ASA (FM&C)

• GFEBS is …
– Mostly everywhere: o CONUS and OCONUS o With troops in OCO
– Adding Sensitive Activities and Military Pay
– Not adding Corp of Engineers (CEFMS)
• GFEBS will be system of record for next 30+ years – based on legacy precedent
– Need to get the most out of the investment
– Need to work together to remedy shortcomings & enhance capabilities
• You -- as Army analyst – need to:
– Understand what’s in and going on within GFEBS
– Know the transactions for your work
– Identify what you and your managers need from GFEBS for management and oversight
– Make and/or support changes to capitalize on GFEBS
11/1/2013 2

• Situation
“… deployment of the General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) in July 2012 …brings automated processes and controls … that result in more timely, reliable, and accurate business and financial information.
— we owe it to Congress, American taxpayers, and our very own Soldiers”
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller)
Fiscal Year 2012 United States Army Annual Financial Report
• Solution: Includes modern systems with open integrated data
–
General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) o GFEBS-Sensitive Activities (GFEBS-SA)
– Global Combat Support System-Army (GCSS-A)
– Logistics Modernization Program (LMP)
– Integrated Personnel & Pay System (IPPS-A)
11/1/2013
3

2009 2010 2011
$1.2B Obligated
1,500 end users
3 locations
~2.7 M transactions processed
200K FCM
40K DTS
200K DCAS
1K ADS
7K SPS
$6.4B Obligated
11K end users
26 locations
~12 M transactions processed
600K FCM
$30.81B Obligated
30K end users
154 locations
~32 M transactions processed
4.5M FCM
400K DTS
1,000K DCAS
8.5K ADS
3.0M DTS
7.0M DCAS
40K ADS
20K SPS 100K SPS
Metrics increase substantial with each year of operations
11/1/2013
2012
$72.8B Obligated
+136%
53K provisioned
+53%
200+ locations
~50 M transactions processed
10.0M FCM
6.7M DTS
16.0M DCAS
100K ADS
230K SPS
4

• 96.9% compliance with Federal Financial Management
Improvement Act (FFMIA) requirements as determined by the U.S. Army Audit Agency (i.e., 1,009 of 1,134)
• 98% compliance with DoD Business Enterprise
Architecture (BEA) requirements (i.e., 3,842 of 3,916)
• 97% compliance with DoD Standard Financial
Information Structure (SFIS) (i.e., 212 of 219 business rules)
• Complies with applicable 253 DoD Real Property
Information Model (RPIM) requirements
• Effective, suitable and survivable , all with some limitations, as determined by Army Test and
Evaluation Command
Auditability requirements drive business process changes!
11/1/2013
Some 5,500 requirements, standards, attributes and business rules
As of 10/15/2012 5

GFEBS user in any org.
GFEBS user
Approver
GFEBS user
Special Approver
GFEBS user
Funds Approver
RM office
1 Purchase
Interface
Request
• FI- None
• FM-
Commitmen t
• CO- None
4
Payment
• FI-
Acct Payable/Cash
• FM-
Disbursement
• CO- None
D isbursement
11/1/2013
Legend:
• Blue arrows: within GFEBS
•
Green arrows: interfaces
• FI = Financial Accounting
•
FM = Funds Management
• CO = Cost Accounting
Contracting
Office
S tandard
P rocurement
S ystem
3
2 Purchase
Order
• FI- None
• FM-
Obligation
• CO- None
Goods
Receipt
• FI-
Expense/Acct Payable
• FM-
Expenditure
• CO-
Expense
Requires 3 Way Match:
• Invoice
GFEBS user
• Contract in any org.
• Goods rec’d
6

Practice Trained
Participation leads to proficiency, efficiency and effectiveness
Untrained
“Valley of
Despair”
Efficiency and effectiveness requires more than just the material solution
Doctrine
Go-live
• Crawl, Walk, Run…
-- build on experience
 Take an enterprise perspective
 Understand End-to-End interconnections
 Think through DOT M LPF
11/1/2013
Facilities Organization
Personnel
Communications and
Governance
Training
Leadership
& Education
Expectations need to be realistic
Materiel
7

• You need to --
– Expand your knowledge of financial management
– Develop and expand your repertoire of analytic skills
– Learn to view situations holistically – across the enterprise and from end-to-end
– Identify what you and your managers need from GFEBS for management and oversight
– Enhance your managerial skills so that you can be the future resource managers of the Army
• When you have a problem
How do I do…?
Ask neighbor
Ask
Power
User
Ask
Command
Helpdesk
Ask
GFEBS
Helpdesk
11/1/2013
If all else fails, then
Change Request is appropriate
8

