University System of Maryland

1. University Systemof Maryland Collaborative Upgrade Strategies Presentation November 11, 2005

2. University Systemof Maryland Introductions Steven Kish  Elizabeth Malmborg  Patrick Murray  Ken Kish

3. University Systemof Maryland Presentation Premise Economies of scale and efficiencies can be realized by having several similar institutions coordinate activities during an upgrade.

4. University Systemof Maryland Agenda • Introduction – Io Consulting • Case Study – California State University Project • Project Organization • Baseline Concept • Development Guidelines • Upgrade Methodology • Upgrade Teams / Pilots • Realized Benefits • Alternate Upgrade Approaches • Applicability at USM

5. University Systemof Maryland Io Consulting – fun facts • Incorporated in 1996 • 100% Focused on Higher Education • Major Practices • Human Resources • Finance • Student Administration (including Portal & CR) • Training • Oracle partner • Experience dates to HR 3.0, Finance 2.0, SA 7.0

6. University Systemof Maryland Io Consulting – Clients • Bryn Mawr University • Emory University • Pepperdine University • Stanford University • California State University System > 20 campuses

7. University Systemof Maryland Io Consulting – Recent Experience • PeopleSoft 8.9 Testing • Bryn Mawr HCM 8.9 upgrade • CSU HCM 8.9 upgrades • CSU FIS 8.9 upgrades • CSU HR, SA 8.9 implementations • Pepperdine HR, FIS 8.9 implementation

8. CSU CMS Project History • 23 Campus implementations of HR, SA, FIS by 2008 • 1999 – Project start • 2000 – 11 campuses live HR 7.6, FIS 7.5 • 2001 – HRSA upgrade to 8.0 • 2002 – First SA go lives (3), 11 upgrade to 8.0 • 2003 – FIS 8.4 upgrade starts • 2004 – 20 campuses live FIS 8.4 • 2005 – HCM, FIS 8.9 upgrades

9. CSU CMS Project Current Status • 22 campuses live – HR 8.0 • 21 campuses live – FIS 8.4 • 10 campuses live – SA 8.0 • Between 2006 – 2008 • 22 HCM upgrades to 8.9 • 21 FIS upgrades to 8.9 • 2 HR implementations 8.9 • 3 FIS implementations 8.9 • 13 SA implementations 8.9

10. CSU CMS Project Organization • Collaborative / Common Project • CMS Central (CO) – software development • Outsourced Datacenter • Campus representatives – User Groups • HR • Finance • Student Administration • Campus representatives – Project Directors • Campus / CO representatives – Executive Committee

11. CSU CMS Project Organization • Joint design/development activities • Baseline concept • Provisions for campus modifications • Common, outsourced data center

12. CSU CMS Project Baseline System • PS Vanilla plus • Common Configuration • Common Modifications • PS Updates & Fixes • State/CO Reporting • Campus Modifications • Reporting • Interfaces • Self Service • Security

13. CSU CMS Project Baseline Campus Baseline PeopleSoft

14. CSU CMS Project Development Guidelines • Established at the start of the project to streamline upgrades • Bolt-on modifications • Naming conventions • Allows for common code line and campus modifications • Critical decision to allow for joint design & projects

15. CSU CMS Project Upgrade Methodology • Perform joint fit/gap sessions to compare baseline to the new release. • CMS Central performs a baseline upgrade • CMS Central develops baseline modifications • Allows for a common set of code that can be applied to each campus quickly and efficiently • Utilize pilot campuses to test data conversion • A single team in CMS Central performs all the upgrades – new concept with 8.9

16. CSU CMS Project Upgrade Methodology Deliverables • Baseline set of code. • Upgrade instructions / technical upgrades • Modifications to conversion scripts if necessary • Configuration documentation • Business process documentation • Template test scripts • Technical delta roadmap

17. PS Upgrade Methodology Campus 8.9 8.0 Data Prepare Database Release Scripts Compare Analysis Tools Copy Data Conversion Cleanup Security Setup Conversion Tools 8.4605 Demo 8.9 Data Tools

18. CSU Upgrade Methodology Campus 8.9 8.0 Data Prepare Database Release Scripts Tools Copy Data Conversion Cleanup Security Setup Conversion Tools 8.4605 CMS 8.9 Data Tools

19. CSU Upgrade Methodology • Upgrade Team • Pilot Campuses

20. CSU Upgrade Methodology Benefits • Eliminate tasks that are largely redundant in the process • Builds focused, internal upgrade expertise • Baseline allows campuses to collaborate and assist each other • Creates an environment where best practices are discussed • Reduced overall cost / effort • Provides benefits to campuses of differing ability

21. Alternate Upgrade Approaches Single Campus Upgrade - Pros • Flexibility • Reduced technical logistics • Reduced design logistics • Data Conversion issues vary from campus to campus

22. Alternate Upgrade Approaches Single Campus Upgrade - Cons • Upgrades are periodic in nature • Consulting requirements increase • Troubleshooting skills • No coordinated, joint planning • Increased collective workload

23. Alternate Upgrade Approaches Lab Upgrade - Pros • Eliminates/Reduces learning curve • Reduces internal resource requirements – technical upgrade

24. Alternate Upgrade Approaches Lab Upgrade - Cons • No internal expertise is built • Logistical issues • Team continuity • Connection between application teams & upgrade team

25. Applicability Beyondthe CSU Key issues • Ability to cooperate • Coding guidelines • Collaborative design • Similarity of institutions • Technical architecture logistics • Participation volume • Priority of flexibility vs. cost & efficiency

26. Thank You Steve Kish (805) 551-2300 Steve.Kish@io-consulting.com www.io-consulting.com