UT System ERP Planning Project Financial Area Representatives April 22, 2009

1. UT SystemERP Planning ProjectFinancial Area RepresentativesApril 22, 2009

2. UTSA’s ERPEnvironment • 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

3. UTSA’s ERPEnvironment • 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

4. UTSA’s ERPEnvironment • 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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