integration of primavera contract management, … · integration of primavera contract management,...

REMINDER

Check in on the

COLLABORATE mobile app

Integration of Primavera Contract Management, PeopleSoft and Hyperion at the Massachusetts Port Authority

Prepared by:

Jennifer A. Kelley

Manager, Project Controls

Capital Programs & Environmental Affairs

Massachusetts Port Authority

Adam Litton

Technical Lead, Oracle Practice

Calance

Case study involving integration of Oracle applications using

Dimension Integration Manager

Session ID#: 201420

■ Massachusetts Port Authority (aka “Massport”)

▪ Quasi-state agency

▪ Governed by seven member Board, appointed by MA governor

▪ Thomas P. Glynn, CEO

▪ 1,100 Employees

▪ Massport is self-supporting and receives no state tax money

to support its operations or facilities.

▪ $600M Annual Operations funded by rates and charges

collected from Massport facilities

■ Massport owns and operates:

▪ Logan International Airport

▪ Port of Boston (Conley Terminal, Black Falcon Cruise Terminal)

▪ Hanscom Field in Bedford, MA

▪ Worcester Regional Airport

Jennifer KelleyManager, Project Controls

■ Construction Industry – 14 Years

■ Primavera Contract Management (aka “Expedition”) – 14 Years

▪ 15 Users

▪ 350 Funded Capital Projects in PCM

▪ Hundreds of custom reports in InfoMaker

■ Primavera P6 – 8 Years

■ Hyperion – 2 Years

■ With Massport for 8 years

■ Serves a wide range of clients in the construction management and project planning domains, including:

▪ School Districts

▪ General Contractors

▪ Municipalities

▪ Mining and Energy

■ Has been an industry leader in providing integration solutions since 2001

■ Has a dedicated team of subject matter experts excited to custom tailor integrations to solve your unique business needs

■ Developer role in 3 major integration projects in 2.5 years with Calance

■ Support role for a large number of previous integration projects across clients and industries

■ Custom report design, development, and maintenance, primarily in BI Publisher and InfoMaker

Adam LittonTechnical Lead, Oracle Practice


■ Department of Capital Programs & Environmental Affairs

▪ Project Delivery

▪ Development and Implementation of Capital Budget

▪ Five units:

— Environmental Management

— Safety Management

— Utilities Management

— Survey

— Everyone else – Administrative Staff, Project Controls, Construction

Management, GIS, Project Managers, Program Managers

▪ Sam Sleiman, Director

▪ ~85 Employees

■ CP&EA is considered a support department at Massport

Capital Program Overview■ Rolling 5-Year Program

▪ Developed through Comprehensive and Coordinated Merit

Process to Meet the Authority’s Priorities of:

— Safety

— Security

— Operational Efficiencies

— Sustainability

— Customer Service

— Commitment to Surrounding Communities

■ Reflects Current Financial Constraints

— Projects with Secured Grants

— Grant Eligible Projects

— PFC Eligible Projects

— Cost Recoverable Projects

— Limits Increases to the Rates and Charges

Program Structure

Facility

Program

Project

Project Status

Complete• All Work

Complete• All payments

made

Ongoing• At least one

commitment executed

Proposed• Funding Allocated• No external

commitments executed

Private• To be

completed by outside party

• Development agreement executed

Contingent on Funding Source

• Awaiting external funds or new revenue

Unfunded• Project

backlog

Funded Not Funded

Program Structure

Agency WideWorcester Airport Hanscom FieldLogan Airport Maritime

AdministrationCapital ProgramsData StoragePeopleSoftInformation SystemsNetwork OperationsSystem OperationsSystems SecurityTelecommunicationsResiliency

Hanscom AirsideHanscom Landside

Logan AirsideLogan LandsideLogan IntermodalLogan Mitigation

Black FalconConley TerminalDredgingFish PierHoosac PierMaritime OtherMoran TerminalReal Estate DevelopmentWTC

Worcester AirsideWorcester Landside


■ Systems that we use:

▪ Primavera Contract Management (PCM) Version 13.1

▪ InfoMaker 12.0

▪ Primavera P6

▪ PeopleSoft Version 9.1 (known in house as “FARS”)

▪ Hyperion Version 11.1.2.1

▪ Maximo (Asset Management)

▪ ACES (Automated Contract Execution System)

