APPENDIX E ISU ERP PROJECT REVIEW REPORT

APPENDIX E ISU ERP PROJECT REVIEW REPORT

ISU ERP Project Review Report September 18, 2009 1. Project Summary a. Type of Project: ERP b. Project Description: Idaho State University s ERP project, dubbed the Tigeri Project, will combine administrative computer systems for financial, human resources/payroll, financial aid and student information into an integrated, secure, and user-friendly environment. The Tigeri Project will also implement a portal for users to access self service functions, a data warehouse to store information for easy access and analysis, and a workflow system to streamline administrative functions. These services are contained in the Banner system, provided by SunGard Higher Education. A number of additional systems will provide auxiliary services, such as identity management, room scheduling, and user services tracking. c. Project Charter: The project charter, titled Idaho State University Tigeri Project Definition, is attached. 2. Business Case a. Cost/Benefit Analysis: A full cost/benefit analysis was not performed (see item b below for the rationale). However, a cost/benefit analysis for the self-service time entry system for payroll has been performed. It is estimated that the old, paper-based time reporting system cost $183,170 per year in supplies and personnel costs. The new web-based time entry system is estimated to cost only $19,933 per year, for an annual cost savings of $163,327. The full cost of the implementation of the entire human resources/payroll system should be recovered in less than four years. b. Description of risk or mandate: The administrative computer systems developed at Idaho State University over the last couple of decades have served the needs of faculty, staff, and students well. However, as expectations for increased service have continued to grow, it has become progressively more difficult for the relatively small but talented and dedicated staff of Information Technology Services to provide and maintain the services needed by the university. This situation was further exacerbated when the university s hardware vendor announced that both the hardware and operating system on which the system currently operates would no longer be supported after 2010. Recommendation three of the 2004 accreditation report of the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) further mandates that the legacy administrative computer system be updated. Specifically, the report states that The Committee recommends that the University reach agreement as quickly as possible on data element definitions and decide whether to 1) update the legacy data management system or 2) acquire an enterprise system with the requisite functionality for planning, analysis, outcomes assessment, and institutional and program evaluation. The report further states, In addition, the recognized weaknesses not to say obsolescence of the University s data management system render it quite difficult for those responsible for planning to access and analyze the specific information required. These findings from the NWCCU further mandate an upgrade to the current administrative system of the university.

3. Budget a. Overall budget: Idaho State University ERP Implementation Budget FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 Cumulative Budget Budget Budget Budget Total Project Office Functional Staff 168,640 350,077 363,630 374,087 1,256,433 Expenses 44,000 152,000 70,000 70,000 336,000 Software Purchase 2,286,099 219,900 83,000 2,588,999 Software Maintenance 455,666 529,747 600,131 1,585,543 Database Licensing Fees 721,644 721,644 Database Maintenance 165,978 172,617 179,522 186,703 704,820 Hardware Equipment 635,379 240,000 875,379 Hardware Maintenance 165,070 54,628 56,653 117,952 394,303 Consulting Services 5,000 1,445,342 1,079,512 536,044 3,065,898 Consultant Travel 800 231,255 172,722 85,767 490,544 Technical Staff 29,667 314,718 572,921 589,201 1,506,506 Project Contingency 500,000 600,000 555,765 1,655,765 Total for Year 1,936,178 6,202,402 3,844,606 3,198,648 15,181,833 b. Sources of funding: Funding for this project is derived from the following sources: Student fees: $115.50/student/semester, which generates an estimated $1,484,000 per year. University Reserves: $2,000,000 Internal reallocation of university resources: Beginning at $250,000/year, gradually increasing to $825,000/year. Internal IT funding: $120,000/year Hardware loan: $608,500 to be repaid over three years at 2.64%. Software and services loan: $ 8,733,000 to be repaid over ten years at 5.08% c. Constraints on funding: Adequate financial resources have been allocated by the university for the project. Income from student fees is projected at the enrollment level present for the 2006-2007 academic year. The project is currently operating on budget. d. New Personnel: Six permanent and five and a half limited service positions were created to supplement existing university personnel in implementing and managing this system. The new positions created for this project are: Project Manager (limited service position, terminates in December, 2010)

Management Assistant (limited service position, terminates in December, 2010) Communication Coordinator (limited service position, terminates in December, 2010) Faculty Coordinator for Data Warehouse and Reporting (0.5FTE; (limited service position, terminates in December, 2010) Senior Database Administrator Senior IT Systems Programmer IT Systems Programmer Senior Application Security Analyst Application Security Analyst (limited service position, terminates in December, 2010) Computer Analyst ERP Training Coordinator ERP Training Specialist (limited service position, terminates in December, 2010)

4. Schedule, Time Constraints, & Dependencies a. Project Schedule: b. Project Milestones (All milestones to date have been met on schedule). HR/Payroll system December 1, 2008 Portal for all employees December 1, 2008 Data warehouse and reporting tool January 1, 2009 Finance system July 1, 2009 Student Admissions October, 2009 Portal for students October, 2009 Financial Aid January, 2010 Student Registration April, 2010 Student Fee Assessment July, 2010 c. Critical time constraints and dependencies: HR/Payroll system First payroll of calendar year Finance system Start of fiscal year Student and financial aid system Start of fall semester Portal and data warehouse With first functional system

5. Project Risks a. Known risks and mitigation strategies: A detailed analysis of risks and mitigation strategies is presented on pages 24-29 of the Idaho State University Tigeri Project Definition attached to this report. b. Risk Assessment G215: The detailed risk assessment contained in the Idaho State University Tigeri Project Definition was performed in lieu of a G215 risk assessment. 6. Possible Solutions/Alternatives a. Alternatives considered: The possible migration of the existing legacy system to a new hardware/software environment was carefully considered. It was determined to be technically feasible, but not able to meet the functional requirements of the university. The development of an entirely new system was considered, but determined to not be financially or technically feasible. Open source solutions were evaluated, but none were yet fully functional and could not meet university requirements. Competitive bids were solicited through RFP01827 (ERP Business Applications & Ancillary Software), released in June, 2006. b. Description of how project meets ITRMC standards and policies: ISU s ERP project is built on best practices and standards for Higher Education. In fact, SunGard Higher Education s Banner system was selected in part because higher education is their only business. We have worked hard to ensure uniformity and compatibility, realizing that higher education in some ways is much different from many state agencies. We certainly have made great efforts to insure ISU s ERP can exchange data with other state systems, as required. In addition to striving to meet ITRMC s vision and mission, we also are governed by the policies and procedures of the State Board of Education. The State Board of Education approved the release of the RFP on June 14, 2006; approved the purchase of database software and related hardware on February 22, 2007; and approved the purchase and financing of the ERP system on August 9, 2007. Periodic updates and reviews have been presented to the Board annually throughout the implementation period. 7. Collaboration/Consolidation a. Possible opportunities for collaboration: Because the University of Idaho also uses the Banner system, the option of developing a joint system used by both universities was explored. However, we were not able to reach agreement with SunGard Higher Education for this arrangement. Specifically, our contract with SunGard Higher Education does not permit the use of our Banner system by other universities. Nevertheless, we continue to collaborate with University of Idaho staff, as well as the staffs of several other universities that use the Banner system, for knowledge transfer to learn the best practices in the configuration of the Banner system. ISU staff regularly participate in Banner user group meetings and discussions, and Banner listserve discussions.