may 2006 engagement: 220857460 municipality of anchorage erp strategy final report

May 2006

Engagement: 220857460

Municipality of AnchorageERP Strategy Final Report

For internal use of Municipality of Anchorage only.Engagement: 220857460© 2006 Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

May 2006

Table of Contents

Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………. 2

Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………… 4

ERP Options Analysis ………………………………………………………………… 18

MOA Current Situation ……………………………………………………………….. 20

Cost Benefits Analyses ……………………………………………………………… 22

Vendor Options Analysis …………………………………………………………….. 35

ERP Options Analysis ………………………………………………………………… 46

ERP Strategy Recommendations …………………………………………………… 53

Reengineering Project Charter ……………………………………………………… 56

Appendices A. Interview Participants …………………………………………………..………………………

60 B. MOA Current Situation Interview Notes …………………………………………..……………

62


May 2006

Gartner’s Methodology


May 2006

Methodology

Gartner was retained by the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) to develop an updated Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) strategy for the Municipality. MOA’s internal analysis was focused solely on PeopleSoft and was not completed. The primary objective of the ERP strategy project was to develop a new cost benefit analysis that included additional vendors, to examine the short and long-term direction for MOA, and to make recommendations for moving MOA towards a more efficient and contemporary environment.

Gartner used the following approach: Conducted interviews with departmental representatives

and summarized the issues identified by interviewees Developed alternative scenarios for ERP system replacement Develop Cost Benefit Models for each alternative scenario Conducted high-level ERP options analysis focusing on

Public Sector vendors Developed Project Charter for Reengineering initiative Developed system replacement strategy recommendations

Current Situation Analysis

Cost Benefits Analysis

ERP Options Analysis

ERP Strategy Recommendations


May 2006

Executive Summary


May 2006

Executive Summary Outline

The Executive Summary will cover the following key issue areas: ERP Best Practices ……………………………………………………………

6 Current Situation Assessment ……………………………………………………………

7 Key Observations and Findings ……………………………………………………………

9 Options Analysis ……………………………………………………………

13 Comparative Net Present Values ……………………………………………………………

15 ERP Strategy Recommendations ……………………………………………………………

16 Planning and Implementation Timetable ………………………………………………………

17


May 2006

Executive SummaryERP Best Practices

IntroductionThe Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) is currently utilizing PeopleSoft v7.5 as its Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software application in support of financial management, budgeting, purchasing, human resource management and payroll. The PeopleSoft system was implemented on 1 January 1999, primarily to address Y2K gaps in the systems in use at the time.

ERP Best PracticesThe industry best practice and preferred approach to implementing ERP software is to avoid modifying the software package and to change the way an organization does business to take advantage of the features of the software.

Another best practice is to plan and budget for software upgrades at various intervals (three to five years) in order to remain current with the evolution of the software and to maintain support from the software vendor.

ERP software was introduced into the business marketplace in the late 1980s and since that time, the software vendors have incorporated many best practices for business processes and user interfaces to the extent that, today, they support much more of an organization’s business functions than they did 10 or 15 years ago.

At the same time, the skills and competencies for supporting and developing ERP applications have become much more readily available than they were in the past.


May 2006

Executive SummaryCurrent Situation Assessment

Gartner’s assessment of the situation has revealed the following key issues with the current business and systems environment:

1. Due to the necessity of resolving Y2K issues, the MOA elected to change their processes to match the delivered software, and modified the software where delivered functionality did not work or was not delivered.

2. Because this approach was taken originally by MOA, and due to the lack of delivered functionality, the PeopleSoft system has been significantly customized and today it contains a considerable amount of specific modifications which can not be supported by PeopleSoft and make it very difficult to upgrade to new releases;

3. The version of PeopleSoft which has been implemented at MOA lacks some key functionality, consequently certain modules and features were never fully implemented. This is true, specifically in the case of budgeting, purchasing and some of the human resources functions.

4. Training and depth of understanding of the PeopleSoft product varies depending on the user community, therefore there is an inconsistent level of capability between various departments. The reporting and analysis capability appears to be stronger in human resources as compared to finance.

5. Web Reporting—Bolt-ons (web front-ends) were developed by MOA and are utilized throughout the enterprise. Not all MOA employees were given access to PeopleSoft due to cost, however, web reporting extended the functionality to additional employees that did not have a user ID.


May 2006

Executive SummaryCurrent Situation Assessment (Cont)

6. MOA did not originally budget for on-going upgrades. PeopleSoft ended the 7.5 maintenance in 2003. This represented a major risk for the MOA. However, MOA took steps to mitigate the risk by contracting with Tomorrow Now for some PeopleSoft upgrades.

7. MOA has an unamortized capital asset and outstanding loan balance (used to procure PeopleSoft several years ago) that will need to be considered for any future discussions regarding a replacement ERP application.

8. PeopleSoft has recently been acquired by Oracle Corporation, who are now undertaking to re-write the application and support the products in the future. While Oracle has committed to supporting PeopleSoft software for at least the next seven years (2013), PeopleSoft clients will have the opportunity to migrate to the new Oracle platform (Fusion) in three-five years from now.


May 2006

Executive SummaryKey Observations and Findings

Some of the key observations and findings identified during the assessment include: Manual processes/Automation—Several participants indicated that business processes

continued to be significantly manual and time consuming. Any future solution would need to be automated and aligned with MOA’s business practices, policies, and procedures.

Integration—There is a lack of integration across some PeopleSoft modules as well as integration with other standalone applications (budget, CAMA, and other billing systems).

Training—The level of training that had taken place and what was available to key users and employees was inconsistent. Several felt that the training was sufficient, while others expressed a need for additional training.

Queries and Reporting—Many respondents felt that the query and reporting capabilities were sufficient while others perceived that there were more queries and reports that could be accessed. However, they did not know how to access these reports or it was cumbersome to run certain queries to develop the desired reports. Employees are seeking a standardized/streamlined reporting tool that is user friendly with intuitive reports and menus, similar to the Web Reporting that is available to employees today.


May 2006

Executive SummaryKey Findings and Observations (Cont)

Archiving—The current version of PeopleSoft does not support archiving and, as a result, the volumes of data and the storage capacity requirements are significantly impacting system performance.

Security and Access Control—The current application lacks the capability to prohibit access to certain fields and data entry points. MOA currently limits access control via Profiles set-up. MOA also has two separate Finance and HR icons which further limits access. The exposure for MOA is at the screen-access level. Once an employee has write-access to a particular screen, that employee has access to everything on the field. This has caused the MOA to take additional measures to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of data.

Audit Trails and Edits—The current system has some audit tracking capability. However, this functionality was not implemented due to severe resource usage and system performance degradation when the audit function is used. While this functionality is turned off, MOA has limited audit capability to determine who entered data, and when they entered it.

Application Functionality—The current version of PeopleSoft and the functionality of available modules meets some of MOA’s business and technical requirements (GL, Payroll, AR, AP, and PC). However, other modules and their functionality do not meet MOA’s business and technical requirements (Procurement, Grants tracking, Budget).


