Core Business
Applications
Study
‘Conference Room Pilots’ Phase
Steering Committee # 2
16 March, 2016
Agenda
1. Progress report
2. Presentation of the solutions
3. Results of the technical study
4. Results of the functional study
5. Conclusions and recommendations
2
1. Progress report
•
Study launched in March 2004 in collaboration with Accenture
•
Initial recommendation made in June 2004
-
•
To adopt a common solution
To pursue the off-the-shelf option
As a result of the recommendation
-
-
Expanded the scope to include PhD, Faculty Affairs, Development, and
External Relations
Conduct Conference Room Pilot (CRP) study
3
1. Progress report
CRP Workshops conducted with two selected vendors:
•
PeopleSoft:
– Technical workshop conducted on 14 September and 6 October
– Functional workshop conducted on 11 & 12 October
•
SunGard/SCT:
– Technical workshop conducted on 13 September and 5 October
– Functional workshop conducted on 25 & 26 October
•
CRP Workshops participation from:
– MBA, EMBA, EDP, PhD, Faculty Affairs, Development, External Relations, & IT
•
Over 60 staff participated across two campuses
4
1. Progress report
Held formal and informal departmental debriefing sessions
•
Follow-up sessions requested by the Business Experts ONLY with PeopleSoft.
– Student Administration on 9 & 10 November
•
Additional CRP workshops with PeopleSoft:
– CRM on 8 November (no CRM solution from SunGard/SCT)
– CMS on 22 November (HR Recruitment module)
5
Agenda
1. Progress report
2. Presentation of the solutions
3. Results of the technical study
4. Results of the functional study
5. Conclusions and recommendations
6
Timeframe of the
2. Presentation
ofPilots
the solutions
Conference
Room
Study
Structure
of the Banner solution for INSEAD
Where
are we?
Luminis portal
Banner
Self Service Components
Core Banner System
Campus solution
Student
Administration
Financial Aid
Xtender Solutions
Advancement
Pocket Recruiter
7
Timeframe of the
2. Presentation
ofPilots
the solutions
Conference
Room
Study
Structure
of the PeopleSoft solution for INSEAD
Where
are we?
Enterprise
Portal
CRM Portal
Pack
Core PeopleSoft System
Campus solution
Self Service
Components
Student
Administration
Contributor
Relations
Gradebook
Campus
self services
CRM solution
Marketing
Online Marketing
Sales
Order Capture
8
Agenda
1. Progress report
2. Presentation of the solutions
3. Results of the technical study
4. Results of the functional study
5. Conclusions and recommendations
9
3. Results of the technical study
Main steps undertaken during the technical study
The technical study consisted in the following elements:
•
Technical presentations were organised with SCT and PeopleSoft vendors:
–
–
Banner IT presentations were conducted on the 13th September and 5th October
PeopleSoft IT presentations were conducted on the 14th September and 6th October
•
A deliverable has been realised to compile the information collected and compare both
packages using standard technical characteristics
•
A complementary study has been completed in order to clarify certain aspects of the
technical architecture and components of both solutions (e.g. characteristics of Banner
coming version 7.0, etc.)
•
A deliverable has been realised to analyse the specific concerns in INSEAD’s context
–
–
–
–
Realisation of an ‘As-Is’ applicative map
Interviews with IT Managers to collect specific concerns and expectations
PeopleSoft’s integration capability with MS SharePoint,
Etc.
10
Timeframe
3. Results of
of the
the technical study
Conference
Pilots Study
PresentationRoom
of the solutions’
technical architecture
Banner
Where
are we?
Students, faculty
Administrative users
Html
LDAP
Directory
Server
Java Enabled Web browser
Native JVM
Portal
Luminis portal /
Self-Service Web Server
Core Application Web Server
• Oracle9iAS server V9.0.3
• Http: Apache or IIS
• Oracle9iAS server v1.0.2.2.2
• Http: Apache or IIS
adapter
Legacy
systems
Banner Database Server
11
Timeframe
3. Results of
of the
the technical study
Conference
Pilots Study
PresentationRoom
of the solutions’
technical architecture
PeopleSoft
Where
are we?
Portal
Web Server
MS SharePoint/
PeopleSoft portal
(Html 1.0)
LDAP
Directory
Server
Legacy
systems
adapter
Reporting
batch server
(Windows)
Integrated
message broker
Web browser
(WebSphere, WebLogic…)
Application Server
• Tuxedo server
Database Server:
( Oracle, DB2, SQL
Server, Sybase)
12
3. Results of the technical study
Thematic technical comparison of both solutions-1/2
13
3. Results of the technical study
Thematic technical comparison of both solutions-2/2
