is being considered and it will need
considerable concerted effort by DHRIM. This is part of the directive that the COS HR Mil has
given to DHRIM, and it is being acted upon now, for delivery by end 2003.
Recommendation 9 – The DHRIM to continue strategy of decustomization of the HRMS
application for the Version 8 implementation. Best practices suggest no more than 20 per cent
customization is advisable, however, our experience has shown that the implementation of a
vanilla system/minimum customization provides benefits in terms of a reduction in system
complexity, and implementation and maintenance costs. This strategy also provides the
organization with the ability to take advantage of best practices in the software, potentially
leading to business process improvements.
Management Response: The recommendation to minimize customization is supported.
However, there must also be recognition that the degree to which this can be achieved is driven
by the size and complexity of the organization and its client base. DND is supporting three user
communities – Regular Force, Reserves and Civilian; each of which is governed by different
regulations legislation. This situation necessitates a degree of customization. DoD is in a
comparable situation, the US Military project, established to bring the PeopleSoft HRM Version
8.8. into use across the five components of their armed services (Army, Navy, Air Force,
Marines, and Joint Command), has the objective of a minimum of 70 per cent out-of-the-box).
The efforts to minimize the implementation of new customizations will continue. It also must be
recognized that further de-customization will require significant effort and time to achieve.
However, the result would be to produce long term cost savings for the Department when future
upgrades become necessary, to add enhancements, and for linking to other departmental
enterprise systems.
Page 27/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Actions Taken or to be Taken: A main objective of Phase 3 of the DIHRS Project is to upgrade
our DND GC version, most likely Version 8.8. As part of this effort, there may be instances
whereby the new version conflicts with DND customizations. Every effort will be made to
resolve these conflicts through decustomization, while continuing to meet the requirements of the
HR stakeholders. DHRIM continues to identify opportunities for decustomization. These items
are assessed, impacted, prioritized and actioned.
Page 28/28
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Annex A – Risk Assessment
The IT Project Risk Assessment Benchmarking Tool is an automated tool designed to quantify
and graphically illustrate the risks of incurring significant budget overruns and schedule delays
for an information technology project. This tool greatly improves an organization’s ability to
identify, manage, and minimize areas of risk inherent within information technology projects,
regardless of the system development methodology or technologies being employed.
Used proactively, the tool provides management the capability to readily identify corrective
actions necessary to successfully complete a project. The tool is often used by organizations as a
“readiness check” prior to project inception, and to periodically measure project risks throughout
the project life cycle.
Over 600 projects, ranging in size from $1 million to over $800 million, have been analyzed
during the past 15 years. A database of past results is maintained in order to provide trends and
profile past project characteristics.
Methodology
The tool evaluates 65 factors affecting risk. The results are quantified into ten major categories
of risks; thereby providing management with the capability to focus where corrective actions are
warranted. The ten major risk categories addressed in the tool are briefly described in the
following paragraphs:
Business Objectives - The extent to which the business strategy, business models, and
business objectives of the system have been communicated, understood, and deployed are
reviewed. Additionally, based on the implementation time-frame, how well the business
model and associated benefits will be realized, as well as, how effectively the business
objectives are guiding the development and implementation of the system, are evaluated.
Project Complexity - The complexity of the overall project in terms of the key attributes are
evaluated, including the use of new technologies, design architecture and complexity,
networks, data conversion, extent of “bridges”, implementation strategy, and the extent of
multiple platforms.
Project Organization - The areas evaluated include the stability of the organization, the
extent of accountability, responsibility, and authority, the level of empowerment of the
various staff groups, the effectiveness of sponsorship, and the effectiveness of co-builder
teams. Additionally, the project organization structure is reviewed for lines of authority and
levels of management.
Project Planning - All areas of planning are assessed including the approach, techniques,
and consistency of practices and standards employed. Project planning also includes the
determination of how effectively the project plan can serve as a benchmark against which
progress can be measured.
Page A-1/5
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Resource Management - This area is evaluated to determine how efficiently technical and
non-technical resources are balanced, and determine the experience level of the resources
compared with similar applications, size of projects, subject matter expertise, techniques,
types of training provided, staffing levels, and quality assurance practices.