May 2006

Shadow Systems and Front End Bolt-ons—MOA has developed several front-end bolt-ons that improve and/or enhance the current PeopleSoft functionality. There are a considerable number of “shadow” systems in Microsoft Excel and Access. These bolt-ons and shadow systems represent work-arounds that require additional staff time and investment. While the end result is status-quo or enhancing productivity, the means to get to this level diminishes productivity and efficiencies.

Implementation—Certain modules were fully implemented while others were partially or not implemented at all. For any future implementation or upgrade, it will be important to ensure significant alignment of the application’s functionality with MOA’s functional requirements. Further, the implementation plan should ensure proper set-up (budget codes, uniform chart of accounts, divisions) and reengineering of business process to ensure that technology and MOA’s business process are working hand in hand.



May 2006

Licensing and maintenance—MOA licensed PeopleSoft software and capitalized the acquisition cost when acquired. MOA has continued to depreciate this asset since the original acquisition and there remains a residual value of approximately $5m which will be reached in 2007. The MOA discontinued paying annual maintenance fees required to keep the software current and to receive support from the vendor, PeopleSoft. As a result, the Municipality, today, may need to pay a significant amount in defaulted annual maintenance fees to be in a position to upgrade the software to the current version from PeopleSoft. Oracle representatives have indicated if MOA were to “re-license” to a new version, then there would be no need to bring the defaulted maintenance fees up to date.



May 2006

Executive SummaryOptions Analysis

Three options were considered and assessed: 1. Current State/Status Quo

2. Upgrade

3. New ERP

These options were assessed from a cost/benefits perspective using the Gartner Cost Benefits Analysis model. They were also compared to the defined requirements gathered from the interview and consultation process.

It was determined that the current state/status quo option was not viable as it was more costly over the five-year timeframe and it did not provide the necessary support for the business requirements.

Options 2 and 3 were then compared to determine which was most advantageous to the Municipality: to upgrade with the current vendor, Oracle, or to replace the current application with a new ERP product. Three new products were analyzed at a high level: SAP, Hansen, and CGI-AMS.


May 2006

Executive SummaryOptions Analysis (Cont)

One significant advantage to upgrading vs. implementation of a New ERP is how the Municipality would account for the unamortized costs of the existing PeopleSoft asset. Under the upgrade scenario, MOA may roll forward the outstanding debt obligation and could restructure the liability as part of the upgrade acquisition costs. Any remaining book value of the PeopleSoft asset could be used to offset the outstanding debt obligation. By purchasing a new ERP package, MOA could take a one-time write down of the outstanding debt, offset by the remaining book value of the PeopleSoft asset.

Ultimately, it was determined that each of the three products assessed could meet the majority of the MOA’s requirements. However, to determine the degree of fit of the solution at a detailed level will require a more formal and robust process issuing a Request for Proposal.

Nevertheless, the results of the Cost Benefit Analyses (CBA) indicate that the New ERP option would be more costly than the upgrade option.


May 2006

Executive SummaryComparative NPVs (5-year timetable)

A Net Present Value (NPV) analysis is used to determine cash flows or revenue streams over a given period of time. For purposes of this analysis and generally for public sector agencies, the NPV analysis is a net cost analysis and reflects the cost of acquisition, the cost of implementation, and organizational inefficiencies and other costs for a given period of time (five years.)For example, if MOA maintained the status quo, the cost to MOA in terms of inefficiencies and lost productivity would impact MOA approximately $30 million. If MOA upgraded to Oracle, then the cost of acquisition, cost of implementation, gains in productivity, and reductions in inefficiencies would be a net cost of $14.7m to MOA over five years.

ScenarioNPV for 5 years (based on MOA WACC and $ in 000's)

Current State/Status Quo -29,879Upgrade

PeopleSoft (Tier I) -10,512Oracle (Tier I) -14,705Oracle FIN/PS HCM (Tier I) -10,734

New ERPHansen (Tier II) -15,412SAP (Tier I) -14,705CGI-AMS (Tier II) -16,406


May 2006

Executive SummaryERP Strategy Recommendations—Upgrade Scenario

Based on the results of the Cost Benefits Analysis and the analysis of available options, it is recommended that the Municipality of Anchorage upgrade to a PeopleSoft Human Capital Management (HCM) and Oracle Financial Solution. We believe this strategy affords MOA with a viable long term solution and an improved functional fit for its business and operational requirements. Our recommendation is as follows:

1. Proceed with an implementation of PeopleSoft Human Capital Management (HCM) version 8.9 upgrading from the current implementation of PeopleSoft HRMS;

2. Subject to a satisfactory demonstration of the Oracle E-Business Financials Suite (v11i.10), proceed with an implementation of Oracle Financials, including core financials, procurement/contracts and project accounting;

3. This initiative would be a re-licensed upgrade, as opposed to a no-cost upgrade, from the current implementation, because of the financial liability of paying unpaid maintenance fees;

4. Adopt a policy of implementing the software “out of the box” with no modifications to the maximum extent practical.

5. Ensure adequate funding is available for maintenance fees in the annual budgeting process so as to avoid having the same situation recur in the future;

6. Initiate a project to examine and reengineer the business processes and align with the best practices inherent in the PeopleSoft and Oracle software packages;


May 2006

Executive SummaryERP Strategy Recommendations—High-Level Timetable

Gartner’s recommendations and cost-benefit analyses are based on the following high-level timetable. This timetable provides for sufficient depreciation of the existing PeopleSoft asset and allows for a reasonable cost of acquisition and implementation for a new ERP solution for MOA: Initial planning to be conducted in 2006 Oracle E-Business Financials requirements assessment and vendor workshop in 2006 Budget planning and funds allocation in 2006 for 2007 Fiscal Year (FY) Acquisition, procurement and implementation to begin in FY 2007 Full implementation and use within 18–24 months


May 2006



May 2006

Methodology

To develop the ERP Strategy Recommendations, Gartner used the following approach: Conducted interviews with departmental representatives, and

summarized the issues identified by interviewees Developed alternative scenarios for ERP system replacement Developed Cost Benefit Models for each alternative scenario Conducted high-level ERP options analysis focusing on Public

Sector vendors Developed Project Charter for Reengineering initiative Developed system replacement strategy recommendations

Current Situation Analysis

Cost Benefits Analysis




May 2006

MOA Current Situation


May 2006

Current Situation: Key Issues and Requirements

As part of the data gathering, Gartner hosted group interviews with several key departments and stakeholders. Participants were asked to provide their opinions regarding the current functionality of the PeopleSoft application as well as what their desired future functionality requirements would be.

Our summary of our key interview findings are included in the Executive Summary. Detailed, raw interview notes are attached in the Appendix B.

