10323 replace oracle hyperion enterprise bidw … replace oracle hyperion enterprise bidw accounting...

10323

Replace Oracle Hyperion Enterprise

BIDW

Accounting Services

Project Charter

Status: Final

Prepared by: Allison Grindon & Mary Douglas

Project Sponsor(s): Mike Dunlap

Date Created: 5/3/16

Date Last Modified: 10/11/2017

Revision History Record both pre-approval and post-approval changes within this section. Highlight changes presented to sponsors and/or steering committees rather than detail every minor change.

Name Date Change and Reason For Changes Version

Allison Grindon & Mary Douglas

5/3/16 Initial Draft 1.0

Mary Douglas 5/13/16 Revisions 2.0

Mary Douglas 5/16/16 Revisions 2.1

Mary Douglas 5/27/16 Revisions- Risk Kickoff 2.2

Mary Douglas, Allison Grindon & Kristen Singer

6/7/16 Revisions 3.0

Kristen Singer 6/9/16 Minor word edits, additional verbiage to section 2.1 3.1

Mary Douglas, Allison Grindon & Kristen

6/13/16 Updating roles and responsibilities 3.2

Information Services & Technology Washington University in St. Louis Project Charter – 10323

Template Date 9/27/2011 Washington University in St. Louis of 12

Internal Use Only

Singer

Mary Douglas, Allison Grindon & Kristen Singer

6/28/16 Minor edits, additional verbiage to section 2.3, 5.4 & 6. 3.3

Kristen Singer 7/5/16 Minor edits to sections 2.3 and 4.2.1 3.4

Allison Grindon 7/12/16 Final minor edits, ready for approval 4.0

Contents Revision History ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Approvals ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

2.1. Strategic Business Needs ................................................................................................................................ 3

2.2. Project Purpose/Project Goals ........................................................................................................................ 3

2.3. Scope Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 4

2.4. Out of Scope Summary ................................................................................................................................... 5

3. Milestones / Overall Project Approach .................................................................................................................. 5

4. Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................................................ 6

4.1. Impacted Systems, Processes, Services .......................................................................................................... 6

4.2. Assumptions, Constraints, and Dependencies ................................................................................................ 6

4.2.1. Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................. 6

4.2.3. Dependencies ........................................................................................................................................... 6

5. Project Structure .................................................................................................................................................... 7

5.1. Project Team Roles ......................................................................................................................................... 7

5.2. Team Members ............................................................................................................................................... 9

5.3. Project Organizational Chart ......................................................................................................................... 10

5.4. Communication Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 10

5.5. Training Plan ................................................................................................................................................. 11

6. Risks ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11



Internal Use Only

1. Approvals Role & Approval Detail Name of Approver, Approval Date and Approval

Method

Executive Sponsor

Approval is required.

Mike Dunlap Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance & Controller

IT Sponsor

John Gohsman Vice Chancellor & Chief Information Officer

Acting Business Sponsor

Approval is required

Kathleen Schasch, Director of University Accounting and Reporting

2. Summary

2.1. Strategic Business Needs Oracle Hyperion Enterprise (HE) is used to produce the university’s external financial statements and internal common format financial management reports for the CFU and Danforth Campus. The system is used to house an organizational hierarchy which is managed by each of the Danforth Campus schools and Financial Services. Users are able to run and print a variety of standard reports and are also able to use the Excel add-in function to create on demand ad-hoc reports on their own. There is a mechanism by which users can enter roll-forward detail for reserve transactions, and a journal entry function to allow for post ledger close entries which flow through to the external financial statements. This system is approaching its end of life. Oracle is no longer supporting and providing upgrades and patches to the system. In addition, the system runs on Microsoft Windows 7, Office 2010 and Server 2008. Microsoft will discontinue support on these platforms in 2019. Compatibility issues are occurring more frequently as users upgrade their Microsoft platforms to newer versions, (i.e. Office 2013 and Windows 8). In order to address the University’s needs, a full assessment of Hyperion Financial Management (HFM) and TM1 was performed by Accounting Services in conjunction with the WUIT BIDW team. This assessment analyzed the various aspects of these two solutions based on score of initial requirements between the systems, comparison of costs and internal knowledge within WUIT of both solutions. Based on this assessment, TM1 was identified as the preferred solution due to (1) cost, and (2) existing Wash U IT experience with TM1 .

