Business Application Services (CORE) Publications - HCM Advisory Board Meeting November 18, 2010

The following is a text transcript of the presentation made at the BAS (CORE) Oklahoma HCM Advisory Board meeting in November 2010.

Slide 1

HCM Advisory Board

November 18, 2010

Slide 2

Agenda

• Members
• Project Updates
• Issues
• Prioritization
• 60 Day Target Review
• Feedback and Questions
• Other

Slide 3

HCM Advisory Board Contact Information

• Michael Grisser - 522-1714 - michael.grisser@osf.ok.gov
• Nancy Tarrant- 522-4363 - nancy.tarrant@osf.ok.gov
• Alan Binegar - 522-1712 - alan.binegar@osf.ok.gov
• Tom Patt - 522-0422 - tom.patt@opm.ok.gov
• Everett Slavik - 522-0123 - everett.slavik@opm.ok.gov
• Other Members
  • Tom Spencer - 858-6737 - tspencer@opers.ok.gov
  • Dan Melton - 232-1190 - dmelton@ebc.state.ok.us

Slide 4

HCM Advisory Board Members

• Cynthia Zinn, Oklahoma Healthcare Authority
• Margot Barnes, Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS)
• Gary Sloup, Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT)
• Cindy Leonard, Oklahoma Department of Corrections
• Leanne Beale, Oklahoma State Department of Health
• Lucinda Meltabarger, Office of State Finance (OSF)
• Lee Ann Gregory, Career Tech
• Linda Phillips, Department of Public Safety (DPS)
• Diane Haser-Bennett, DHS
• Christina Hamilton, Department of Commerce (Commerce)
• Ayana Wilkins, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

Slide 5

Agenda

• Members
• Project Updates

Slide 6

Completed Projects Since Last HCM Advisory Board

• Tools Upgrade EPM 8.49: Schedule, Green; Budget, Green
• ODOT Asset management: Schedule, Green; Budget, Green

Slide 7

Multi-Agency Business Services Opportunity Map

Images of a flow chart showing opportunities, phase and status for three-year period.

Assets

• 2010
  • Asset Management Pilot, close
• 2011
  • Asset Management Rollout, execution
  • Asset Management Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT), execution
  • Scanning and bar coding, planning

Supply Chain Management

• 2010
  • Integrated Item Maintenance, close
  • Inventory Mental Health, close
• 2011
  • Inventory ODOT, execution
  • Inventory Implementation, concept
• 2012
  • Inventory Rollout, concept

Financial Management

• 2010
  • Deposits, close
  • Office of State Finance (OSF)/ODOT Accounts Receivable (AR) Billing, close
  • Backfill Developers, close
  • Accounts Payable (AP) Workflow, close
  • EFT Remittance, close
  • Treasury General Ledger, execution
  • Backfill Developers, execution
• 2011
  • Apply Bundles 2011, concept
  • eBill Pay, initiation
  • Expense Module, planning
  • Voucher Build, concept
  • PCard Bank of America (BOA) transition, concept
  • 3% Backup Withholdings, concept
  • Treasury Module, concept
• 2012
  • Financials Upgrade, concept
  • P-card Module, concept

Enterprise Service Automation

• 2010
  • Grants, Projects, Contracts (GPC) Pilot OESC, close
  • GPC ODOT, execution
  • GPC Pilot Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), execution
• 2011
  • GPC Rollout, initiation
• 2012
  • GPC Roldout, concept

Human Capital Management

• 2010
  • Time and Labor (T&L) Pilot, execution
  • T&L Manager Self Service Pilot, close
  • Commitment Accounting Rollout, close
  • HCM Functionality Enhance, close
  • Employee Self Service Rollout, close
  • T&L for Non Bi-Weekly, execution
  • ODOT T&L Manager Self Service (MSS), execution
  • Higher Education Interface, execution
• 2011
  • T&L MSS Rollout, concept
  • Apply Bundles 2011, concept
  • T&L Rollout, initiation
  • Leave Request Approval, concept
  • Organization Publisher, initiation
• 2012
  • Apply Bundles, concept
  • E-Performance, concept

Other

• 2010
  • Licensing, planning
  • ARRA Transparency, close
  • Grants Provisioning, planning
  • Data Staging Area, close
  • OpenBooks Phase 3, planning
  • PeopleBooks 8.49, execution
• 2011
  • Business Inteligence Financial Analytics, planning
  • Archiving Phase 2, concept
  • FFATA Transparency, concept, concept
  • Governmental Risk and Compliance, concept
• 2012
  • Training Web Delivery, concept
  • Portal - PeopleSoft Sign on Consolidation, concept
  • Address Scrubbing Software, concept
  • Budget, concept