The following are the key departments/stakeholders that participated in the interview process. Finance Human Resources Budgeting Purchasing/Accounts Payable Utilities ITD Strategy Group


May 2006

Cost Benefit Analyses


May 2006

Cost-Benefit Model Scenarios*

Three options were considered and assessed:

Current State/Status Quo

Upgrade** PeopleSoft (Tier I) Oracle (Tier I)

New ERP Hansen (Tier II) SAP (Tier I) CGI-AMS (Tier II)

*The Cost-Benefit models are based on several factors and assumptions i.e. estimated pricing for software, resource requirements for implementation, MOA outstanding debt, etc. We believe that our assumptions are reasonable and based on information made available to our project team. While actual costs and benefits may be higher or lower, we believe that our NPV estimates are relevant within a range of +/- 20 percent.

**The term “Upgrade” is used throughout this analysis to distinguish this option from the New ERP option and to describe remaining with same software vendor (PeopleSoft/Oracle). It is recommended, however that even if MOA remains with the same vendor that the software would be re-implemented as described herein.


May 2006

Underlying Assumptions

Utilized Vendor High-level Pricing PeopleSoft and Oracle scenarios reflect pricing submitted by Oracle to MOA Quantified PeopleSoft IS Team and ISD Resources Debt Carrying Cost of three percent Hardware upgrade costs are already incorporated into MOA’s planning and budgeting and

were not included as implementation costs for the ERP strategy analysis Leveraged data from MOA Resources-PeopleSoft Long-Range Scenario Options Analysis PeopleSoft cost benefit analysis reflects full replacement of current modules


May 2006


Oracle cost benefit analysis reflects pricing for Oracle’s E-Business Bundle Cost benefit analysis for an Oracle E-Business solution reflects Oracle software pricing with

implementation reflecting cost assumptions for a new ERP implementation Upgrade scenarios assume a re-licensed software agreement with Oracle Implementation timeline is lengthier for New ERP implementation, resulting in additional net

costs Implementation timeline for Oracle is similar to a new ERP implementation, resulting in

additional net costs End-user training for PeopleSoft implementation is nominal. For Oracle and New ERP

scenarios, training costs are higher


May 2006


All external interfaces and bolt-on applications would need to be re-done and/or retouched.

New ERP options includes Finance/GL, Budgeting, HR, Payroll, Time and Labor, Project Costing, Position Management, Purchasing, Employee Self Service, Support for Grants

Unamortized costs (outstanding loan payments) were accounted for differently in the Upgrade and New ERP Scenarios: For upgrades, the remaining internal loan balance may be treated as a “re-finance” and the

remaining debt obligation could be carried over and restructured with the financing of the purchase amortized with the new version of Oracle/PeopleSoft.

For the New ERP scenario, the unamortized costs may be treated as a one-time write-down, with the outstanding debt obligation offset by any remaining book value of the existing PeopleSoft asset.


May 2006

Summary Cost Benefit AnalysisStatus Quo

Scenario being considered: Current Status No Change

Value of SW Asset $5,750,000

SW Asset Depreciation Schedule $1,400,000

Outstanding Loan Balance for Peoplesoft-2007 $5,421,931

Potential Peoplesoft Maintenance Payments $0

Annual Peoplesoft debt payment $1,300,000

Debt weighted carrying cost: 3%

Anchorage WACC 12%

Potential Liabilities / Penalties for Inefficiency $1,500,000

Will you hire staff in Year 1 if implementing SW? 2

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5SW Asset Value (US$K) $5,750 $4,350 $2,950 $1,550 $150

ROI Summary (US$K) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Potential Savings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Potential Liabilities -$1,500 -$1,500 -$1,500 -$1,500 -$1,500Potential Costs -$4,015 -$7,689 -$7,699 -$7,708 -$7,717

Total -$5,515 -$9,189 -$9,199 -$9,208 -$9,217NPV for 5 years (based on MoA WACC) -$29,879

Enterprise Resource Planning Software Investment Analysis for the Municipality of Anchorage

No

Current Status No Change


May 2006

Summary Cost Benefit AnalysisUpgrade-PeopleSoft

Scenario being considered: Upgrade PeopleSoft


SW Asset Annual Depreciation Schedule $1,400,000




Anchorage WACC 12%

Potential Liabilities / Penalties for Inefficiency $0



ROI Summary (US$K) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Potential Savings $750 $5,834 $6,262 $6,262 $6,262Potential Liabilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Potential Costs -$6,750 -$8,037 -$8,037 -$8,037 -$8,037



No

Upgrade


May 2006

Summary Cost Benefit AnalysisUpgrade-Oracle eBundle

Scenario being considered: Upgrade E-Business Bundle







Anchorage WACC 12%







No

Upgrade


May 2006

Summary Cost Benefit AnalysisUpgrade-Oracle Financials and PeopleSoft HCM

Scenario being considered: Upgrade PeopleSoft HCM/Oracle FIN


SW Asset Annual Depreciation Schedule $1,400,000




Anchorage WACC 12%







No

Upgrade


May 2006

Summary Cost Benefit AnalysisNew ERP-Hansen

Scenario being considered: New ERP Hansen







Anchorage WACC 12%







No

New ERP


May 2006

Summary Cost Benefit AnalysisNew ERP-CGI-AMS

Scenario being considered: New ERP CGI-AMS







Anchorage WACC 12%







No

New ERP


May 2006

Summary Cost Benefit AnalysisNew ERP-SAP

Scenario being considered: New ERP SAP







Anchorage WACC 12%







No

New ERP


May 2006

Comparative NPVs (five-year timetable)

The cost benefit models for each identified scenario have been provided separately to MOA in specifically labeled Excel worksheets.

ScenarioNPV for 5 years (based on MOA WACC and $ in 000's)

Current State/Status Quo -29,879Upgrade

Peoplesoft (Tier I) -10,512Oracle (Tier I) -14,705Oracle FIN/PS HCM (Tier I) -10,734

New ERPHansen (Tier II) -15,412SAP (Tier I) -14,705CGI-AMS (Tier II) -16,406


May 2006

Vendor Options Analysis


May 2006

High-Level Public Sector Vendor Analysis

Gartner performed a high-level analysis of ERP vendors with significant experience in the public sector arena. Leveraging internal and external research, the following five vendors were selected for analysis:

BiTech (Tier 2)

Hansen (Tier 2)

CGI-AMS (Tier 2)

SAP (Tier 1)

Lawson (Tier 2)

For our analysis, we examined the base functionality for each vendor, and then we surveyed each vendor with respect to the following requirements:

Public Sector Experience

Technology

Data Archiving

Consulting Services

Support Services

Upgrade Frequency

Reporting

Enterprise Warehouse

References


May 2006

High-Level Public Sector Vendor Analysis

Each of the vendors reviewed in this analysis possessed the baseline functionality desired by MOA. Further, CGI-AMS, Hansen, SAP possessed the requisite blend of install expertise and presence in the market space to be considered viable, alternative solutions for MOA.

Lawson and BiTech appeared to meet the baseline functionality, however, we excluded these two vendors from a more detailed review and analysis based on the following: Lawson is primarily geared towards the Healthcare industry and did not appear readily

transferable into the public sector. BiTech did not appear either sufficiently robust nor scalable to meet the needs of an

enterprise the size of MOA.

