State of Kansas Statewide Financial Management System Project Update Agency STARS Rapport Association August 2, 2007

1. State of Kansas Statewide Financial Management System Project Update Agency STARS Rapport Association August 2, 2007

2. FMS Project Overview Implementation Approach, Timeline, Go-Live • Implementation Approach • Big Bang (all agencies go-live simultaneously) • Timeline for Implementation Project • 21 months (estimated) • Implementation Project Start Date • October 1, 2008 (estimated). Actual date will depending on decisions finalized during pre-implementation activities • Implementation Date (Go-Live) • July 1, 2010 (estimated) Actual date dependent upon decision on mid-year vs. FY-end go-live and duration of pre-implementation phase

3. FMS Project StatusTentative Schedule (May 2007 – August 2008) Project Startup (May-August 2007) • Planning – “high-level” plan filing in process • Build project team – Recruiting efforts begin in August • Establish Governance – Project Director named, Sponsors group meeting, Steering Committee meeting late September • Procure pre-implementation consulting assistance – Finalized after high-level filing complete during next several weeks Preparatory Activities (September 2007 - Fall 2007) • Risk and Organizational Readiness Assessment • Taxpayer Transparency Act requirements review • Agency “shadow” system review/visits • Contracting - (October 2007 – August 2008) – Includes RFP Development, evaluation, award for software/services • Other activities, including Chart of Accounts review, inventory of existing reports, potential review of as-is processes.

4. FMS Project StatusRisk and Organizational Readiness Assessment Purpose: To provide a baseline assessment of the State of Kansas’ risks and readiness to execute the FMS implementation project, along with a roadmap to address any issues/deficiencies identified. General areas to be covered include: Leadership Readiness How aware are major stakeholders of the scope and demands of the effort? What are their areas of concern, and their expectations? Do current leadership expectations match what state organizations typically receive from large scale enterprise application implementations? How realistically do they view the impact of the effort on their organization?

5. FMS Project StatusRisk and Organizational Readiness Assessment Governance Does the current governance structure align with best practices? Are roles/responsibilities clearly defined and understood and is representation correct? What is an appropriate governance structure for an organization that is implementing a financial management application? What is an appropriate governance structure for an organization that is supporting an FMS post go-live? Organizational Readiness Does the state possess an adequate number of knowledgeable (and available) resources from which it can build an implementation team? Are key agencies and departments prepared to undergo an FMS business transformation event? Are there resource gaps in key functional areas that will be critical to the implementation effort?

6. FMS Project StatusRisk and Organizational Readiness Assessment General FMS Project Risks What are the key areas of implementation risk that the State should mitigate, given its environment and the scope of its FMS project? The Assessment will be conducted this fall and consist of: • Interviews with a selection of state stakeholders from various communities, • Analysis of results based on risk framework, best practices, and experience with other projects • Workshops to discuss/refine/present results • Working with the State to develop recommendations and create a roadmap for next steps to address any issues, leverage strengths

7. FMS Project StatusAgency “Shadow System” Review/Visits The FMS Needs Assessment completed last fall recommended that all state agency "shadow" financial systems (excluding Regents) be slated for replacement as part of the FMS implementation project. The purpose of the shadow system review/agency visits includes: • Analysis/discussions with agencies to identify any significant challenges/issues to FMS adoption/shadow system replacement • Gain agreement on roles/responsibilities between the project team and state agencies regarding shadow system replacement, • Inventory contact and organizational information to assist in design and change management effort (eventually will be done statewide) • Present the results of this analysis to the project steering committee for review/discussion • Incorporate this information in the software/services procurement so that the solutions/partners chosen are fully informed and prepared to accommodate these activities during the implementation.

8. FMS Project StatusProcure Software/Services High-level steps to procure software and system integrator services for the implementation phase: • Finalize procurement approach/strategy • Form evaluation committee, prepare/issue RFP, develop evaluation guide, hold pre-bid conference • Prepare demonstration scripts • Receive/evaluate RFP responses, check references, etc. • Conduct vendor demonstrations • Request Best and Final Offer (BAFO) • Negotiate/Finalize Software/Services Agreements • Estimated timeline for RFP process : October 2007- July/August 2008

9. FMS Project StaffingImplementation Project – State Staffing (50)

10. FMS Project StaffingImplementation Project – State Staffing over time

11. FMS Project StaffingImplementation Project – State Staffing • Part-time participation for most key staff to start, through late summer 2008 • Reviewing requirements, assistance on RFP development and vendor evaluation, other preparatory activities • Looking for experience with key functional areas (accounts payable, general ledger, budget, project/grant accounting, asset management, purchasing) • Change Management/Training – Experience with communication planning, developing/conducting training, strong verbal/presentation skills • IT/Software project experience a plus

12. Kansas Taxpayer Transparency ActStatus Update • Two members of the Public Finance Transparency Board (PFTB) have been named (Rep. Kasha Kelley, R – Arkansas City, Alan Cobb – Americans for Prosperity, Kansas chapter). In addition, several are already named by position in statute, such as the State Archivist, the Director of Accounts and Reports, Director of Legislative Research, and the Legislative Post Auditor. • Currently working with the Information Network of Kansas on rough demo of application based on STARS data • This fall, consultants will perform limited review of the requirements of the Act to determine potential impact on the requirements identified in the 2006 Needs Assessment and provide options/recommendations.

13. Ongoing Project Information http://da.ks.gov/ar/fms/