Supplier Relationship

• 2010
  • Vendor Registration, execution
  • Strategic Sourcing - e-Supplier Rollout, concept
• 2011
  • e-Procurement, concept

Slide 8

Projects in Execution Delivery Schedule

• Time and Labor Pilot/ODOT, June 2009-June 2010
• Grants, Projects, Contracts (GPC), AR, Billing (BI) ODOT, July 2009-May 2010
• Inventory ODOT, July 2009-May 2010
• T&L Manager Self Service ODOT, January-June 2010
• PeopleSoft Extract Staging Environment, October 2009-July 2010
• PeopleTools 8.49, September 2010
• Department of Central Services (DCS) Vendor Registration, December 2009-August 2010
• Assets ODOT, July-September 2010
• GPC/AR/Billing/T&L Extended Commerce/Department of Environmental Quality, January-October 2010
• Treasury General Ledger (GL) Implementation, march-October 2010
• OpenBooks - Phase III, March-October 2010
• P-Card, BOA Transition, July-October 2010
• Fiscal Year 2011 Technical Backfill, May 2010-April 2011
• Enterprise Learning Management (ELM) Rollout, June 2010-May 2011
• Asset Management Rollout, March 2010-june 2011
• Higher Education Interface, April 2010-July 2011

Slide 9

Agenda

• Members
• Project Updates
• Issues

Slide 10

Slide 11

Incident - Service Request

August 2009 - May 2010

• August 2009: 1,229
• September 2009: 1,398
• October 2009: 1,222
• November 2009: 1,216
• December 2009: 1,281
• January 2010: 1,804
• February 2010: 1,514
• March 2010: 2,250
• April 2010: 2,668
• May 2010: 2,344

The Team closes on average 1,700 support service requests or incidents a month.

Slide 12

PeopleSoft Financials Cases by Group

An image is a pie chart showing the percentages of cases by the following groups:

• Service Desk, 59.96%
• Department of Central Services, 1.39
• Brenda's Team, 11.25%
• Brandy Manek's Team, 3.20%
• Application Development,6.10%
• BAS (Grisser's Team) 14.41%
• Other ISD Staff, 3.70%

60 percent of cases solved at Service Desk - 24% Solved by ISD - 16% solved by Business

Slide 13

PeopleSoft HCM Cases by Group

An image of a pie chart showing the percentages of cases by the following groups:

• Service Desk, 64.81%
• Office of Personnel Management HR cases), 0.09%
• Brenda's Team, 0.15%
• Brandy Manek's Team, 0.09%
• Application Development, 1.10%
• BAS (Grisser's Team) 33.31%
• Other ISD staff, 0.46%

65 percent of cases solved at Service Desk - Remaining 35% solved by ISD

Slide 14

Agenda

• Members
• Project Updates
• Issues
• Prioritization

Slide 15

What do we focus on and how do we rank items to be worked?

1. Production Impact (break fix)

• Something that once worked but now does not
• Something that has been found to be in inaccurate

2. Recurring Problem/Issue (problem log)

• An issue that exhibits a pattern that can be corrected (root cause)

3. Service Requests 

• Requests from users to correct issues (not break fix), provide more data, enhanced data or additional functionality.

Slide 16

Agenda

• Members
• Project Updates
• Issues
• Prioritization
• 60 Day Target Review

Slide 17

Application Enhancement Service Requests

• November 2009: Pending, 64 Technical; Development, 36 Technical; User Acceptance Testing (UAT), 23 Technical; Closed, 12 Technical.
• December 2009: Pending, 54 Technical; Development, 47 Technical; UAT, 27 Technical; Closed, 8 Technical.
• January 2010: Pending, 59 Technical; Development, 42 Technical; UAT, 24 Technical; Closed, 16 Technical.
• February 2010: Pending, 72 Technical; Development, 37 Technical; UAT, 26 Technical; Closed, 9 Technical.
• March 2010: Pending, 79 Technical; Development, 25 Technical; UAT, 23 Technical; Closed, 17 Technical.
• April 2010: Pending, 122 Technical; Development, 27 Technical; UAT, 16 Technical; Closed, 19 Technical.
• May 2010: Pending, 125 Technical; Development, 22 Technical; UAT, 18 Technical; Closed, 22.
• June 2010: Pending, 87 Technical, 37 Functional; Development, 22 Technical, 1 Functional; UAT, 22 Technical, 1 Functional; Closed, 13 Technical, 13 Functional.
• July 2010: Pending, 90 Technical, 28 Functional; Development, 21 Technical, 12 Functional; UAT, 6 Technical; Closed, 13 Technical, 13 Functional.
• August 2010: Pending, 85 Technical, 27 Functional; Development, 20 Technical, 12 Functional; UAT, 9 Technical, 2 Functional; Closed, 13 Technical, 3 Functional.
• September 2010: Pending, 87 Technical, 32 Functional; Development, 87 Technical, 11 Functional; UAT, 7 Technical, 3 Functional; Closed, 12 Technical, 8 Functional.
• October 2010: Pending, 87 Technical, 23 Functional; Development, 27 Technical, 10 Functional; UAT, 11 Technical, 3 Functional; Closed, 5 Technical, 10 Functional.