Should MOA decide to pursue a New ERP alternative, we would advise performing a procurement process coupled with vendor demos and a fit analysis to more accurately evaluate and align MOAs business and technical functional requirements with the vendors assessed in our analysis.


May 2006

Considerations

Has the vendor continued to evolve and innovate the product? Has the vendor evolved the product specifically for your industry? What is the view of the vendor's viability? How new is the new version? Has the vendor provided expected levels of service to date? How healthy is your relationship with the

vendor? How long until the current application version reaches the end of standard support? Is extended maintenance available from the vendor? How long until support ends for your operating system and database version of choice? How prevalent is the new version within the installed base? Are proven third parties offering extended support? How critical is the application to your business? Who is driving the need to migrate to a new version? Are benefits from the upgrade tangible and quantifiable? How capable is your internal IT staff in terms of application support, development and operations? How current have you kept your application relative to what is generally available? How much customization have you done to the application? What portion will move forward to the new

version? What is the complexity of application integration? Does the upgrade project include instance consolidation or significant business process change?


May 2006

Analysis

Consideration Re-license New Vendor AnalysisHas the vendor continued to evolve and innovate the product?

The product is being innovated, however the functionality is being gathered from other platforms that are being consolidated. There is no evidence that Oracle is innovating above and beyond other vendors in the ERP marketplace.

Other vendors are innovating based on their current platform.

MOA should focus on the presence of existing functionality as it does not require custom functionality outside of typical local government needs. Oracle’s changing platform is a negative in this case. IGC Methodology is unique to MOA and may require some customization.

Has the vendor evolved the product specifically for your industry?

Oracle has not evolved specifically in the area of local government. The solution provided is geared more towards the private sector.

A portion of the other vendors have evolved specifically in the area of local government. At least one of the vendors exclusively service the public sector.

Other vendors serve the local/state government sector exclusively.

What is the view of the vendor's viability?

The vendor is very viable from a financial and competitive standpoint. The vendor solution, however, is not stable due to the pending merger of PeopleSoft, JD Edwards and Oracle solutions.

The vendors that have been analysed are viable. The solutions are at least as viable, if not more viable, than the Oracle solution.

Oracle is the most stable of the vendors. However, all PeopleSoft customers will face the eventual migration to Oracle and this will cause a great deal of uncertainty in terms of cost and application structure/functionality.

How new is the new version?

PeopleSoft v8.9 was released in Q4, 2004. Most new versions have been in the marketplace for approx. one to two years.

PeopleSoft v 8.9 is a mature product as are the tier 1 solutions on the marketplace. Neither option presents any undue risk.

Has the vendor provided expected levels of service to date? How healthy is your relationship with the vendor?

The vendor has not provided a good level of service to date. In fact, MOA is not at all satisfied with the level of attention they have received.

MOA does not have a present or past relationship with any of the short listed vendors.

MOA would most likely receive more attention from one of the other vendors. The present relationship is not ideal in that the level of service was never comprehensive and the application is not current at this time.


May 2006

Analysis (Cont)

Consideration Re-license New Vendor AnalysisHow long until the current application version reaches the end of standard support?

Full support, up to seven years (2013), at a minimum.

The average solution requires an upgrade every one to two years. MOA would be supported for three to four years at a minimum without undergoing an upgrade.

This factor will not greatly impact MOA’s decision. A minimum of two years standard support should be available to MOA in either case.

Is extended maintenance available from the vendor?

Yes, at a higher cost. Yes, at a higher cost. This factor will not greatly impact MOA’s decision, unless the cost is significantly higher or lower (using a new vendor).

How long until support ends for your operating system and database version of choice?

Two to three years at a minimum Two to three years at a minimum Equal impact on both options. Low risk.

How prevalent is the new version within the installed base?

The new version is fairly prevalent. More data will be required. MOA would always have the option of installing the second most current version in order to assure itself of minimal bugs and application defects.

The prevalence varies. At least one of the vendors have install bases of over 100. There is a high degree of likelihood that the version will have been deployed by a large number of clients. MOA would always have the option of installing the second most current version in order to assure itself of minimal bugs and application defects.

If PeopleSoft v8.9 is fairly new then MOA would be better off looking at another vendor, or implementing an earlier version of PeopleSoft. One or more of the other vendors had fairly mature versions in the marketplace.


May 2006

Analysis (Cont)

Consideration Re-license New Vendor AnalysisAre proven third parties offering extended support?

Yes. There are many third party support options available

Given the smaller size of these vendors, the third party options are fewer than for Oracle. Lawson would have the highest number of vendors.

MOA would have more access to third parties if Oracle were the chosen vendor.

How critical is the application to MOA’s business?

The application is mission critical. The application is mission critical. This factor will not impact the decision.

Who is driving the need to migrate to a new version?

The stakeholders at MOA The stakeholders at MOA This factor will not impact the decision.

Are benefits from the upgrade tangible and quantifiable?

MOA would be current, and the immediate risk to the organization would be lowered. MOA may be faced with an additional upgrade in the future in order to fully migrate to the Oracle platform. Oracle has not provided a detailed functional definition of the eventual solution, which adds risk to MOA. Given the pricing offered by Oracle for both the PeopleSoft and Oracle upgrade, the benefits are very quantifiable.

The benefits of a new implementation would be a potential reduction in cost, and a stable vendor and solution set. The benefits are very quantifiable.

Both options would provide similar level of benefits to MOA.

How capable is MOA’s internal IT staff in terms of application support, development and operations?

MOA has been supporting its version of PeopleSoft for many years and has a capable support team in place. By upgrading to PeopleSoft 8.9 MOA would leverage its team. When migrating to Oracle in the future, its team would have to be augmented.

MOA does not have technical resources with specific knowledge about the short-listed solutions. MOA would have to rely on third party/full time resources and/or train its present team.

MOA would lower application sustainability risk by upgrading to PeopleSoft v8.9. If it is likely that MOA could hire or train qualified technical personnel for the new solution, this risk would be lowered.


May 2006

Analysis (Cont)

Consideration Re-license New Vendor AnalysisHow current has MOA kept its application relative to what is generally available?

The present version is extremely outdated. MOA has lost support a number of years ago. MOA has increased its application sustainability risk in the short to long term by allowing vendor support to become unavailable.

MOA would be current for at least three years and would lower application sustainability risk by adopting a new solution.

By selecting either of these options MOA will lower its application sustainability risk. This factor will not impact MOA’s decision.

How much customization have you done to the application? What portion will move forward to the new version?

Extensive customizations have been made to the present version of PeopleSoft. This fact will complicate the upgrade process. MOA will increase implementation risk by performing the upgrade due to the high level of custom code. If MOA can perform business process reengineering, or if the new version contains added functionality, MOA may be able to reduce the amount of customizations in the new version and lower short to long term risk.