2.2. Project Purpose/Project Goals To address these needs, this project has been established to:

To ensure that we meet our external and internal reporting obligations for Accounting Service’s Hyperion Reporting Application as it is retired. There are two main application functions:

o External Reporting Application GAAP financial statements Support schedules

o Internal Reporting Application Common format report(s) that are shared across Danforth Campus Support organizational hierarchy at the department fund level within the solution



Internal Use Only

Support flow of organizational hierarchy into the DWH as it does today

2.3. Scope Summary External Application Specific Scope

o Ad hoc limited on demand updates from AIS Pull profile and financial data <5 times a year for year-end critical reporting Data updates should be reflected in reports

o Allow for “After Ledger Close” journal entries o Reporting needs

Production of the GAAP financial statements o Data Processing

Freeze things in time, archiving prior years Allow application of changes to prior years as needed

Internal Application Specific Scope o Support User-Interface functions to key in reserve data o Support import from Budget Application

Done multiple times a day (minimum what is currently supported today) during budget cycle

o Reporting needs CORE reports UFC-CORE (University Financial Committee) reports for Financial Planning

Scope applying to both applications o Auditability

Ability to verify process of loading and balancing to prove out the data is consistent with source system input

Ability to review and audit user security and system access to ensure user validity o Support for Hyperion alternate hierarchies for accounts

Accounting Services Admin ability to manipulate (add/delete/move) these established hierarchies

o Support for alternate organizational hierarchies at department fund level The organizational hierarchy must meet the needs of the two main sets of reporting. If

possible, we will combine the two existing organizational hierarchies into one. End users have the ability to modify (move) organizational hierarchy structure Accounting Services Admin ability to add/delete/move organizational hierarchy

structure Organizational hierarchy will flow into the DWH as it does today

o Data Load Requirement Load frequency for data from the DWH will be daily Load frequency for data from Annual Budget will, at a minimum, match the existing

budget datamart update schedule (7 am, 12:30 pm & 3:30 pm daily) Load schedule will incorporate FIS year-end schedule with loads on Saturdays with

Friday’s updates *** Maintenance schedule that is approved of by Accting Services at critical reporting

periods o Hyperion Retrieve Excel functionality

Reporting functionality that allows users to pull specific data from app solution into a dynamic excel sheet for manipulation and formatting

o Replace WebFocus and Access as Data feeds with DWH feeds



Internal Use Only

WebFocus provides data loads consisting of:

Balance data (AIS)

Profile information (AIS) Access Database provides data loads consisting of:

Summarized Transaction data (AIS)

Profile Information (AIS)

Reporting line item mapping (internal to Access database) o Reporting output

Users ability to create reports ad hoc Ability to reproduce standard existing reports

Ability for Accting Services Admin to modify standard reports Ability to have “sets” of reports (Book-like functionality) Reports can match legibly page per page

o Convert 10 years of history (plus Current, Prior & New years) External Application

Freeze things in time, archiving prior years

Minimal needed summarized line item for historical years (not current/prior/new)

Internal Application

Do apply current state to history

Automatically restated if we change the rules o Data Processing

Include a way to report on definitive fiscal years o Multi-tiered environment available to Accounting Services Administrator role

This environment would allow the administrator to test out changes to the application prior to implementation

2.4. Out of Scope Summary

No new functionality regarding feeding external applications/systems

Transactional drill-down reporting

3. Milestones / Overall Project Approach

Overall project Overview Phased Project Approach Delivery of the two applications will be split into two phases of work. Phase 1: External Application Replacement of the External Hyperion Application. Phase 2: Internal Application Replacement of both Internal Hyperion Applications.