▪ Middleware for integrations between PeopleSoft and PCM

▪ Adept (Drawing Management Software)

▪ Facility Resource and Energy Distribution System (FRED) –

Utilities Management

▪ SharePoint




▪ InfoMaker 12.0

▪ Primavera P6



▪ Maximo (Asset Management)

▪ ACES (Automated Contract Execution System)

▪ Middleware for integrations between PeopleSoft and PCM

▪ Adept (Drawing Management Software)

▪ Facility Resource and Energy Distribution System (FRED) –

Utilities Management

▪ SharePoint



▪ InfoMaker 12.0

▪ Primavera P6



Capital Programs & Environmental Affairs■ Systems that we use:


— Windows environment

— MS SQL Server

— InfoMaker 12.0

— 85 users, 10 power users

— Capital Programs oversees and supports PCM


— Unix environment

— Oracle database v. 11g

— 300 users, 20 power users

— Supported by a dedicated team of 4 Massport IT staff

▪ Hyperion Capital Planning Version 11.1.2.1

— Essbase Server

— Planning – Web based front end

PeopleSoft Upgrade Project

■ In 2007, IT submitted a capital project funding request for what would eventually develop into the “PeopleSoft Upgrade Project”:

▪ Upgrade PeopleSoft from V. 8.8 to V. 9.1

▪ Reconfiguration of Procurement module

▪ Revision of the system’s chart field structure to improve

reporting and data access

▪ Replacement of aging system hardware

▪ Implementation of new Project Costing module

▪ Implementation of Hyperion Capital Planning application

▪ Integration of the Asset Management module with General

Ledger

PeopleSoft Upgrade Project■ “PeopleSoft Upgrade Project” was funded in the 5 year

capital program in FY 2010. Currently funded at $5.7M

■ Consultant selected in late 2011

■ Long design, testing and implementation process involving IT, Accounting, Purchasing, Administration & Finance and Capital Programs

■ In the interim, Capital Programs implemented middleware to bridge PCM and PeopleSoft

■ PeopleSoft upgrade to 9.1 cutover to production in June 2012

■ Significant changes in PeopleSoft chart of accounts required changes to cost code structure in PCM; subsequently, first bridging middleware was taken off-line

■ IT requested that Capital Program advertise Request for Proposal (RFP) to start competitive bid process for Bridging, Phase II

■ Hyperion Capital Planning went live in September 2013

Integration/Bridging, Part 2PeopleSoft Upgrade – Impact on CP■ PeopleSoft Reconfiguration of Procurement module

▪ PeopleSoft POs and PCM Commitments (Master Contracts and

Work Orders)

▪ Conversion of Legacy Data (POs on master contracts that did

not have POs prior to June 2012)

▪ New Coding for all commitments in both PeopleSoft and PCM

■ Revision of the system’s chart field structure

▪ Cost code conversions in both PeopleSoft and PCM

▪ Huge impact on reporting in both systems

▪ Reports in PCM required modifications in InfoMaker

■ Hyperion Capital Planning application

▪ 5 year capital plan was developed in MS Access for many years

▪ Interface with both PeopleSoft (Actuals), PCM and P6 upload of

cash flows

▪ Report replication

Integration/Bridging, Part 2PeopleSoft Upgrade – Impact on CP

■ Middleware could not be reconfigured in time for live cutover to PeopleSoft 9.1 in June 2012

▪ Old bridging taken off-line

▪ Return to manual data entry and significant duplication of effort

in both systems (PCM and PeopleSoft)

▪ Challenges with legacy data in PeopleSoft and reporting post-

cutover

▪ Implementation of Hyperion on the horizon

■ In early 2013, RFP issued for reconfiguration of integrations

▪ IT and Capital Programs wanted to advertise professional

services opportunity

▪ Calance was selected and awarded the contract in July 2013

Scope of Integration Solution

■ Integration between PeopleSoft and PCM

▪ Make workflows more efficient

▪ Improve data integrity, timeliness, and accuracy

▪ Eliminate duplication of effort (huge problem)

▪ Interface must be consistent with Massport’s business practices

▪ Push invoice, construction requisition, and commitment data

from PCM into PeopleSoft (AP and Purchasing)

▪ Pull payment information, miscellaneous costs (e.g. direct

payments), and journal entries from PeopleSoft and push data

into PCM

▪ Convert legacy cost codes in PCM to map with PeopleSoft chart

of accounts.