14
3. Results of the technical study
INSEAD’s main technical concerns
• The main INSEAD’s concerns collected during our interviews with IT
Managers were the following:
– Multi-campuses constraints versus centralisation of data
– Convergence with ongoing projects (MS SharePoint Portal, Active
Directory)
– Technology standardisation
– Data mass-updates and tracking
– Data migration
– Upgradeability
15
3. Results of the technical study
As-Is applications map – Department view
Each department
has its own tools
Lack of reusability
Complex
maintenance
Lack of
standardisation
Integration needed
16
3. Results of the technical study
As-Is applications map – Functional view
But the applicative
map reveals that
similar functions (or
“services” in a SOA
architecture) are
used by different
departments
IT and business
architectures
integration is
needed
17
3. Results of the technical study
Diagnostic – technical environment
•
•
INSEAD information system was developed on specific needs
No harmonisation between departments
 Multiple information systems with complex data synchronisations
•
Almost one specific application for each need and department
 Data Management complexity
•
•
•
Multiple data validation interfaces
Complex and duplicated authentication system
Need of common and restricted technology directions
The integration need should be the main technical goal while INSEAD will
implement the new core business application.
18
3. Results of the technical study
Diagnostic – IT organisation
•
•
•
IT organisation has a single dimension
Most activities are focused on day-to-day operations and applications’
maintenance
No global technical coordinator exists to ensure that the expression of
needs goes through a single channel
 There is a lack of service-oriented and coherent project management that
considers global directions and strategies
 The objective should be to implement a Service-Oriented Architecture which
would be supported by a technical architect involved in the translation of
business functional requirements into technical design, with the help of
integration tools
•
The same objective should be followed up for the business team in charge of
the translation of business strategies and needs into functional solutions.
19
3. Results of the technical study
Diagnostic – Integration with MS Share Point
Banner
Web
Part
Web
Part
SharePoint
Portal
XML
messaging
LDIS
BANNER
Adapters
•
This integration has never been done
so far, and a third party product or a
specific development would be
necessary (Luminis portal, even with
Banner v7)
It should be possible using XML flux
and translators
XML Translators
•
APIs
SSO
SSO
20
3. Results of the technical study
Diagnostic – Integration with MS Share Point
PeopleSoft
•
•
•
Web
Part
Web
Part
SharePoint
Portal
WS-Security
App Server:
Windows Server
2003
WSDL
.Net business processes
AD applications
Portal SSO integration
WS-Security
Office, etc.
WSDL
Visual
Studio.Net
This integration has been done by Microsoft and a white
paper (which indicates how to do it) is available
PeopleSoft and Microsoft use the wsdl standard to be
full compliant without buying PeopleSoft portal.
Reuse of INSEAD forms is possible
PeopleSoft
Application
Server
SSO
SSO
21
3. Results of the technical study
Other general concerns
•
Multi-campuses constraints versus centralisation of data :
• The business unit logic of Peoplesoft (a global unit + some business unit with own
currency) is a very good response
• No special feature for Banner (one unit – one currency)
• The database is unique, in Fontainebleau for both products with performance tools and
focus
•
Convergence with ongoing projects (MS SharePoint Portal, Active Directory)
• Peoplesoft is fully compliant with Active Directory (Microsoft logon system) and ready for
portal integration (forms)
• Banner need specific integrations
•
Technology standardisation
• PIA is technology up to date and web services ready
• Banner has some API, but each integration point is specific
•
For the last points, they are detailed in the deliverable, Peoplesoft and Banner
provide some features without a decisive gap :
• Data mass-update and tracking
• Data migration
• Upgradeability
22
3. Results of the technical study
Technical decision criteria
Banner
PeopleSoft
Technical compatibility with INSEAD’s technical
direction
(-) No previous
(+) Possible
experience with
SharePoint.
integration with
SharePoint and AD
Equal Support to multiple campuses
(-) Important specific
(+) Business Units,
development needed
Process Scheduler