Internal Use Only

4. Impact Assessment

4.1. Impacted Systems, Processes, Services Solution will replace the current Hyperion solution

Solution will replace Access database used to transform AIS data for Hyperion Solution

Solution will remove WebFocus from reporting solution

4.2. Assumptions, Constraints, and Dependencies

4.2.1. Assumptions 1) BI owns data warehouse service delivery and environment support:

a) Ensure the data needed is available, accurate, and usable when it’s needed for reporting b) Ensure that the tools to access that data are functional, effective, and perform properly

2) Accounting Services owns data and business rule accuracy; a) Solution will provide some level of control to Accounting Services over hierarchies b) Otherwise BI implements changes at Accounting Services request and direction per the guidelines

established in the Service Level Expectation (SLE) 3) End users produce and support their own specific reports using the University-wide standard, BIDW-

supported, IBM Cognos Analytics software reporting tools 4) Accounting Services Admin(s) will have the ability, and BIDW-support, to create and keep up standard

reports

4.2.3. Dependencies 1) Accounting Services SME available for Business Analysis, Architecture, Training, and Testing.

2) Solution may have need for AIS team interface



Internal Use Only

5. Project Structure

5.1. Project Team Roles Role Purpose Responsibilities

Project Sponsor

Mike Dunlap & John Gohsman

Provides resources and support for the project and is accountable for enabling success

1) Provide funding 2) Approve Project Charter and Plan 3) Signs off on approvals to proceed to next phase 4) Vocal and visible project champion 5) Ultimate decision maker for project

Acting Business Sponsor

Kathleen Schasch

Provides resources, support, business communication and consensus building enabling project success.

1) Provide project objectives and goals 2) Approve Project Charter and Requirements 3) Acts as vocal and visible project champions and

liaisons to stakeholders 4) Approve scope changes to be presented to sponsor 5) Provide resources for User Acceptance Testing and

Subject Matter Expertise 6) Helps resolve issues and policy decisions

Work Group

Tom Herweck

Anne Widmer* (Ph 1)

Michael Genthon* (Ph 2)

Tim Redmond

Selected Project Team Members*

*as needed

Provide guidance to the configuration and operation of the application

1) Act as advisory group for the design, implementation and training aspects of the project

2) Provides subject matter expertise 3) Assist in defining functionality design and workflow 4) Consensus for standardization of configuration 5) Assist in communication and education 6) User Acceptance Testing and coordination

Project Manager(s)

Mary Douglas

Allison Grindon

Wes Perkins

Direct and manage project work 1) Responsible for ensuring that the Project Team completes the project; responsible for management of project process

2) Develops Project Charter and comprehensive project plan via joint planning with the Project Team

3) Coordinates and manages the team’s performance of project tasks, ensuring integration of all project work with focus on creation of project deliverables and work performance information

4) Secures acceptance and approval of deliverables from the Project Sponsor, Acting Business Sponsor, Work Group, and Stakeholders

5) Responsible for communication including status of project health

6) Responsible for risk management, and escalation of issues that cannot be resolved in the team

7) Responsible for managing change requests and documenting decisions made by accountable parties

8) Ensures project is delivered within budget, on schedule and within scope

Technical Project Lead Provides technical leadership 1) Ensures project success by providing technical



Internal Use Only

Role Purpose Responsibilities

Dave Flower system expertise to guide technical work, coordinating closely with PM

2) Ensures successful translation of business requirements into technical specifications and solutions

3) Provides vision, understanding and guidance of how various pieces of solution will fit together at WUSTL to the Project Team

4) Owns entire solution from a technical design and engineering perspective and ensures it is consistent with the architectural standards of the organization; works with EA & Info Security as needed

5) Guides how solution will operate and function in the context of the larger technical ecosystem at WUSTL (interfaces, interoperability, built for support, reuse, traceability, etc.)