■ Integration between Hyperion and PCM

▪ Extract data from Hyperion Capital Planning and integrate into

PCM

Scope of Integration Solution

■ Reconfiguration of InfoMaker Reports

▪ 27 critical custom reports utilized by approximately 85 users at

Massport in various departments

▪ Cost code changes impact these reports

▪ Calance ultimately had to troubleshoot some pre-existing issues

with the reports that were not directly related to the cost code

conversion

Hyperion Capital Planning (v. 11.1.2.1)

■ Hyperion Capital Planning Application

▪ In development with Edgewater Ranzal from January-

September 2013

▪ Extensive requirements gathering and design phase

▪ Development and testing of prototype

▪ Successful Implementation in September 2013

— No outages, system worked as designed for Administration and

Finance (A&F) and Capital Programs

— Audit log automated and used daily by both teams

— Funding required vs Funding provided – separation of duties

— Out-of-balance monitoring functionality

— Integration with A&F financial model worked well

— Import of Actuals from PeopleSoft into Hyperion

Hyperion Capital Planning (v. 11.1.2.1)

■ Lessons learned from implementation

▪ Spent significant time at start of project gathering requirements

▪ Development of prototypes in Excel helped in development of

application, specifically fixed vs. variable funding

▪ Common repository for capital program kept A&F and CP in

sync without emails, conflicting documents (one source of truth)

▪ One less draft than previous year; fewer iterations

▪ Level of detail in coding supports Rates & Charges process

▪ Ranzal, CP, and A&F all worked very well as a team

▪ Planning at Class/Location/Purpose/Final Fund sometimes

difficult to manage

▪ Need more flexible report writer

▪ Capital and Operating applications have different metadata

▪ Need to capture Operating impact of Capital projects

Capital Programs Planning & Reporting

Three distinct Capital Planning & Reporting business processes:

1. Monthly Cash flow Forecast

2. Annual Budget

3. Actual Disbursements Reporting

Capital Programs Planning in Hyperion

Summary:• P6 used to “project plan” existing projects –

generating detailed cash flows by period for life of

project.

• Capital team enters specific cash-flow changes

for some\all projects; other cash-flows are copied

from previous draft (cash-flow change flags

changed project)

• Treasury Team maintains funding lines @ COA

level of detail to meet cash required by projects –

either % or fixed $

• Funded Project cash flows fed into Excel

Financial Model to identify funding adjustments

• Specific funding changes entered into Capital

Planning

• Upon completion of planning process, any

changes to existing projects (cash required,

timing) or new projects need to be entered into

P6

• During planning process – “new projects” need

to be added to Capital Planning and P6. Capital

team populates new projects with initial funding.

Cash Needed and Funding are managed separately• Project plans in P6 are built up by project and passed to Hyperion

(“cash needed”)

• Hyperion is central mechanism to add funding lines (% or fixed amt) to

meet cash-requirements

• Only project-scope changes (size, timing) need to be entered in P6

Budget (Conceptual)

Actual Spend

Life-To-Date (GL)

Funded Cash Flows

Total Project Amount (Not to Exceed)

Out Years

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6+

Add New Projects

Adj Timing

Adjust Funding & Source

Adj Amounts

PrioritizeMove In\Out of Plan

Change Proj Scope& Schedule

Project

Not controllablein Budget

Inferred

Chart of Accounts String in Hyperion

Project Location Purpose Class Final Fund

L1252 4200 7870 314 DH506

Project Location Purpose Class Fund Final Fund FF Category

L1252 4200 7870 314 310 DH506 GRANT

Data Entry

Reporting

• Class can imply Fund due to 1:M relationship• FF Code can imply Final Fund Category due to 1:M relationship• Best-practice is typically to treat 1:M as levels within your hierarchy versus

splitting out to a separate field; only reason to split to a separate field is tosupport reporting/extracts

Hyperion PCM Integration

■ Used to develop 5 year plan in MS Access

■ Manual Implementation of Board approved capital program in PCM literally took months of manual updates (creation of new projects, funding and budget adjustments on existing projects)

■ Hyperion integration a huge success

▪ Run once a year after Board approves 5 year plan

▪ File extracted from Hyperion and stored as a control document

on the Dimension Server

▪ Dimension integrates Hyperion data into PCM:

— Creation of new projects in PCM

— Adjusts budget and funding documents in PCM for existing projects

— Updates projects’ status as appropriate

■ This process can be completed in days now!