Standards and Documentation - This category focuses on the project team’s adherence to
development methodologies and formal standards. Particular attention is given to
completeness and adequacy of documentation, policies and procedures relative to quality
assurance, and coverage of sound development practices. Relative to sound development
practices, consideration is given to the strategy being employed, such as, traditional,
Information Engineering, Rapid Application Development or Object Oriented Design.
Task Management - The effectiveness with which project teams are executing their plans is
examined. The promptness and consistency of time reporting, use of realistic estimates to
complete tasks, and the completion of tasks and deliverables are reviewed. The effectiveness
of team leaders and utilization of resources are also evaluated and quantified.
Change Control and Issues Management - Changes to original scope, business objectives,
and specifications are reviewed including the determination of the “root” source of change,
the procedures and techniques utilized to evaluate the costs and benefits of change, the
effectiveness of incorporating change, and the extent to which undocumented changes exist.
Issues management and the related processes are also evaluated and reported in this category.
Reporting and Communications - Frequency and effectiveness of team meetings, project
meetings, technical workshops, walk-throughs, and steering committees are evaluated.
Additionally, management reporting and variance trend analyses are reviewed for candor,
structure, timeliness, realistic progress reporting and effectiveness.
Overall Risk - The overall risk is determined based on a quantification of the nine areas
discussed in previous paragraphs. The resulting risk factor is a weighted calculation, and not
an average.
Risk Assessment Results
Results for the risk assessment were obtained by completing the pre-defined and standard risk
management questionnaires with the Business and Information Technology Project Managers. In
this manner, the business and technical perspectives of the project could be adequately covered.
The assessment focuses primarily on current practices used for Phase 2 of the project, although
some questions were also answered based on Phase 1 experience.
The results of the quantitative risk assessment are graphically illustrated on the following page.
The overall risk level was identified at 60 per cent, which reflects the profile of a high risk
project. If we look at each of the specific risk category, we can see that the majority are in the
“caution” zone, where the risk levels are relatively high.
Page A-2/5
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HRMS IMPLEMENTATION AT DND/CF
100
RISK
CRITICALITY
74
PERCENTAGE OF RISK
80
51
46
50
43
47
50
56
60
DANGER
60
CAUTION
33
40
BEST
20
O
EP
T
IS
K
AL
L
R
O
VE
R
C
.&
IN
G
G
E
AN
H
C
LEGEND
RISK LEVEL
R
O
M
M
N
O
C
M
TA
SK
.
TR
'T
.
G
N
N
IN
PL
AN
T
JE
C
PR
O
C
O
D
S.
&
G
O
N
'T
EN
TA
TI
U
M
U
ES
O
ST
D
R
R
G
O
J.
R
C
AN
E
M
G
IZ
AT
I
N
O
N
PL
EX
IT
Y
M
O
J.
C
O
PR
PR
O
B
U
SI
N
ES
S
O
B
JE
C
TI
VE
S
L
0
1993-2001 THE WILLBERN GROUP, INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
RISK CATEGORIES EVALUATED
Key factors or reasons contributing to the overall level of risk were identified as follows:
Section 16
(2)c) of the
AIA
Project complexity – The HRMS implementation maintains a high degree of complexity due
to factors such as the length and scope of the project, the number/complexity of interfaces
……………………………………………. level of customization, level of difficulty of data
conversion, specific security requirements (Protected B), technical/ architecture requirements
and dependencies (e.g., network capacity, and the need to manage the differing requirements
of the major end user groups. The degree of project complexity will increase with the
implementation of self-service applications, distributed to a wider user group.
Change Control – Throughout the duration of the project, there have been a significant
number of changes made to the application (500 – 1000), changes have been requested
frequently (now starting to diminish) and the sources of change requests are from a number
of different end user groups. Stronger controls have been put into place in Phase 2, through
the Configuration Control Board (CCB) to better manage scope creep.
Project Planning – This risk category was high mainly due to the fact that the original
project dates have significantly shifted, and the Project Organization structure, while largely
stable, is still evolving. However, the project team’s status and tracking reports are produced
on a timely basis, and are effectively used for project management.
Page A-3/5
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Resource Management – The key reasons for the high score included the large number of
project resources (over 85) to be managed, 60 per cent turnover over the entire project’s
duration, resource shortages at various stages, and a high proportion of contractors thereby
requiring a greater emphasis on knowledge transfer to DND/CF staff. The 60 per cent staff
turnover was partially the result of the length of time required to complete the DSP approval
process. In order to save costs of keeping staff on without work, the PMO staff was reduced
to essential positions between the last deliverable of Phase 1 in Oct 99 and the TB approval
of Phase 2 in Apr 00.