6) Drives change to mitigate system / technical risks; facilitates resolutions to technical system issues

7) Ensures technical testing, deployment and transition to support plans are appropriate

8) Understands the technical delivery and IT service management resources, processes and tools required for successfully delivery of the product or service and works with Project Manager to ensure they are appropriately represented in project plans

Business Analyst (BA)

Kristen Singer

Requirements management 1) Takes a leadership role in defining, analyzing and documenting requirements working with the Business / Functional Project Lead and appropriate SMEs

2) May assist / participate with defining the business case

3) Elicits requirements (business, stakeholder, solution, functional, nonfunctional, transition)

4) Organizes, translates and simplifies requirement statements for appropriate use in solution development / configuration process

5) Lead role in planning, monitoring and designing use cases and test cases as well as acceptance testing criteria

6) Participates in planning and determining content of training materials working with performance support resources.



Internal Use Only

Role Purpose Responsibilities

Project Team

Mary Douglas

Allison Grindon

Kristen Singer

Dave Flower

Todd Zimmermann

Provide leadership of various domains/disciplines necessary to plan and execute project work

1) Leaders of the various functional areas/units who must create deliverables necessary to successfully complete the project; emphasis is on “doers” of work

2) Guides the work of the Extended Team – also “doers” who create project deliverables (project management deliverables and technical deliverables) for review and verification by customers, Steering Committee, and Sponsor(s)

3) Participates in joint planning session with PM 4) Always includes PM, Technical Project Lead, Business

Analyst. May also include representatives from functional business areas, key IT disciplines, external entities (vendors), etc.

Extended Team

Becky Cowin

Tom Winter

Sarah Raske

Brian Lawton

Additional “doers” working on the project but not involved in the day-to-day project work.

1) Includes all resources who provide labor to create the deliverables of the project

5.2. Team Members

Team Member Title Role

Mike Dunlap Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance & Controller Project Sponsor

John Gohsman CIO, WU IT IT Project Sponsor

Kathleen Schasch Director of University Accounting and Reporting Acting Business Sponsor

Tom Herweck Manager of University Financial Reporting Work Group

Kristen Singer Senior Financial Systems Analyst BA, WG, Project Team

Anne Widmer External Reporting Accountant Phase 1: WG, SME

Michael Genthon Dir of Financial Management, Engineering Phase 2: WG, SME

Douglas R. Briggs Director, Business Intelligence, WashU IT BIDW Management

Tim Redmond Assistant Director, Business Intelligence, WashU IT BIDW Management, WG

Mary Douglas Project Manager, Business Intelligence, WashU IT Project Manager, Project Team, WG

Allison Grindon Project Manager, Business Intelligence, WashU IT Project Manager, Project Team, WG

Wes Perkins Project Manager, PMO, WashU IT PMO Project Manager

David Flower Application Systems Programmer, Business Intelligence, WashU IT

Technical Lead, Project Team

Todd Zimmermann Application Systems Lead, Business Intelligence, WashU IT Project Team

Becky Cowin Training Lead, Business Intelligence, WashU IT Extended Team

Sarah Raske Release Manager & Support, Business Intelligence, WashU IT

Extended Team

Tom Winter Trainer & Support, Business Intelligence, WashU IT Extended Team

Brian Lawton Development Manager, Business Intelligence, WashU IT Extended Team



Internal Use Only

5.3. Project Organizational Chart

5.4. Communication Plan Use this section to clarify how decisions for the project will be communicated to affected parties. Include typical meeting frequency; how sponsors will be notified of progress; how status updates will be communicated; etc.

Communication Purpose Audience Frequency

Working Group Meetings To have a working group for decisions and research into business processes for the Washington University IT project team’s requirements and design.

Working Group WU IT Project Team

As Needed

Acting Sponsor Updates To obtain preliminary approval for direction and decisions, as well as provide status updates and risk mitigation.

