UT System
ERP Planning Project
Financial Area Representatives
April 22, 2009
UTSA’s ERP Environment
UTSA uses UT Austin’s DEFINE system for HR &
Financial applications






IBM Mainframe-based
Flat file – not a relational data base
Partially web enabled
Highly customized
Highly automated campus workflow
Not a comprehensive HR system
DEFINE is inexpensive – less than $400,000 per
year for access & maintenance
 Does not include UTSA IT or DEFINE administrative staff
1
UTSA’s ERP Environment
DEFINE functionality is controlled by UT Austin
 Major overhaul to HRMS system in progress
 No shared governance or service level agreement
 Some system enhancements / changes are not
always shared
2
UTSA’s ERP Environment
Banner Student is our system of record for all
revenue, scholarship and financial aid awards and
other important student information.
 No integration with the DEFINE financial system
 Custom interface between Banner & DEFINE required to
create financial system records
 Currently, reconciliation is manual
3
TEXSIS Project
TEXSIS Project is a pilot for a shared service
implementation of the
Campus Solutions
(Student Administration application) by
 UT Dallas
 UT Tyler
 UT Arlington
Funded by Board of Regents in 2006 using
Permanent University Funds (PUF)
Staggered implementation – “go live” during 2009
4
TEXSIS Project Goals & Objectives
Improve and streamline business processes
Implement IT system using higher education best
practices
Shared governance project model for
implementation & ongoing maintenance
Minimize software modifications
Share best & common practices amongst
institutions
Pursue value added new initiatives
5
UT System ERP Planning Project
 Following success of the TEXSIS project, UT System
contracted for a cost analysis and feasibility for a
similar project for Finance & HR.
UT Dallas is using a very old software package
(SCT+) for Finance and Human Resources (Payroll)
that will no longer be supported by the vendor.
 UT Dallas must do something now to protect its
administrative computing viability
6
UT System ERP Planning Project
UTSA participated in a survey regarding campus
requirements and readiness to implement an
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system
 Collaborative effort with OIT, HR & Financial
Affairs
Alvarez & Marsal (consultant team) analyzed &
issued a report in December 2008
7
Survey Findings
Most campuses (other than Dallas) are not ready
for a major system implementation project
 Dallas has no choice
 Other campuses may want to migrate from DEFINE
but are not prepared
 No funding for a major project
 Inadequate staffing to take on additional workload
 Insufficient IT staff for ongoing maintenance and
support
8
Survey Findings
Consultant recommended PeopleSoft to meet the
campus’s major functionality requirements
 Not many choices – SCT Banner, Oracle, Datatel, SAP
 TEXSIS is using PeopleSoft, so they will have an
integrated software suite & experience with
PeopleTools, as well as the physical environment (data
center at UT Arlington)
Shared implementation costs result in overall savings
 Will require a great deal of cooperation between
participating campuses
9
Estimated Project Costs
 PUF funds are currently not available to support
project implementation
UT System will cover software maintenance & 2
staff for project management
Project implementation costs estimated for
consultants, backfill and travel:
 $9M per campus if 8 campuses participate
 $10M per campus if 5 campuses participate
 $15M+ if campus goes it alone
No estimates for ongoing costs
10
Project Constraints, Issues & Concerns
Implementation must be ‘vanilla’ to reduce project
costs
 DEFINE is highly customized
 We will lose some functionality and gain other
One single software instance
 Adds project risk
 Different from TEXSIS project where each campus has their own
instance of the software (more costly, but more flexible)
 All campuses must apply fixes, patches and upgrades at the
same time & perform system maintenance on the same
schedule
 Business system interruption vulnerability – no redundancy
11
Project Constraints, Issues & Concerns
Implementation is based on a ‘big bang’ approach –
everything at the same time
 This is very difficult
 We would recommend phasing if / when UTSA moves off
of DEFINE
 HR first – including Payroll, interface labor costs to DEFINE
 Finance immediately following
12
UT System Proposal
 As a result of most campuses’ reluctance to
commit, the following was proposed by the UT
System:
 Let UT Dallas plan for an implementation starting Fall 09
 Set up shared governance structure on the basis of a “soft
commitment” of the other campuses to follow with an
implementation when ready, within 3 years
13
UT System Proposal
 Participation in shared governance will cost UTSA
about $50,000/year
 Some risk to this approach –

Software versions will change due to vendor support
schedule


Timing of our implementation must be carefully considered – we
don’t want to ‘go live’, only to have to upgrade shortly thereafter
All decisions about software functionality and system
usage will be determined and set with limited opportunity
to revise

Will require us to stay very involved with UT Dallas implementation
14
UT System Proposal
Some benefits to this approach –





UT Dallas will be ‘proof of concept’
We can be involved without the immediate pain
We can take the time to evaluate other options
We can begin making business process improvements
We can plan for financial, staffing and other requirements to
position us for a major ERP implementation and change
initiative.
 We will have a CIO on board to assist with the transition.
15
Opportunities to Explore
Conduct a comparative study of the costs and
benefits of implementing SCT Banner HR & Finance
 Benefits:
 Leverage what we have / know
 Physical integration of student financial data with financial
application
 We control the environment, release/fix upgrade schedule,
functionality and degree of customization
 Phased in approach at our pace, with our project plan and control
 Possible collaboration with other UT campuses using Banner
Student
 Costs:
 UT System does not support this direction
 We would bear the full cost of hardware, IT support, maintenance,
and software application
16
Opportunities to Explore
 Evaluate the feasibility / desirability of
collaboration with UTHSCSA – they have a
mature, full functionality PeopleSoft system.
 Begin funding/financial planning for a future ERP
implementation

Evaluate business process changes, improvements and
staffing/backfill requirements
 CIO Involvement is critical
17
CMO Recommendation
CMO recommended that we opt to
participate but explore other opportunities
 Will require commitment of UTSA staff time to
validate UT Dallas pilot project decisions
 Project structure for our involvement will be
discussed in the coming weeks with affected areas
and staff
18