Standards and Documentation – The project team uses formal methodologies and
standards (business and IS) to manage the project. The interviewees stated that they were
currently working on making further improvements to technical documentation currency and
standards adherence. There is no independent formal quality assurance function overseeing
the quality of deliverables. Quality assurance is currently performed by the project’s testing
team.
Business Objectives – The interviewees’ view is that the project’s scope is defined and
generally understood, however, further improvements were required to more effectively
communicate the scope and business objectives to all affected users/clients.
Task Management – The interviewees believe that the project plans for Phase 2 are based on
a realistic assessment of the work required and the timeframes involved. It was perceived that
Phase 1 project plans did not have the same level of rigour and acceptance.
Project Organization – The reasons why this category scored relatively highly in terms of
risk against best practices included: the Project Director is not dedicated full-time to the
project, and some differences in the level of involvement of end user groups and sponsors
(senior management and business process owners) in the development of the modules.
Reporting and Communications – This category refers to the reporting efforts and internal
communications of the project team. We did not perceive any major issues with current
practices.
Risk Mitigation Strategies
Based on our review of the DND/CF HRMS project with the best practices included in the risk
assessment tool, the following series of actions are presented for consideration by the DIHRS
project team and senior management. These actions typically contribute to reducing project risks
and assist in the completion of the project on-time and on schedule.
Continue with current efforts to better manage and reduce potential scope creep, e.g., directly
involve the Associate Project Directors and Business Process Owners within the CCB, and
continue strategic policy of decustomization of the HRMS application.
Continue with the Working Group approach to build consensus across the end user group to
define common business requirements. Ensure the Business Process Owners and other key
user representatives are actively involved in all stages of the project. Ensure that all design
documents are as complete as possible, with appropriate sign-off obtained.
Page A-4/5
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Ensure proper resource management for the project – dedicated project and user/client
resources are available, and DND/CF resources are identified for knowledge transfer. HRMS
Version 8 will involve new functionality and technology (web), therefore, appropriate and
timely training must be given to project team resources.
Provide for a Project Director who is assigned full-time to the DIHRS Project.
Develop a formal quality assurance program. This is a best practice from other organizations
especially for projects of this size and complexity.
Support DND/CF initiatives outside the project that simplify the departmental information
technology infrastructure including the security infrastructure.
Continue the current project management approach of frequent reporting and communication
of project status and key issues. However, DND/CF needs to ensure that project sponsors
and other senior level representatives are actively involved in setting the business strategy,
managing project progress and resolving issues across the Department. The SRB meets on a
periodic basis currently. We believe that the meeting frequency should be reviewed and
potentially increased.
Page A-5/5
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Annex B – Benchmarking Review
This annex presents the results from the benchmarking surveys obtained from six public sector
organizations in Canada, the United States and Australia. From the 20 questionnaires sent, six
responses were received. These responses were summarized, and are presented after the
“Benchmarking Results Highlights” section. All respondents have implemented PeopleSoft HR
software. Some have also implemented the PeopleSoft payroll module.
Benchmarking Results Highlights
Highlights from the benchmarking are presented below, however, please note that the sample size
was small and thus, some of the conclusions might have been different if we had more
respondents:
Some organizations have either already implemented Version 8 or are currently in the process
of upgrading to the new version of PeopleSoft HRMS. DND/CF is slightly behind in their
upgrade to Version 8 as the project team decided to focus their resources on providing
additional functionality in the HRMS to meet identified business priorities such as support to
the Reserves and the recruiting and operational communities.
The shorter duration projects, with minimum software customization, were generally more
successful in controlling and managing their project schedules and budgets (i.e., timeframe of
18 months to 30 months compared with 5 to 7.5 years).
Most participants came to the conclusion that customization should be minimal or moderate.
Some had planned accordingly from the outset, others came to that conclusion after trying to
implement PeopleSoft with significant customization. The organization which implemented
HRMS with substantial customization reported that functionality was a significant issue in
the early and medium stages of their implementation project. DND/CF has reduced its initial
customization levels from 46 per cent in the initial HRMS implementation down to
26 per cent.