(-) Few basic controls
(+) Fully
on user fields data
parametrisable
Technical flexibility of the solution to support
modifications
(-) Limited by Forms
Ability to interface to key systems already existing
Upgradeability of the solution
(-) Business : no
(-) Technical :
metadata
development in AD
(+) Technical
(+) Business:
possibility to use LDIS
metadata, existing
adapters
(-) No clear roadmap
(+) Personalised
(+) Known roadmap
support
23
3. Results of the technical study
Summary
• Considering :
–
–
–
–
the strong integration needs and the products offers on this aspect
the applicative coverage
the architectural principles
the standard (Forms vs Peoplecode) developments tools and functions
capabilities
– the support
We do recommend the implementation of Peoplesoft while anticipating the
common known road hazards of such a large packaged software
implementation
24
3. Results of the technical study
Risks identified on the technical side
Banner
• Specific development needed to
answer the simple integration needs
• Third party integration tools needed
• Inability to merge with an “up to
date” technology (web services,
etc.)
• Lack of editor’s experience in
complex IT schema
PeopleSoft
• New skills
• Learning curve
• Lack of coherence due to unlimited
flexibility and easiness
• Campus Solution never
implemented in France
25
Agenda
1. Progress report
2. Presentation of the solutions
3. Results of the technical study
4. Results of the functional study
5. Conclusions and recommendations
26
4. Results of the functional study
Main steps undertaken during the functional study
The functional study consisted in the following steps:
•
Functional presentations:
–
–
A Banner functional two-day CRP was conducted on the 25th - 26th October
A PeopleSoft functional two-day CRP was conducted on the 11th - 12th October
•
Formal and informal debriefing sessions held within each Department concluded that
there was a general request for follow up sessions with PeopleSoft, but not with Banner
•
Additional business cases have been proposed, compiled and integrated in the followup session’s agenda
•
Follow-up sessions with PeopleSoft
–
Student Administration: A two-day PeopleSoft follow-up CRP took place on 9th – 10th November
–
CRM: A complementary PeopleSoft CRP of their CRM solution was organised on 8th November
(no CRM solution on SCT Banner’s side)
–
CMS: a presentation of the Recruitment module of PeopleSoft HR solution will be held on 22nd
November to assess the functional fit with CMS needs.
27
3. Results of the functional study
Feedback from INSEAD’s business Departments
Overall evaluation from all departments
Overall Evaluation from all Departments
Marketing and sales
7
6
5
4
Development
3
Admissions
2
1
Alumni management
Operations
PeopleSoft
Banner
28
3. Results of the functional study
Feedback from INSEAD’s business Departments
Overall comments from all departments
Main comments common to INSEAD’s departments
•
On PeopleSoft solution
–
–
–
–
–
•
A better-quality functional coverage (iso-scope)
A good flexibility to adapt to business needs and exceptions
CRM capability
A standard approach to manage multi-campus and multi-currency constraints
A user-friendly interface
On Banner solution
–
–
–
–
A disappointment in the software’s evolution between v3 and v6
No CRM capability
Insufficient management of multi-currencies
A non-user friendly interface (v7 could not be demonstrated by SCT)
29
3. Results of the functional study
Functional analysis
Customer Relationship Management
•
The PeopleSoft solution offers a flexible and user-friendly CRM capability,
while SunGard-SCT offers no specific solution for this INSEAD need.
•
Main enhancements of the PeopleSoft CRM modules
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Comprehensive View of the Constituent (360° view)
Support for Marketing and e-Marketing campaigns and multi-channel communications
Better customer segmentation
Contract Management (from proposal to signature)
More Automation of Processes
Improved Prospect Management
Analytic reporting capability
•
CRM would be applicable not only to Marketing and to Sales, but also to Development
and External Relations
•
CRM online Marketing toolkit may also be used for Admissions, Financial Aid and
Operations needs (specific self services, surveys, etc.)
30
3. Results of the functional study
Functional analysis
Additional Marketing / Recruitment considerations
BANNER
PEOPLESOFT
Management of
individuals
(+/-)
Unflexibility + number of screens and
steps (v6)
(+)
Management of
companies