A new installation would provide MOA the opportunity to select a vendor that provides a solution that is more closely aligned with MOA’s business processes. MOA could also opt to re-engineer its business processes in order to reduce the number of necessary customizations to the new solution

MOA would lower overall application implementation and sustainability risk by analyzing a solution that is geared to the public sector.MOA should also assess how many of the customizations will become redundant in the new version of the PeopleSoft solution.

What is the complexity of application integration?

The complexity of the integration is moderate. There is a high probability that the complexity of the integration would be moderate, assuming that the identical interfaces would exist to other applications.

This factor will not impact MOA’s decision because interfaces will have to be updated/created in either case.

Does the upgrade project include instance consolidation or significant business process change?

Business process change is possible. The upgrade would involve a moderate to high amount of customization assessment and business process analysis. It would, therefore, be closer to an implementation than an upgrade, given the age/version of the existing solution. It is possible for MOA to reduce customization conversion by process reengineering.

Business process change is possible. Instance consolidation would not be likely.

MOA could lower application complexity and project risk by incorporating business process reengineering in both cases. This factor will not greatly impact the decision.


May 2006

Summary Vendor Analysis

Requirements Hansen CGI-AMS SAP

Public Sector Experience 450 install baseinstall base of 192

21 state wide implementationsYes. Details available after

direct discussions with vendor

TechnologyHansen v7.7 and v8.05 both

run on Oracle. Does not run AS400SQL and Oracle are supported

The solution is verified to run on Oracle 10G, and every version

before that. Certified on Windows. Many clients on Sun, Unix, Windows boxes, HP, Dell.

Data Archiving A strong solution was not communicated

Year end archiving is typical and supported in the app Data archiving is supported

Consulting Services Full/Partial Consulting Services offered

Full/Partial Consulting Services offered Full Consulting Services offered

Support Services In-house support offered BPO support is offered. Full in-house support is offered

Upgrade FrequencyIn the next 12 months, three

major releases are planned for Hansen v8

Yearly Upgrades Approximately three years.

Reporting Crystal reports are included Business Objects is delivered solution

Integrated database and reporting tools

Enterprise Warehouse Shared database among solution modules.

Business Objects is delivered warehouse product Business Warehouse.

References Available after direct discussions with vendor

192 state and local licensed clients, Commonwealth of

Virginia, State of Iowa, City of Dallas

Available after direct discussions with vendor


May 2006

List Prices by Vendor

Functional Areas

PeopleSoft Oracle Hansen CGI-AMS SAP

Pricing typeEnterprise Licenses

Enterprise LicensesEnterprise Licenses

Enterprise LicensesEnterprise

license/business process

Finance/GL$896,311 (includes

AR, AP, Asset Mgmt, etc.)

$427, 465

(Finance Bundle)- $1,900,000

Budgeting $93,002 - $462,000

HR $190,709 $37,450 - $1,600,000

Payroll $168,915 $42,800 - Incl in HR

Time and Labour Incl in HR $37,450 - Incl in HR

Position Management

Incl in HR Incl in HR - Incl in HR

Purchasing $17,849 Incl in Finance - $485,000

Employee Self Service

Incl in HR Incl in HR - Incl in HR

Support for Grants Incl Incl in Finance - Incl in Finance/GL

Total $1,366,786 $681,365 $1,200,000 $4,670,000$681,365

Assumed pricing similar to Oracle


May 2006

Maintenance/Support Fees by Vendor

PeopleSoft Oracle Hansen CGI-AMS SAP

Pricing typeEnterprise Licenses

Enterprise Licenses

Enterprise Licenses

Enterprise Licenses

Enterprise License/Business

process

Maintenance Fees

(as a percentage of list prices)As quoted As quoted 20% 14% 17%

Maintenance Fees (in USD) $300,693 $149,900 $240,000 $653,800$149,900

Assumed pricing similar to Oracle


May 2006



May 2006

ERP Options AnalysisUpgrade vs. New ERP

Cost Benefit Analyses

The Cost Benefit Analyses examining each of the alternative scenarios of Upgrade vs. New ERP are compelling. Based on the pricing information provided to date, there is approximately a $4.2m difference between the two upgrade scenarios. This difference is primarily due to the assumption that a PeopleSoft upgrade would require less time and resources (internal resources, consultant time, data conversion, training, etc.) than an Oracle upgrade. For implementation purposes, upgrading to Oracle would require additional time and resources because it should be treated as a new ERP implementation; only the acquisition costs reflect an upgrade scenario.

The difference between the lowest upgrade scenario-PeopleSoft, and our recommendation is approximately $220k. We have assumed full implementation costs for the PeopleSoft HCM/Oracle Financials recommendation.

There is also a significant difference between the lowest upgrade scenario (PeopleSoft) and the lowest viable New ERP option (SAP)—approximately $4.2m over a five-year period.


May 2006


Vendor Analyses

The Vendor Analyses yields some guidance for consideration between the Upgrade and New ERP options. For the most part, the base functionality across all solutions (Upgrade vs. New ERP) are comparatively similar. However, the distinguishing characteristics between Upgrade and New ERP are sufficient for Gartner to recommend the Upgrade alternative for MOA.

Further, the core functionality and the maturity of both the PeopleSoft HRMS modules and the Oracle Financial modules compel a hybrid recommendation of PeopleSoft and Oracle.

The following slides provide additional documentation in support of our recommendation.


May 2006


Pros Data conversion would be easier and would take advantage of the Oracle/PeopleSoft lab at a

relatively low cost Added functionality would most likely satisfy MOA’s business and functional requirements Users are familiar with PeopleSoft user interface and navigation Strong knowledge base of PeopleSoft product enhancing end-user support Potentially lower license fees due to existing relationship Minimize/restructure take down of remaining capitalization costs of PeopleSoft software Support staff in place and familiar with PeopleSoft Strong functionality for the HR/Payroll modules Better budgeting functionality Strong projects/work management functionality Strong asset management functionality


May 2006


Pros Better Purchasing functionality than what MOA has

now in PeopleSoft Improved grants tracking functionality Potentially easier implementation Motivated sales and organization staff to retain

MOA as an account

Cons Current version of PeopleSoft is highly customized

and this would not carry forward Significant frustration from previous PeopleSoft

implementation Upgrade would not take advantage of MOA’s

growing relationship with Hansen


May 2006

ERP Options AnalysisUpgrade vs. Upgrade (PeopleSoft vs. Oracle)

PeopleSoft Pros Strong HR/Payroll functionality Leverage existing PeopleSoft knowledge and

resources Public Sector expertise has increased significantly

since previous implementation Commitment by Oracle that they would support

PeopleSoft until 2013

PeopleSoft Cons Track record in Anchorage Change management issues may be difficult to

overcome


May 2006

ERP Options AnalysisUpgrade vs. Upgrade (PeopleSoft vs. Oracle)