The percentage of project team members who are contractors varied significantly between
8 per cent and 60 per cent. This likely reflects the ability of the organization to dedicate their
resources to the project team. Factors may include resource availability and skill sets.
Classroom and On-line help training methods were used by all participants. DND/CF
extensively uses these training methods for the HRMS module roll-outs and reference
material.
An effective risk management strategy is one of the factors mentioned to better control
project scope and cost.
The expected benefits which have been the most difficult to achieve in the implementation of
PeopleSoft HR included: the reduction of workload, interface development and the provision
of reports. The sixth participant identified the data quality of legacy systems and system
security requirements as additional issues requiring attention.
Page B-1/3
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Lessons learned from other federal government departments, which are applicable to DND/CF
include:
The provision of self-service functionality to employees has improved data quality.
The ease of self-service implementation was linked to the robustness of the wide area
network.
A fit/gap analysis approach was useful to re-scope the project.
Greater involvement of key sponsors was key to re-focusing the project, and bringing it back
on track.
8%
Australian
Government Participant #6
3%
US Public Sector Participant #5
62%
US Public Sector Participant #4
Canadian Federal
Government Participant #3
Quantitative Questions
Percentage of employees using HRMS
Application
Canadian Federal
Government Participant #2
Section 13
(1)a) of the
AIA
Canadian Federal
Government Participant #1
Benchmarking Results Summary
88%
80%
7%
8.3
4
.
.
…
.
.
…
.
.
…
Categories of employee using HR
- HR professionals
- Line managers
- Employees outside HR
Version Implemented
8 (Plan for Jan
2002)
7 (Started to
upgrade to 8)
7.5 (Looking to
implement 8)
Number of Modules Implemented
10
7
5
11
8
8
Initial Expected Project Duration
14 months
18 months
15 months
2 years
3 years
28 months
Revised Project Duration
7
5 years
18 months
7.5 years
2.5 years
6 years
5 years
Project Budget - Software Development :
- Over Budget (Negative Value)
- Under Budget (Positive Value)
- On Budget (Zero)
-17%
29%
Not provided
-8%
-59%
-172%
Project Budget - Software Maintenance :
- Over Budget (Negative Value)
- Under Budget (Positive Value)
- On Budget (Zero)
0%
0%
Not provided
0%
0%
Not provided
8%
60%
17%
53%
22%
60%
Moderate
customization
as expected
Minimum
customization
much less than
expected
Moderate
customization
less than
expected
Substantial
customization
Percentage of Project Staff Being
Contractors
Software Implementation Strategy
Minimum
customization
much less than
expected
Minimum
customization
as expected
Training methods used:
- Train-the-trainer
- Classroom
- On-line help
- CD-Rom
Page B-2/3
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
Initially, no risk
management
strategy.
Currently, in the
process of
developing one.
Implement
software in
increments and
use two
contractors in
case one does
not perform.
Risk Management Strategy
None.
Change Management
Initially limited to
demos. For
Version 8
sessions will be
organized with Part of the
users.
training strategy.
Vision to Improve HR Management
Most Difficult Aspect(s) of the Project
Other Comments Relevant to DND/CF
Implementation
Y2K
compliance.
Primarly Y2K
compliance.
Secondarly,
more effective
means of
meeting future
HR
requirements.
Not mentioned
- Reduced
workload
- Interfaces
- Senior Mgmt
Review
Provision of selfservice
functionality to
employees has
improved data
quality.
Use initial
Fit/Gap analysis
to rescope
project. Only
replace existing
functionality.
Change control:
Focusing on
tracking of
application
changes and
training.
As expected
Allow greater
flexibility in
Replace legacy assigning staff
system when
and to reuse
department was skills of our
re-organized.
people.
- Reduced
workload
- Reporting
capabilities
Not mentioned
Australian
Government Participant #6
US Public
Sector Participant #4
Develop and
effective. Risk
management
strategy allow
for the
implementation
of risk
mitigation.
.
.
…
US Public
Sector Participant #5
Canadian
Federal
Government Participant #3
Qualitative Questions
Canadian
Federal
Government Participant #2
Section 13
(1)a) of the
AIA
Canadian
Federal
Government Participant #1
PUBLIC SERVICES
.
.
…
.
.