(-) Solution too individual customeroriented, even with Advancement
(+)
Also CRM and Contributor Relations
Data integrity
(+) Also ‘Translation Manager’ and
‘QAS’
(+) Also ‘First Logic’
Brochures requests
management
(+/-) (IT-oriented tracking)
(+) with CRM
Events management
(+/-) management through survey
forms (once ID known)
(+) Also Pocket Recruiter
(+) CRM toolkit allowing
personalised SS
(+)
(+)
Mass-communications
31
3. Results of the functional study
Functional analysis
Admissions
BANNER
PEOPLESOFT
(-) no ability to attach documents
(+/-) Flexibility of CRM toolkit
(integration with student
Admissions OK)
Checklist requirements
(+)
(+)
Interviews management
(+/-) still not possible to attach
interviewers to candidates
(+)
(+/-) staged admissions processes
(+/-) staged admissions processes
Acceptance / waitlists
(+)
(+)
Deferral management (preprogramme)
(+)
(+)
Workflow
(+)
(+)
Online application
Evaluation process
32
3. Results of the functional study
Functional analysis
Financial Aid and Student Financials
BANNER
PEOPLESOFT
Fin Aid - Online application
(-) no automated transfer into
Banner (re-upload) +
consultation limits
(+/-) CRM's Online Marketing
toolset (but integration to build)
Fin Aid - Evaluation process
(+/-)
(+/-)
Fin Aid - Payments of awards
(+/-) Link with interviewer
(+)
Fees management / account
receivables
(-) no currency management
(+) currency management
33
3. Results of the functional study
Functional fit/gap analysis
Operations
BANNER
PEOPLESOFT
Courses and classes
(+)
(+)
Pre-requisites (languages, …)
(+)
(+)
(+/-) report only
(+/-) report only
Exemptions
(+/-) limited
(+)
Registration
(-) no mass-registration
(+/-)
(+/-) conflict management
(+/-) conflict management
(-) integration needed
(-) integration needed
(+) through cohort
(+)
(-) third-party tool needed
(+/-) third-party tool needed
(-) no z-scoring
(-) no z-scoring
Evaluation questionnaires
(+)
(+)
Graduation process
(+)
(+)
(+/-)
(+/-)
Sectioning & grouping
Add and drop
Campus Xchange / Bidding process
Deferral
Scheduling
Grading
Teaching loads
34
3. Results of the functional study
Feedback from INSEAD’s business Departments
Evaluation from MBA department
Evaluation by MBA Departm ent
Market ing and sales
7
6
5
4
Development
3
Admissions
2
1
Alumni management
Operat ions
PeopleSoft
Banner
35
3. Results of the functional study
Feedback from INSEAD’s business Departments
Evaluation from EMBA department
Evaluation by EMBA Department
Marketing and sales
7
6
5
4
Development
Alumni management
3
2
1
Admissions
Operations
PeopleSoft
Banner
36
3. Results of the functional study
Feedback from INSEAD’s business Departments
Evaluation from EDP department
Evaluation by EDP Department
Marketing and sales
7
6
5
4
Development
3
Admissions
2
1
Alumni management
Operations
PeopleSoft
Banner
37
3. Results of the functional study
Feedback from INSEAD’s business Departments
Evaluation from PhD department
Evaluation by PhD Department
Marketing and sales
7
6
5
4
Development
3
Admissions
2
1
Alumni management
Operations
PeopleSoft
Banner
38
3. Results of the functional study
Feedback from INSEAD’s business Departments
Evaluation from Development and External
Relations Departments
Developm ent & External Relations Departm ents
Marketing and sales
7
6
5
4
Development
3
Admissions
2
1
Alumni management
Operations
PeopleSoft
Banner
39
4. Results of the functional study
Applications’ functional coverage
The following schemes show which applications would be replaced by
Banner or PeopleSoft:
40
4. Results of the functional study
Analysis of impacts on existing applications
• We can classify impacts of the new Core Business Application on
existing applications as follows:
– No impacts: some applications will be simply replaced by the new system
without any supplementary impacts.
– Data migration: For some replaced applications, we have to migrate data
from legacy databases to the new system. This can generate an important
charge considering the complexity of the current data model at INSEAD.
– Interface automation: manual interfaces have to be automated in order to
communicate with the new system.
– Interface adaptation: For some applications, interfaces would have to be
adapted to the new system.
– Review technology: In case of compatibility problems, the technology of
the application may be reviewed.
41
4. Results of the functional study
Analysis of impacts on existing applications
Replaced by
No
impacts
Data
migration
Automate
interface
Adapt
interface
Application Name
Banner
PeopleSoft
Banner V3
Yes
Yes