Cost Code Modifications/Chart of Accounts

■ Data mapping

▪ Cost code structure had to be revised to move data between

PeopleSoft and PCM

▪ Cost code changes were made to serve needs of both the users

and to accommodate system requirements

▪ Right level of detail to support integrations, reduce effort,

workload

▪ Infer/derive information where we can

▪ Requirement to map to Treasury document that is posted to

Massport intranet for coding, “Capital Funding” spreadsheet

▪ Invoices, requisitions, contracts, work orders, and purchase

orders may have multiple combinations of chartfield codes/cost

codes associated with them. Costs associated with each

combination must be tracked and handled properly by the

integration for the program to be successful.

Cost Code Modifications/Chart of Accounts

■ Massport revised its Chart of Accounts structure to the following:

Chartfield Size Example NoteFund 3 char 190 A grouping of accounts for

common purposeClass 3 char 095 Source of original payment or

revenueAccount 5 char 17001 Natural Account – nature of

transactionLocation 4 char 2100 Geographic location associated

with a transactionPurpose 4 char 5000 Identified business purpose for

allocation of costsProject BU 5 char MPCAP Control field to identify type of

projectProject ID 15 char A255 Unique project identifier,

assigned by Capital ProgramsProject Activity 15 char 02 Predefined activities that can

be assigned to a project, referred to as “Budget Category”

Activity Category 5 char I&E Predefined funding sources; referred to as “Final Funding Category”

Activity Sub-Category 5 char PFC03 Predefined Final Funding subcategories user to provide additional levels at which to define and track funding resources; referred to as “Final Funding Code”

PCM Legacy and New Cost Code Strings

Cost Code Conversion

■ Considerations

▪ Multiple combinations of chartfield codes/cost codes can be

used. Costs associated with each combination must be tracked

and handled properly by the integration for the program to be

successful.

▪ Cost Code changes impact reports in both PCM and PeopleSoft

▪ PCM Cost Codes Modifications “Exception” Projects

— Certain projects with long lives and tons of legacy data were not

included in the cost code conversion integration.

▪ New Cost Code structure is simpler to track

▪ Legacy Cost Code “Class”, “Fund”, and “Grant Code” roll up into

new Cost Code “Final Funding Code”

▪ “Project Phase”, “Location”, and “Purpose” information are

preserved from the legacy Cost Code to the New Cost Code

Cost Code Conversion in PCM

■ Want to update your Cost Code structure in PCM?

▪ PCM provides a mechanism for renaming Cost Codes via UI,

but doing so in a Production system with many thousands of

Cost Codes across hundreds of Projects would be a nightmare,

and highly error-prone.

▪ Translation rules could result in two or more legacy Cost Codes

mapping to the same new Cost Code. To make this update in

the PCM UI would require changing individual Cost

Distributions. This makes things even harder for a human to do.

▪ Calance developed a PCM -> PCM integration to achieve this

for Massport -- possibly the first integration of its kind.

PCM PeopleSoft Invoice Integration

■ Professional Services/Consulting invoices are created in the PCM Invoice Module and uploaded from PCM into PeopleSoft Accounts Payable staging tables.

■ When approved for payment they are sent to PeopleSoft via the Dimension

■ Invoices must pass a series of business rule validations. Examples of validation tests will be:

▪ Valid Project ID

▪ Valid Contract Number

▪ Valid project status indicating funding available

▪ Sufficient funds available under project

▪ Valid Contract Service Dates

▪ Valid Chartfield Codes

▪ Valid Cost Codes

Invoice Integration Log

PCM PeopleSoft Invoice Integration

■ This integration eliminates the duplication of effort as invoice is initially entered in PCM; invoice information is then sent to PeopleSoft staging tables for review and approval by AP

■ AP no longer needs to enter invoices already queued up in PCM

■ Capital Programs knows exactly when an invoice is entered in PeopleSoft as Voucher ID is collected when AP builds the Voucher after reviewing in PeopleSoft staging tables

PeopleSoft PCM Invoice Payment Integration

■ Complete round trip by bringing payment information back into PCM, including:

▪ Voucher ID

▪ Paid date

▪ Check #

▪ Amount paid

■ This integration eliminates the need to manually update payment information from PeopleSoft weekly disbursement reports

PCM PeopleSoft Requisition Integration

■ Construction requisitions are created in the PCM Requisitions Module and uploaded from PCM into PeopleSoft Accounts Payable staging tables.