Slide 18

Planned Enhancement Service Requests on Time Completion

• March (Financials); 6 ESRs completed, 2 ESRs not completed, 5 unplanned completed.
• May (Financials); 3 ESRs completed, 5 ESRs not completed, 4 unplanned completed.
• July (Financials); 6 ESRs completed, 1 ESRs not completed, 1 unplanned completed.
• August (HCM); 18 ESRs completed, 4 ESRs not completed, 7 unplanned completed.
• September (Financials); 9 ESRs completed, 0 ESRs not completed, 5 unplanned completed.
• October (HCM); 12 ESRs completed, 10 ESRs not completed, 10 unplanned completed.

Slide 19

Updates - Completed Items

• 22 Items to be completed in the new reporting period.
• Status
  • 12 items from list completed
  • 10 items from list not completed
  • 10 additional items completed that were not on the list

Slide 20

Update - 60 Day Target Items

• 60 Day Target Items - Review List
  • Discussion - questions/proposed changes/clarification

Slide 21

Update - Watch Items List

• Watch Items - Review List
  • Discussion - questions/proposed changes/clarification

Slide 22

Agenda

• Members
• Project Updates
• Issues
• Prioritization
• 60 Day Target Review
• Feedback and questions
• Other

Slide 23

Application Service Request Process Flow

Image of a flow chart describing the governance of an Application Service Request

• Step 1. The process starts when the customer submits a request to the Office of State Finance Service Desk.
• Step 2. The service desk creates a Service Request Case and
• Step 3. Determines if it is covered under the appropriate Service Agreement (SA) or Service Level Agreement (SLA).

If the request is not covered it is entered into the Service Catalog Request Process.

• Step 4. If it is covered, the Service Desk determines if they can handle the request.
• Step 5. If they can, the request is fulfilled,
• Step 6. The customer is notified,
• Step 7. The case is updated and closed.
• Step 8. If the Service Desk cannot fulfill the request, it is forwarded to the Functional Delivery Team who will evaluate the
  request, and
• Step 9. Determine if something is broken.

If something is broken, the case is changed to an incident and it enter the Incident Process.

• Step 10. If something is not broken, the Functional Delivery Team will determine is a solution is available.

If there is a solution, the case is changed to a Service Request (SR) and

• Step 11. The Team will provide instruction and/or Assistance.
• Step 12. They will then notify the customer and
• Step 13. Update and close the case.

If no solution is available, the case is classified as an Enhancement SR and

• Step 14. It is given a High Level +/- 50% estimate.
• 15. The Team then determines if a Development Request (DR) is required.

If a DR is required and it is not expedited,

• Step 16. The High Level +/- 50% Estimate the SR is
• Step 17. Added to Work List / Update and Close Case
• Step 18. The Functional Delivery Team will determine if a Rush has been requested
• Step 19. If yes, they will inform the BAS Functional manager, who then forwards to Step 24.

If no rush request has been made,

• Step. 20. The case id reflected in the proposed 60 day schedule and sent to
• Step 21. The BAS Advisory Board for Review and Prioritization. The case is then sent to
• Step 22. The Application Development Team for an update to the 60 Day Schedule.
• Step 23. The Functional Delivery Team will Select Next SR on Schedule,
• Step 24. Develop Work Plan and Detail Estimate, and
• Step 25. Determine if a DR is required. If not, the case is sent to Step 29. If yes,
• Step 26. A draft DR is developed and sent
• Step 27. To the Application Development Team for Technical Review and Assignment. The case is then given
• Step 28. Technical Specs and Detailed Estimate and
• Step 29. The Work List is Updated.
• Step 30. It is then determined if the case estimate is within +/- 15% of original maximum. If not, it is returned to Step 21
  for review and prioritization.

If the estimate is within +/- 15% of original maximum, it is determined if

• Step 31. A DR is required. If yes, it is returned to Application Development Team to
• Step 32. Perform Development, then to Step 33.

If no, it is sent to

• Step. 33. For creation of Test and Implementation Plans.
• Step 34. New Development/Configuration is Tested.
• Step 35. Software is implemented and Related Functional Steps are performed.
• Step 36. The Customer is notified.
• Step 37. Work list is updated and case is finished.