ICARE
Yes
Yes

Room booking
Yes
Yes

PHD Database
Yes
Yes

Web to Banner
Yes
Yes
MBA Brochure requests
Yes
Yes
Web Questionnaires
Yes
Yes
E-Services
Yes
Yes
E-Services validation
Yes
Yes
CSP Lead Tracking
No
Yes
MBA online application
No
Yes

Business Objects (BO)
No
No

TPHi Scheduler
No
No
Review
technology









42
4. Results of the functional study
Analysis of impacts on existing applications
Replaced by
Adapt
interface
Review
technology
No


No
No

MBA Events Management
No
No

Scholarship management
No
No

Campus Exchange
No
No


CMS Online
No
No


Alumni validation
No
No
CMS Future
No
No
Oracle Financials
No
No
AMPHI
No
No
SharePoint (Minerva/Interact)
No
No

E-Learning courses
No
No

MBA Intranet
No
No

Net Vestibule
No
No
MBA Exchange
No
No
Application Name
Banner
PeopleSoft
EDPSYS
No
MBA Bidding system
No impacts
Data
migration
Automate
interface









43
4. Results of the functional study
Banner ‘to-be’ scheme
44
4. Results of the functional study
PeopleSoft ‘to-be’ scheme
45
4. Results of the functional study
Summary
• The functional coverage is not a main distinct factor between Banner
and PeopleSoft, as they often have the same limits (e.g. scheduling,
sectioning and grouping, etc.)
• The quality of the functional coverage is not the same though
• PeopleSoft’s flexibility as well as usability are key differenciators for
business experts
46
Agenda
1. Progress report
2. Presentation of the solutions
3. Results of the technical study
4. Results of the functional study
5. Conclusions and recommendations
47
5. Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions
• The technical study is completed
• So is the functional study - with exception of CMS workshop on 22/11
• The implementation costs and efforts are key elements for the decision
making on next steps
• The scope and the phasing of the implementation effort is essential
48
5. Conclusions and recommendations
Reminder: decision criteria identified
Functional Criteria
• Ability to adapt to INSEAD’s business strategy
• Ability to manage business processes at institution/programme/campus levels
• Ability to manage business exceptions
• Baseline delivery of online services
• Usability and user-friendliness
• Tracking capability
• Workflow management
• Data integrity
• Data confidentiality management
Technical Criteria
• Compatibility with INSEAD’s technical direction
• Equal support to multiple campuses
• Technical flexibility to support modifications
• Upgradeability
• Ability to interface to other key applications
Cost Criteria
• Cost of implementation
• Cost of maintenance
• Timeframe of implementation
Vendor Criteria
• Reputation
• Multi site support
Implementation Risks Criteria
• Early player
• IT risks (learning curve)
49
5. Conclusions and recommendations
Recommendations
Our recommendations are the following:
• Choose PeopleSoft as your new institutional Core Business Application
• Implement PeopleSoft on the following scope:
– Functional scope: marketing & sales, recruitment & admissions, financial aid,
operations, participant financials, alumni management, and fund raising
– Organisational scope: MBA, EMBA, EDP, PhD, Faculty Affairs, Development,
and External Relations
• Parallelise specific technical projects (portal, LDAP, …) with the Core
Business Applications project
50
5. Conclusions and recommendations
A possible roadmap (draft)
01/05
01/06
07/05
Recruitment/Admissions (1/2)
06/06
12/06
07/07
Admissions (2/2)
CS
Financial Aid
Student Financials
SF
Operations
CRM
Contributor Relations
CRM (part I )
CRM (part II)
HR
CMS
E-Learning
HR
51
Questions and Answers
• Next steps
• Agenda for the next Steering Committee (3rd of December)
52
53