…
Standard. Most
of the Risk
Factors which
delayed
theproject were
system changes
and policy
decisions.
Yes.
Change control: Yes. It has
been effective in seeing
appropriate approval for
system changes and
Change control: controlled update of system
Use custom MS documentation and controlled
Access
releases.
Part of
Reengineering
Strategy
Yes. The vision was to use
technology to drive common
processes, achieve
efficiencies and improve
personnel management
information availability in the
organization.
Reduced
workload
- Reduced workload
- System security
- Reporting capabilities
- Data quality of legacy
systems
- System performance issues
Ease of seflservice
implementation
linked to
robustness of
the WAN
Not mentioned. None.
Page B-3/3
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
The level of success for the
project was "medium" for
user satisfaction, information
integrity and ease of use.
Project entailed major cultural
change, in an environment of
Departmental re-organization
which contributed to user
hostility. The original project
plan grossly underestimated
the timescale and budget
required. Improvements have
been achieved through
restructuring, continuing
investment in computing
infrastructure, new people,
and contract management
improvements.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Annex C – Recommendations and Management
Action Plans
Ser
1.
CRS Recommendation
Change Management Strategy.
The development of a formal
change management strategy,
including a communications plan
and workforce transition strategy.
OPI
Management Action
DIHRS
(to be approved
by SRB
Members)
A full-time project communications officer
was assigned in later part of Phase 2 to
improve communications and the web site.
A comprehensive communications strategy
has been developed and will continue to
evolve.
The following committees have been
formed to address these concerns:
• Business Process Owner Steering
Committee;
• Civilian Process Review Committee;
and
• HR Management Oversight.
A formal Change Management Strategy
and Plan will be produced for Phase 3.
2.
Resources. To review recurring
resource shortage issues/impacts
(especially at the clerical level, and
in the support organizations) and
develop appropriate strategies.
These strategies should include an
assessment of further business
process re-engineering
opportunities (including policy
simplification where appropriate),
and a reduction of unnecessary
multiple data entry activities.
ADM(HR-Mil)
and
ADM(HR Civ)
This is an ongoing activity of the
respective HR Groups and subject of
occupation reviews and other studies. The
results of these will be used as reference in
the development of the Change
Management Plan.
3.
Project Management
Performance. To develop a
formal return-on-investment
approach/performance measures
for the remainder of Phase 2 and
Phase 3, and develop appropriate
monitoring mechanisms.
DIHRS
Phase 3 of the Project is a technical version
upgrade with no functional extension over
what is currently there. A traditional
approach to ROI for this phase would be of
no significant value. Under the PDM
oversight, performance measures were put
in place for Phase 2 and will continue in
Phase 3. Performance is now quantified
and measured against pre-defined
Page C-1/4
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Ser
4.
CRS Recommendation
OPI
Data Quality. Active sponsorship
is required to build on current data
quality efforts, and to establish
short-term and ongoing program
solutions for the HRMS data cleanup. An appropriate level of
resources must be available to
undertake this activity. The
establishment of formal
accountabilities down to the unit
level, data quality working
group(military), and the
appropriate devolvement of
correction mode are recommended
solutions.
DHRIM
Management Action
standards in the areas of requirements,
scope, time, cost, procurement, business
transformation, project risks, dependency
risks, contribution risks, human resources,
quality, communications and senior
management commitment. This
information is recorded in the Project
Performance Management Plan that forms
the basis of the monthly Project Status
Reports to the Deputy Project Leader.
• A Civilian Data Quality Working Group
was established in late 2001, concurrent
with the completion of this CRS study.
It reports regularly and has had good
success. A similar Military Data
Quality WG is being established by
DHRIM and will be in place in late
2003. As directed by COS HR Mil, it
will work intimately with the three ECS
to yield measurable improvements by
end 2003 and to report its progress
regularly.
• Efforts are being made to identify key
fields and their interrelation-ships in a
series of business processes so that
confidence levels in those business
processes can be assessed, including
impacts to accurately measure business
process performance metrics.
• In order to prevent bad data from
entering the system, as new legacy
systems are subsumed and their data is
brought into the HRMS, formal user
acceptance testing of the data
conversion is performed and sign-off is
obtained. This ensures data is
converted correctly and has the
additional benefit of identifying
erroneous data in the legacy systems
that is then marked for correction by the
business community. This process will
remain in place for Phase 3.