Oracle Pros Strong Finance, projects, asset management

functionality Public Sector expertise has grown; however,

commercial clients are primary focus Company has invested in innovation of its product

line

Oracle Cons Implementation risk would be similar to new ERP

implementation New user interface and training requirements


May 2006



May 2006


Based on the results of the Cost Benefits Analysis and the analysis of available options, it is recommended that the Municipality of Anchorage upgrade as follows: Proceed with an implementation of PeopleSoft Human Capital Management (HCM) version

8.9 upgrading from the current implementation of PeopleSoft HRMS Subject to a satisfactory demonstration of Oracle Financials, proceed with an implementation

of Oracle Financials, including core financials, purchasing and project accounting This initiative would be a re-licensed upgrade, as opposed to a no-cost upgrade, from the

current implementation of PeopleSoft HRMS, because of the financial liability of paying unpaid maintenance fees

Adopt a policy of implementing the software “out of the box” with no modifications, unless required by current legislation

Ensure adequate funding is available for maintenance fees in the annual budgeting process so as to avoid having the same situation recur in the future

Initiate a project to examine and reengineer the business processes and align with the best practices inherent in the PeopleSoft software packages


May 2006

Oracle Contract Negotiations Strategy

When negotiating a license agreement with Oracle, it is recommended that the Municipality of Anchorage: To avoid unwarranted increases in license fees, include a generic description of the

functionality purchased, avoiding Oracle/PeopleSoft product names, and if possible a description of the processes that Oracle is suggesting it will automate.

Incorporate a clause stating that if Oracle subsequently renames, rebundles or relicenses any of the functionality or business processes listed, or anything substantially similar, MOA will be entitled to it at no additional fee, as part of its license and maintenance agreement.

Include a clause in the contract which states that MOA can continue to license under the defined licensing metrics (e.g. named user) for as long as they like, irrespective of the software version they are running. This would also include the right to add users or modules as well as maintain the existing portfolio.

Include the right to get a full 100 percent credit for licenses bought, together with the ability to convert based on a net-to-net price conversion, with the same discount being offered on the converted licenses as was offered on the original licenses.

Involve MOA’s legal organization more closely in the terms and conditions of the contract that relate to intellectual property ownership of new process flows by your organization.


May 2006

Reengineering Project Charter


May 2006

Purpose of Project Charter

The Project Charter is a “living document” and is the definitive and up-to-date record of the scope of the engagement. Once the Project Charter has been accepted by both Municipality of Anchorage and Consultant, it supersedes the scope section of the proposal and becomes the definitive definition of the engagement. It will be used as the basis for engagement-related project management, for reference to any engagement-related agreements (on changes, additional work, etc.) made during the course of the engagement, and as the primary reference for resolution of any engagement-related disputes. The Project Charter contains details of the agreed project deliverables and of all engagement-related processes that will be adhered to (by MOA and Consultant) in delivery of the engagement.


May 2006

Sample Draft Design Team Charter

Team Goals

Optimize efficiency and cost effectiveness of XXXX finance functions Maintain/increase customer satisfaction Establish financial accountability and responsibility at operating units

Cost Savings Target TBD by DayMonthYear

Key Activities

Collect and analyze baseline finance function information including current functions, FTEs, G/L, and time studies

Compare XXX finance function to other organizations through best practices, benchmarking, and surveys Evaluate review and approval related finance activities by XXXX departments, etc.to determine necessity of

oversight Develop recommendations to:

Outline decentralized and centralized finance functions that support XXX leadership vision, are cost-effective and are customer-service oriented

Maximize finance efficiencies between operating units and XXX and within MOA departments Simplify tasks and streamline processes Eliminate non-value added activities Realign finance organization structure around defined functions to achieve appropriate span of control, synergy of efforts, and

management levels

Major Focus Areas

Budgeting and Financial Reporting Financial Analysis Cost/Data Accounting and Reporting Program Reimbursement MOA Expense Management

Constraints

Established financial ground rules for system-wide design teams Mayor, Assembly, and CFO requirements Applicable laws and regulations


May 2006

Sample Department Charter

Charge Statement (what we expect to accomplish as a result of our work)

Assess MOA’s organizational structure to achieve the following: Identify and achieve consensus on strategic administrative functions Define MOA’s customers Identify opportunities for increased process efficiency and improved customer service Develop recommendations for a redesigned MOA structure that is aligned with the strategic mission and vision of MOA and

deploys staff and resources for optimal efficiency

Quality and Service Goals (measurable indicators)

Reduction in Assembly transactions as a result of increased delegated authority Streamlined and decentralized decisionmaking evidenced by reduced MOA overhead charges to

facilities/customers Enhanced facility/customer management accountability

Cost Opportunity $3 million with $10 million as a stretch target identified by December 2007

Major Activities (how will we meet our charge)

Administer 360 Leadership Survey to Department executives and second tier facility managers Clarify vision for MOA regarding the areas of strategy, skills/capabilities, shared values, structure, style

(organizational), systems and staff Identify customer needs/expectations Redesign work processes to meet customer needs and to increase efficiency Realign MOA around redesigned processes

Output (what we will deliver)

Consensus generated core administrative functions and responsibilities Realigned organizational structure Approved design and implementation plans for new processes in MOA MOA Customers

Major Areas of Focus

Established Financial and team groundrules for systemwide design teams.

Constraints Other Municipal Departments, i.e.. Finance, HR, CIO, etc.


May 2006

Appendix A


May 2006

MOA Participants-MOA Departments

Jeff Sinz, CFO-MOA

Troy Swanson, CIO-ITD

Michael Jones, Manager-PeopleSoft

Sharon Weddleton, AWWU-Finance

Dave Otto, Director-HR

Karen Moore, Deputy Director-HR

David Richards, Controller-MOA

Glenda Gibson, Assistant Controller

Rick Miller, ML&P-Finance

Terry Daniels, ITD-CTO

Bart Mauldin, Director-Purchasing

Fred Kaltenbach, Deputy Director-Purchasing

Dave Hertrich, AP-Supervisor

Janell Perkins, Administrative Officer-OMB

Regina Alatervo, Budget Analyst

Toni Prockish, Payroll-Supervisor

Barbara Stallone, Labor Director-HR

Becky Rosh, AR-Supervisor

Catherine Gettler, Grant Accounting

Robert Moore, PME-GL-Project Costing

Elizabeth Zib, Financial Analyst-ML&P

Dave Wilks, Accounting Supervisor-AWWU

Linda Culver, Functional Analyst

Linda Larsen, Functional Analyst

Scott Von Gemmingen, Functional Analyst

Dave Olewiler, Technical Analyst

Melanie Wood, Technical Analyst


May 2006

Appendix B


May 2006

MOA Current Situation


May 2006

Overview of Key Stakeholder Issues and Requirements

Finance

Human Resources

Budgeting

Purchasing/Accounts Payable

Utilities

ITD

Strategy Group


May 2006

Finance—Current Situation

“Code mandated” required customization of PeopleSoftLack of integration Revenue and Expenses Cash registers Overpayments are problematic Over the counter payments not generated by AR system result in over-payments Need coordination between field and downtown Extensive workaround (four entries) to process a refund Customer refund module not working