Acting Sponsor and Select Work Group Members

Monthly

IT Project Team Meetings To have a weekly touchpoint for the project team for issue/risk resolution, planning, and deliverable hand-offs.

WU IT Project Team

Weekly

Sponsor

Mike Dunlap (Executive), John Gohsman (WU IT)

Project Team

Kristen Singer (BA), Mary Douglas, Allison Grindon, Dave

Flower (Tech Lead), Todd Zimmermann

Work Group

Tom Herweck, Anne Widmer Michael Genthon, Tim Redmond, Selected Project Team members

Acting Sponsor

Kathleen Schasch

Extended Project Team

Sarah Raske, Tom Winter, Becky Cowin, Brian Lawton



Internal Use Only

Communication Purpose Audience Frequency

Scorecard Update To inform IT and WashU leadership on the status of the priority project.

WU IT leadership WU leadership

Monthly

Sponsor Updates To inform sponsor of project process, document approvals, Risks and Issues.

Project Sponsor Monthly

Implementation Communications

To communicate to users the newly available data and assist in the adoption of the new data mart(s).

User Group As Needed

5.5. Training Plan BIDW will assist with training from a coordination and tool standpoint. Accounting Services will need to lead training from a business and use perspective. Accounting Services will also provide strategy and scope of training needs for the department(s).

6. Risks

Risk Level (H/M/L)

Risk Mitigation

1. Loading data from AIS on demand H Engage AIS as soon as feasible

Prioritize solution design for this component early in Architecture phase

2. Batch failing overnight from AIS- need a planned strategy to deal with this quickly given certain times a year

M Start on the SLE early and include details for expected

timelines for fixing

BIDW will create a plan for “fixing” TM1 because of batch

failures

3. Book functionality replicated in TM1 M BIDW will explore options for generating “Book”-like

reports out of the TM1 tool early in the process

This will be re-evaluated

4. Café replicating exact functionality from Hyperion Retrieve

L BIDW will have resources looking into this early

Get Kristen the functionality to do a gap analysis on

o Find functionality somewhere else

o Train folks ono the differences

5. Reporting format not pixel per pixel replica of existing reports

M Identify the critical reports early

Spend more time the page for page reports

Staff up if needed

6. Replicating the Access DB transaction level transformations

M Running systems concurrently to check data logic

Do a full analysis of the rules in Access and identify points

of logic to meet needs



Internal Use Only

Risk Level (H/M/L)

Risk Mitigation

7. Edits in the transformation logic from old to new system might make the data appear differently which could affect user adoption

L Create documentation that tracks the logic changes and

the impact on the data

Run system co-currently

8. Kristen’s availability to perform project duties as BA and Business Lead

L A resource has been hired to take over Kristen’s

responsibilities during the project

Kristen will escalate non-project pulls on her time to PMs

and supervisor as needed

9. Availability of Dave as TM1 expert on solution

L Work timelines to account for resource availability

Back-fill Dave’s position so that he can be a dedicated

resource

10. FASB rules for external reporting could change mid-project

L Application build will be flexible enough to account for

these changes with minimal effort

11. Initial user base has significantly less TM1 licenses then expected

M Putting together a gap between current and expected

No plans to market this to new users

12. Data conversion of 10 years of data M Impact schedule- need to do analysis as to how this data

would be drawn over

13. Same day change requests may need to be made to the new solution

L BIDW will look into options for this

SLE will handle procedure for these

When able design will push these changes to Accting

Services Admin role

Scope of “Same Day” change requests will need to be

identified

Non-production environment available to test out

changes ahead of time

14. Switching from Web Focus feeding solution to Data Warehouse feeding solution could cause differences in format of the data

L Running systems concurrently to check data logic

15. Business rules in WF being identified and translated into DWH

L Do a full analysis of the rules in WebFocus and identify

points of logic to meet needs

10323 replace oracle hyperion enterprise bidw … replace oracle hyperion enterprise bidw accounting...

Documents