• Failure to enter correct data
– In legacy environment, DFAS automatically obligated funds for UMD less than $2,500; audit compliance requires correcting every instance
• Exchange of data between systems
– GFEBS has 46 System Interface Partners with 132 unique interfaces
– GFEBS expects specific types of data; but, interface system provides something else, GFEBS (SAP) creates Intermediate Document (IDoc) error report
– IDOC errors typically occur with: o Standard Procurement System (SPS) o Funds Control Module (FCM) o Defense Civilian Pay System (DCPS) and Automated Time Attendance &
Production System (ATAAPS)
11/1/2013
• Enter correct data to avoid errors and corrections
• Communicate with interface partners to avoid discrepancies
9

– Continuing operations and sustainment
– Enhancing capabilities based on feedback
– Adding new increments (e.g., GFEBS-SA)
– Continue to share experiences: o Share lessons learned o Provide feedback to Team GFEBS
– Understand and properly execute GFEBS transactions – this is not business as usual
– Continue to develop knowledge, and analytic and cost management skills
– Prepare for audit exams and share results among commands
GFEBS is transforming financial and other management capabilities!
11/1/2013 10

• General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS)
─ Is Army’s new core financial management and accounting ERP* system
─ Subsumes over 100 legacy financial management and real property systems
─ Distributes funds from HQDA to executing organizations -- includes transferring funds to GCSS-Army for tactical and installation logistics
─ Consolidates general fund financial data for Army reporting -- includes reports from GCSS-Army
• Global Combat Support System-Army (GCSS-A)
─ Is Army’s new logistics ERP system
─ Subsumes outdated logistics systems that are not financially compliant
─ Integrates approximately 40,000 local supply and logistics databases into a single, enterprise-wide authoritative system
─ Applies financial management template from GFEBS
─ Produces and transmits financial reports to GFEBS
11/1/2013
“Federated relationship”
NOTE:
* Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP)
11

• GFEBS – supports Army’s financial management activities
– Generates Army’s financial management structure that is used in GCSS-A
–
Loads organizational & related lines of accounting that are used in GCSS-A
– Distributes general funds from HQDA to executing unit, including GCSS-A
• GCSS-Army – supports Army’s supply and repair activities
– Creates Cost Center master data that are used in GFEBS
–
Provides supply support to customers (e.g., UICs) loaded in GFEBS
– Records execution of general funds for supply orders by customers
– Provides financial execution reports to GFEBS
GFEBS Funds Distribution
HQDA
1
GCSS-Army Supply Operations
Command
Subordinate
Command
Operational
Level
2
3
4
Master data
Funds
Financial Reports
Funds Center
11/1/2013 12

• GFEBS is …
– Mostly everywhere: o CONUS and OCONUS o With troops in OCO
– Adding Sensitive Activities and Military Pay
– Not adding Corp of Engineers funding (CEFMS)
• GFEBS will be system of record for next 30+ years – based on legacy experience
– Need to get the most out of the investment
– Need to work together to remedy shortcomings & enhance capabilities
• You -- as Army analyst – need to:
– Understand what’s in and going on within GFEBS
– Know the transactions for your work
– Identify what you and your managers need from GFEBS for management and oversight
– Make and/or support changes to capitalize on GFEBS
11/1/2013 13

?
14

11/1/2013
15

• Funds Management
–
Distribution of General Funds from HQDA to execution level
– Execution management of General Funds
• Spending Chain
– Initiate purchase requisition and check funds, record obligation, manage goods and services receipts and process disbursement
–
Logistics integration / inventory management
• Reimbursables
–
Execute order management
– Process accounts receivable
• Property, Plant and Equipment
– Real Property, Plant Maintenance, Equipment & Assets, & Project Systems
• Cost Management
– Provides full costing capability to include assignment and allocation
– Capability to capture cost, e.g., by Brigade
• Financials
– General Ledger accounting (USSGL)
–
Workflow journal voucher approval process
– Financial statement reporting to departmental level
– Month end/ Year end closing process
11/1/2013
As of 25 Aug 2010
16

eneral
und
nterprise
usiness
ystem
Robert M. Speer
Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Financial Management & Comptroller)
A collaborative team of ASA (FM&C) and PEO-EIS
Ms. Kristyn E. Jones
Director,
Financial Information Management
Mr. Roger A. Pillar
Director, Functional Program
Mr. Doug Wiltsie
Program Executive Officer for
Enterprise Information Systems
COL Patrick W. Burden
GFEBS Project Manager https://wiki.kc.us.army.mil/wiki/Portal:GFEBS
17