In-house developed Cash front end Interface with AR Concurrent users results in system lock-up and/or significant performance degradation

Accounts payable very manual process No Lockbox Not using Receiving

Many manual adjustments Manual JV’s


May 2006


Cumbersome Chart of Accounts Multiple COA due to different operating units Not well supported by PeopleSoft Subsidiary ledgers not well integrated due to mismatch of chart fields; ledger fixes don’t

necessarily flow up to GL Extensive number of inactive accounts that were imported over from legacy system Lack of good combo edits

Financial Statements and consolidated reports prepared external to the PeopleSoft system Significant reporting through Excel and Envision In Query is not user friendly-need to know specific drill down tables Use of reporting tools not optimized due to lack of end-user training Muniverse front-end developed to ease/simplify reporting

System performance is sub-par Budget checks lock all the tables Wait lags between screens; long process to go from screen to screen Budget table is over 11 million lines long


May 2006


Disparate billing systems with different customer IDs across the enterprise; Grants billing processed through Excel AWWU ML&P CAMA Fire Development Services

Utilities have their own customer billing systems; MOA posts some payments

Customer maintenance-correction mode is problematic. Need to examine process and access control/security.

Project Costing-extensive manual processes for third party billing. Currently one FTE is required to support the process. Limited edits/data checks

Numerous shadow systems, Access and Excel workarounds


May 2006

Finance—Desired Functionality

Standard workflow throughout the enterprise that aligns functionality with business processes

Integrate AP with AR Link cash front end with AR—bolt-on custom written front end for processing cash receipts.

Enhanced interfaces Direct interface to GL from Payroll, and Project Costing from Payroll. Review multiple projects at a time with a summary of all projects. More timely information

from Time and Labor to Projects and GL. Daily to real-time interface between CAMA and GL

Automated processes Payment processes are completely manual Third party billing from the Project Costing Module. Ability to load project costing data into AR.

Consolidated billing system Multiple users working simultaneously Ability to assess late fees


May 2006


Flexible Chart of Accounts able to support multiple entities Consolidate financial reporting directly on-line

Standardized/streamlined reporting User friendly reporting tool Intuitive reports and menus

Budget based controls between the different levels of budget—Department level-appropriation, revenue estimated, etc. Controls at DeptID level and down to the project level. Budget periods Project costing Integration with other applications/modules Budget reconciliation between systems and budget years Query tools and ability to retrieve subsidiary data

Budget preparation system integrated with Finance and HR

Grant management system to track life cycles of grants. Grants billing as part of the process instead of in excel. Grants invoices need to have special data inputs as part of the invoice—grant budget, invoice, grant number, etc.


May 2006


Built-in data/edit checks Error messages when data is not saved or incomplete

Security/access control for specific fields

Timely updates from CAMA system

Timely allocation of Intergovernmental Charges (IGCs) (currently a three-day process)

Asset Management Bar Code reader for inventory purposes


May 2006

HR and Payroll—Current Situation

Payroll side is disconnected from the Time and Labor side. Interface/front-end is only one way. Off-cycle check payment is very laborious.

Lacking a labor distribution interface between HR and GL. Need it at the employee level and not the summary level. Labor distribution model in PeopleSoft summarizes the information Automate GL and payroll; currently labor distribution is very laborious.

Significant amount of manual work involved for labor distribution. Impacts several different people.

PeopleSoft has huge functionality, so many panels that are terribly complex. If you miss any steps, then it’s processed incorrectly. Employee service could be turned on now, but the web front end requires modification so it

makes sense to the employee—to decode all of the codes.

Applicant tracking is currently maintained in a separate Microsoft Access database

MOA rolling out a bolt-on/shadow application system


May 2006

HR and Payroll—Current Situation

Payroll clerks can change pay rates (can override existing pay rates) and can’t audit this currently.

Currently can’t accurately track personnel changes, payroll controls Need audit trail for changes, edits, revisions

No confidence in Risk Management module Return to work Benefits TPA is for drug testing, not worker’s compensation

Current query tool is simple and effective

Online payroll calculation tool is simple and of critical importance. System automatically brings in benefits and calculates the tax obligation


May 2006

HR Payroll—Desired Functionality

On-line open enrollment for benefits On line viewing of employee information for personal use

Employee Self service-access to payroll information and Supervisors and managers to be able to access HR data for their direct reports

Applicant tracking (maintain a separate Access database for tracking applicants). Rolling out an on-line application system (bolt-on/shadow system).

Automated timecard-paper timecards Tool for tracking hours for part-time staff

Automated job appraisal, pre-define job requirements, goals and objectives, allowing manager to easily rate and conduct evaluations

More robust labor tracking, grievance tracking-discipline. More robust FMLA, COBRA, COBRA administration, “Leave” tracking in general. Tool for tracking hours for part time people.

Better workflow system. Currently haven’t even looked at it from the HR/Payroll side


May 2006


Professional development module 360’s-forwardlooking performance appraisal/management tools Career management, skills assessment Tool for tracking professional certifications that could impact pay grades and collective

bargaining agreements

Contemporary OSHA product Direct data entry Summary reporting

Audit functionality and controls Tracking personnel changes Payroll Controls

Automated garnishment system Child Support Student loans IRS


May 2006


Alignment of Payroll with Benefits-payroll increases can be prorated, benefits pro-rating must be done manually

MOA needs improved/good application documentation

Standardized organization chart tool

Time and Labor integrated with payroll


May 2006

Budgeting—Current Situation

PeopleSoft budgeting (v7.5) never worked for MOA; inoperability acknowledged by PeopleSoft—consequently MOA was required to continue use of the legacy system

Budget preparation using legacy budget system then upload budget into PeopleSoft; develop a crosswalk

(translation table) to align both applications Primarily paper based Time consuming (3 days; 2-5 FTEs) Budget is loaded from the finance side, GL Salaries are not loaded into the HR side Shadow file is produced to validate paper budget with loaded PeopleSoft budget Shadow excel manipulation and manual work-arounds to build the budget Preparation of budget book for Assembly is sufficient AWWU and ML&P load their budgets themselves Budget coding system is legacy; finance is the caretaker for account codes


May 2006

Budgeting—Current Situation

Budget tracking In-house developed web based reporting tool Provides good view into data for tracking Not integrated with PeopleSoft

Budget queries and reporting Queries are challenging to initiate and write Difficult to model various scenarios for mayor and key MOA executives Need additional training and understanding of available queries Little to no confidence in queries; staff rely on legacy Budget Prep system for queries and

reporting

Prior-year budgets are kept open for several years.

Need process to close budget cycles. Utilities and enterprise funds close budget cycle at fiscal year end and roll over commitments into the next fiscal year.

Processing of allocations and development of Intergovernmental costs is cumbersome and time consuming.