■ When approved for payment, they will be queued to be sent to PeopleSoft via Dimension

■ Requisitions must pass a series of business rule validations. Examples of validation tests will be:

▪ Valid Project ID

▪ Valid Contract Number

▪ Valid project status indicating funding available

▪ Sufficient funds available under project

▪ Valid Contract Service Dates

▪ Valid Chartfield Codes

▪ Valid Cost Codes

Requisition Integration Log

PCM PeopleSoft Requisition Integration

■ Massport typically withholds a percentage of each requisition payment, called retainage, until all work is completed, or Massport is satisfied that work is progressing as planned

■ The integration implements our retainage calculations and routes costs into the appropriate PeopleSoft account

■ Retainage may be partially released during a monthly progress payment and/or fully released as a standalone requisition at the end of a project

■ PCM and PeopleSoft maintain both the amount due (net payment) and amount earned (gross/earned value) for each requisition

PeopleSoft PCM Requisition Payment Integration

■ Complete round trip by bringing payment information back into PCM, including:

▪ Voucher ID

▪ Paid date

▪ Check #

▪ Amount paid

■ This integration eliminates the need to manually update payment information from PeopleSoft weekly disbursement reports

Invoice and Requisition Integrations

■ One source of truth

▪ PCM kicks off transactions

▪ One point for data entry

▪ Elimination of duplication of

data entry in PeopleSoft

■ Tracking items is made easier

▪ CP knows when voucher is

built

▪ Automation of payment info

update in PCM

■ Biggest impact – we know

right away when there is a

problem!!

■ CP enters enough info to

create a shell voucher

■ AP does not have to worry

about accuracy of coding, this

is automated

■ CP is more self-sufficient in

terms of diagnosing problems

before items are sent to AP

for payment

■ AP no longer has to run

weekly disbursement reports

for CP to update payments

Improve CP workflows Improve AP workflows

PeopleSoft PCM Misc. Cost Integration

■ Miscellaneous Payments originate in PeopleSoft as “Invoices” which are not tied to a PO. These are referred to by CP as “Non-Contract Payments”.

■ When new Miscellaneous Payments are found in PeopleSoft, the Integration will validate that the Payment amount against the PCM Project’s Budget and Funding

■ This Integration will bring valid PeopleSoft Miscellaneous Payments into PCM Invoices on misc. PCM commitment POs (one PO for each PeopleSoft Vendor with Non-Contract Payments). In addition to creating the Invoices, this Integration will create these PCM POs if needed

■ This integration handles reclassifications (such as transfers between projects or to/from an operating account) or adjusted funding allocations of the previous expenditures on a project.

■ We no longer need to scour PeopleSoft GLs for such items –this is now automated!!

PCM PeopleSoft Work Order Integration■ Work Orders are identified as line items in the master

contract in the Committed Contracts module in PCM as a when they are approved by the Capital Programs Department.

■ Each of these work orders must be set up as a purchase order in the PeopleSoft Procurement module. Information identifying the correct coding for each work order (PO) will be validated by Dimension

■ Purchasing users will receive an email notification including all required fields and chart of accounts strings

■ Once the purchase order has been dispatched by Massport Purchasing, the purchase order number in PeopleSoft is pushed back down to a custom field in PCM in the work order line item

Lessons Learned■ Hyperion integration creates a large number of Projects and

documents each year, which puts a heavy load on PCM during the data import (can cause slowdowns/problems in PCM)

■ Begin setting expectations for testing process early, and continue to communicate often, for a smoother experience

■ Running integrations in “Validate Only” mode is great for testing, but it can also improve business processes and shorten the feedback loop in your organization for data problems. Even before you consider your data “ready to integrate”, “Validate Only” mode gives you an opportunity to inspect the quality of your data.

■ Developing the integration requires “holding a mirror” up to your organization, forcing a hard look at current processes and identifying gaps and opportunities for improvement, as well as solidifying or codifying practices which were only loosely defined at the outset

Questions?

Please complete the session evaluationWe appreciate your feedback and insight

You may complete the session evaluation either

on paper or online via the mobile app

integration of primavera contract management, … · integration of primavera contract management,...

Documents