Page C-2/4
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Ser
5.
6.
CRS Recommendation
OPI
Management Action
Eliminating Parallel Systems. To
sponsor a review of those major
systems which potentially
duplicate the HRMS functionality,
in order to minimize the number of
parallel systems currently
operating within the Department.
A fit/gap analysis should be
completed to both inform
user/client groups on the
functionality available within the
HRMS, and to determine a formal
solution to handle requirements not
currently met by the system.
Strong sponsorship and flexibility
on all sides will be crucial to this
review’s success. Active
participation from ADM IM will
be important to ensure consistency
with the conclusions of the
Department’s IM/IT strategic
review.
COS ADM(HR
Mil) and
COS(HR Civ) supported by
ADM(IM)
Since the review was conducted, a task has
been added to the Defence Plan for all
Level Ones by way of Horizontal Initiative
H13-1-1664, to state that “Senior
Managers are responsible for directing and
promoting the use of PeopleSoft HRMS as
their primary human resources tool”.
System Access Rights. To
determine appropriate access levels
to nominated user/client groups
(especially view-only access to the
online application).
DHRIM
Many systems that duplicate HRMS
functionality are mainly a military concern.
COS HR Mil has formally directed the
establishment of a Steering Committee of
representatives from each ECS chaired by
DHRIM. One of their key objectives is to
resolve this very issue.
IM Review Implementation actions within
the IM Group are also complementary and
support the evolution to an enterprise
approach to IM and the reduction in
duplicate and parallel HR systems.
DHRIM has a comprehensive system to
provide appropriate access levels. Access
to the application has been expanded
through a more robust set of reports and
data extract tools on the output products
web site. This is supported by the
deployment of the Employee Member
Access Application (EMAA) which
currently provides view access to
approximately 30,000 employees/members
of their personnel records in the HRMS.
EMAA is in the process of being expanded
by DHRIM, to provide access to the
Reserves. Access to the HRMS will be
further expanded post Phase 3 which will
enable manager and member self serve,
within the context of broader access to
HRMS. However, privacy and security
requirements will continue to cause
frustration due to the constraints they
impose on access to data.
Page C-3/4
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Review of the Implementation of the Human Resource
Management System (HRMS) August 2003
PUBLIC SERVICES
Ser
CRS Recommendation
OPI
Management Action
7.
Training. To develop an ongoing
HRMS training program within the
Department, in conjunction with
the key HR stakeholders. The
program must identify what
training would be provided, how it
would be provided, roles and
responsibilities of the project team
and HR organizations, and the
funding mechanism to be used.
DHRIM
DHRIM has been reorganized to more
effectively address sustainment training.
As well, a variety of training techniques
are being offered: distance learning, webbased training, video conferencing, trainthe-trainer programs, and national training
database.
8.
Exploiting Reporting. To
improve and communicate the
reporting capabilities available to
users/clients.
DHRIM
This is a DHRIM responsibility that is
being acted upon. User guides and
appropriate training are being developed
and in some cases are available now.
There is considerably more that must be
done to accomplish the optimum level of
reporting. A formal Output Products
Reporting communications plan is being
considered and it will need considerable
concerted effort by DHRIM. This is part
of the directive that the COS HR Mil has
given to DHRIM, and it is being acted
upon now, for delivery by end 2003.
9.
Controlling Customization. To
continue strategy of
decustomization of the HRMS
application for the Version 8
implementation. Best practices
suggest no more than 20 per cent
customization is advisable,
however, our experience has
shown that the implementation of a
vanilla system/minimum
customization provides benefits in
terms of a reduction in system
complexity, and implementation
and maintenance costs. This
strategy also provides the
organization with the ability to
take advantage of best practices in
the software, potentially leading to
business process improvements.
DHRIM
A main objective of Phase 3 of the DIHRS
Project is to upgrade our DND GC version,
most likely Version 8.8. As part of this
effort, there may be instances whereby the
new version conflicts with DND
customizations. Every effort will be made
to resolve these conflicts through
decustomization, while continuing to meet
the requirements of the HR stakeholders.
DHRIM continues to identify opportunities
for decustomization. These items are
assessed, impacted, prioritized and
actioned.
Page C-4/4
Proprietary and Confidential
© 2003 KPMG Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Download