May 2006

Budgeting—Desired Functionality

Integrated budget system with Finance and HR applications (MOA could move from maintenance mode to a management, oversight mode.) Position based budgeting, by bargaining units (11 total; 9 union, 2 non-union) More flexibility Improved budgeting and forecasting tools

Biennial budgeting

Simple, efficient internal chargebacks and calculation table

Scenario building, budget modeling; What if? Analyses

Security and access control Limit ability to make budget modifications

Effective tool/functionality to manage departmental reorganizations (MOA understands that this functionality is not in a budgeting module, but in an HR module-realigns HR to budget for the new organization and maps back to prior years.)

Archiving capability; availability of historical data

Revenue trend analysis-past actuals against budgeted forecasts

Facilitate budgeting of interdepartmental expenses


May 2006

Purchasing—Current Situation

Purchasing functionality not well supported nor functionally useful

Manual processes and significant number of workarounds

Order placed by user, product is delivered, invoices generated by vendor. Majority of the invoices are centrally routed to PO Box. Invoices are sorted by department, manual process to review, research invoices to ensure routed to correct department.

Department receives invoice, and reviewed by appropriate approver. GL payment code entered either by clerk or approver.

AP is decentralized out to the departments

3-4 different means to purchase/procure goods

Budget check is done reactively, not up front, on external sources

Pre-encumbrances (budget/accounting checks and edits) are time consuming

Voucher approvals are conducted manually

MOA business processes provide for early payment of invoices. PeopleSoft functionality for payment of invoice on payment due date is not utilized


May 2006

Purchasing—Current Situation

Functionality exists for EFT, but all payments are performed via MOA check

Manual checks are prevalent in the process

Vendor/customer database are neither integrated nor contemporary

Employees are loaded as vendors; employees are reimbursed for travel through AP

MOA does not have the capability to transfer funds to IRS

RFP process and procurement process are all manual

Vendor/Bidder pool is extensive (35k discrete vendors)

PeopleSoft is a commodity based system; services drives a different type of AP function;

Progress payments, partial payments are not handled effectively

Baseline payment support and functionality is OK, however huge void between requisition and payment Processing of change-orders consists of several work-arounds from existing system

functionality


May 2006

Purchasing—Desired Functionality

Single vendor database. AP can add new vendors and so can Purchasing. Some folks have access to the database in the field, but do not update the database.

Ability to manage year-to-year transactions

Ability to track authorized contract dollar amounts

Contract management-differentiate between commodities and services; RFP generation and management

Online bidding; automated RFP and procurement processes; charge vendors to use the system

Blended procurement system with a functional web system

Audit checks to prevent billing a closed PO

Web interfaces to allow for vendor self service, updates, profile maintenance

1099 desired functionality; generate a 1099 INT form

Generate 1042-S payments to foreign vendors

Use of product codes to identify vendor capabilities

System must incorporate functionality for services and construction


May 2006

Purchasing—Desired Functionality

Electronic mailing would be useful

Automated workflow for requisitions

Report writing and query capability


May 2006

Utilities—Current Situation

Utilities have similar business processes; basic processing needs are all the same

Regulated utilities require some flexibility for chart rules

Utilities are project oriented and need more emphasis on asset management Depreciating accounts are a major expense

AWWU manages three systems that cover their asset management needs

AWWU desires a Capital Improvement Program integrated with asset management

ML&P is looking to replace its homegrown (legacy) asset management system

Archiving-transaction tables are huge


May 2006


Procurement processes are manual with significant workarounds

Reporting-AWWU uses a web based reporting-system with a browser front end for end-user access to financial data Envision is an expensive and cumbersome reporting tool. Takes over 8 hours to run monthly

reports AWWU finance gets a minimum level of reports. Could use more reporting but reluctant to

ask for more due to impact on other outside responsibilities Queries are not easily developed Transactional data available, but tool is not efficient ML&P lacking a solid budget variance report and some ad hoc end user queries

ML&P is the only agency that utilizes the inventory module. Would like to have integration with Purchasing.


May 2006


Project management tools are lacking-AWWU separately developed custom designed system to track requisitions and other critical project management tools. (There are better stand-alone tools for project management and this functionality doesn’t necessarily have to be included in the ERP solution.)


May 2006

Utilities—Desired Functionality

Ability to interface with third party asset management packages

Archiving capability

Project management tools to track budget expended to date, and other PM tools

Query and Reporting

Workflow-comprehensive workflow within the modules Requisition to Pay Automated/electronic billing

Imaging

Cash-receiving/cash front-end

Travel and expense tracking

Standard management tools, i.e. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), activity based costing, administrative overhead calculations

Utilities do have different functional requirements than the rest of MOA-appropriate solution for general government may not meet the needs of the utilities.


May 2006

ITD—Current Situation

Moving to Z box

Operating to expectations

Lack of archiving capability is impacting performance as some processes are slowing down

Purge or retain data? HR still dependent on legacy data Active data for years 1-3, but need access to years 4-7

Continuous changes to system and its interfaces (add-ons and bolt-ons)

Data is accessed through web reporting; no impacts to the production data base

Number of printed reports is declining as access to additional real-time data and reports is increasing

Utilizing multiple copies of the database; not impacting system performance but requires significant amount of disk space Database refresh takes one month to six weeks Current database is DB2


May 2006

ITD—Current Situation

No centralized mechanism to drive reports and to query the system. End users are investing their own time to develop the queries and analyzing the data Need to develop an index or catalog of available queries and what the queries do

Multiple layer security for access to PeopleSoft

Workflow is implemented for GL and on a limited basis in Purchasing. Would like to implement workflow in AP

Geographic dispersion of MOA facilities increases complexity. Fat client requires higher bandwidth requirements

Daily refresh of the datamart but there are growing concerns whether this is sustainable due to continuing archiving issues


May 2006

ITD—Desired Functionality/Technical Requirements

Distributed system/shared services between departments and business units

Proven in the government environment

Need budget environment

Need Intergovernmental charges/chargeback (IGCs) system

Web interface instead of the client

Secure database

Ad hoc reporting

Imaging


May 2006

Strategy—Issues and Concerns

Cost is a big issue-unamortized capital cost and resulting write-down impacts the decision-making process

Participation of enterprise departments impacts economies of scale and downstream decision-making

Is MOA ready to be a better customer? Can MOA sustain the upgrades, maintenance, and ongoing changes?

How does MOA work through the PeopleSoft/Oracle issue? Improving the brand and image of PeopleSoft before the Assembly and the workforce

Balance short term pain for longer term stability

Should MOA be more basic? Tier 2? Vanilla product?

Need to do the Business Process Re-engineering (BPR)

What is the right fit for MOA? What system functionality is required and what is the appropriate level of municipal commitment?


May 2006

Strategy—Technical Requirements/Desired Functionality

Robust financial and HR package

Budget module

Improved purchasing module

Contact Information

Client Contact Information

Michael JonesMunicipality of AnchorageTelephone: +1-907-343-7176E mail: [email protected]

Gartner Contact Information

Phil FergusonGartner ConsultingTelephone: +1-619-542-4823E mail: [email protected]

may 2006 engagement: 220857460 municipality of anchorage erp strategy final report

Documents