• Integrated Project and Functional Teams
‒ Co-location of Functional and PEO teams allowed a collaborative effort to work from a holistic approach of the system and business processes during all phases of design, development and implementation
‒ Improved communication, teamwork, relationships and trust
‒ Improved turnaround time, reduction in total cost, improved quality and delivery
‒ SMEs from commands and key stakeholder organizations were project team members and standing contributors to the Functional Team
• Incremental Development Strategy
‒ Focused on a series of “releases” to build functionality throughout the lifecycle of system development which effectively facilitated Financial Management Business Process
Reengineering (BPR) efforts
‒ Utilized ‘crawl, walk, run’ strategy to provide basic functionality to the early waves and then develop increasingly complex functionality throughout later wave deployments
11/1/2013
18

• Incremental Deployment Approach
‒ Adjusted deployment schedule from a four to six month timeline in Wave 1 to a D-12 month strategy in Wave 2 to, finally, a D-15 month plan
‒ Combining both the incremental development and deployment approaches in tandem allowed for more senior leadership buy-in, policy alignment and time for large BPR efforts
• Business Process Modernization
‒ Adopted COTS business processes and eliminated development of custom code (vs. custom configuration ) to the system
‒ Subsumed legacy system functionality/capability to enable optimal end-to-end business processes integration
‒ Analyzed current (As-Is) business process and systems to achieve the target (To-Be) architecture state
‒ Implemented compliant business processes that lead to auditable financial statements and operational efficiency
11/1/2013
19

• Documentation (Configuration Control)
‒ Documentation must be kept “up to date”
‒ Treat the documentation as an actual IT asset placed under configuration management control o Enables centralized responsibility and management of the relationships of configuration items
‒ Stringent review, control quality and audit processes within a centrally managed repository is beneficial
• Appropriate resources to reengineer/design “To-Be” processes
‒ Ensure appropriate resources understand transition of current (As-Is) processes, end state (To-Be) goals, system capabilities
‒ Participants should have sound knowledge and familiarity of Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) development and system capabilities
‒ System integrator needs sufficient understanding of government processes to help facilitate the elaboration of end-to-end process requirements and dependencies
11/1/2013
20

•
In-Depth Testing
‒ System development lifecycle requires a validation of ERP configuration and evaluation of the integration of Reports, Interfaces, Conversions, Extensions, Forms and Workflow (RICEFW) objects o Validation testing includes system integration testing (component test, assembly test, product test) followed by a user and FFMIA test
‒ User testing must utilize formal acceptance testing and approval methodology
• Internal audit of testing requirements
‒ Execute a Functional Configuration Audit (FCA) and Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) for each release of the system o FCA - validates all configured code against the Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM), design documents and test plans, and ensure that applicable documents were updated properly o PCA - verifies that the related design documentation matches the design of the system
‒ Without a robust FCA/PCA process, the government is at risk of receiving an incomplete and incompliant system that does not adhere to the original contracted scope
‒ We underestimated what was needed to meet Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual
(FISCAM) compliance requirements
11/1/2013
21

• Training: Role vs. Task based
‒ Job role based methodology for training leads to confusion among end-users about which role(s) to request and how to perform their specific job functions
‒ A task-based approach provides the big picture as well as fine details about activities pertaining to a particular role
‒ Day in the Life (DITL) training can improve end-user comprehension
• Ineffective Help Desk Support at Go-Live
‒ Initial Help Desk support structures may not adequately provide assistance to commands post go live and ensure users are provided an effective transition o Program must evolve help desk support structures throughout the lifecycle of the system
‒ Appropriate Help desk support structures should be implemented to include a Tier II
Help Desk for each command and assist in prompt resolution of command specific issues
11/1/2013
22

• Insufficient Change Management Planning and Execution
‒ Insufficient consideration was given to understanding the existing (as-is) issues during development which affected the development of future state business processes
‒ Workforce roles, responsibilities, and requirements during process design and transition activities were not effectively accounted for
‒ End-user training focused largely on individual roles but did not properly communicate the end-to-end business processes, conveying impacts of user interaction both up and downstream
11/1/2013
23