????? …Setting the Path for UT’s ERP Future

FYI session

June 14, 2006

Agenda

• Current Environment

• Industry Trends

• Purpose

• Project Details

• Next Steps

• What Can You Do?

Current Environment

• Many other UT Institutions are considering ERP purchases

• UT System’s interest in Shared Services

• Leadership Changes

• Increased pressures to save $$$

• Increased need for security

• Best Practices

• Knowledge Sharing

Industry Trends

• Shared Services– Data Centers

– Governance

– Applications• Financial

• HR

• SIS

Purpose of Project

Comparatively analyze UT Austin Administrative IT systems, environment, dependencies, & strengths with major off-the-shelf ERP software packages and recommend a 5-10 year strategy to optimally posture the university's future administrative systems.

Who’s Who

• Project Manager – Dana Cook

• Steering Committee– Mary Knight, Brian Roberts,

Julien Carter, Renee Wallace, Fred Friedrich, Randy Ebeling, Floyd Self, Cathy Lester, Sheila Ochner, Shelby Stanfield

Guiding Principles for Project

• Open

• Fact-driven

• Fluid

• Non-threatening

• Objective

• On-time delivery

Project Flow

• Review off-the-shelf ERP packages– PeopleSoft, SCT Banner

• Develop material for each area at UT Austin that is to be compared to ERP package

What’s In?

• If it is a feature or function found in one of the ERP software packages, it is in.

• Examples include Budget, Payroll, HR, Purchasing, Accounting, Student Information Systems, Contracts and Grants and more!

What’s A Maybe?

• There are many areas that are automated at UT Austin but it is not clear yet if they are present in the off-the-shelf ERP’s

• Example of services that *may* be included are auxiliaries – i.e. Parking and Transportation

What’s Not In?

• Some things we know are not going to be present in the ERP’s

• Examples include General Libraries, College Administration, Instructional Technology, Innovation and Assessment and more…

What’s needed for UT Austin Administrative Systems?

• Analyze and view our Financial, HR and SIS systems as a single UT Austin offering

• Document the costs, savings, benchmarking, features etc. for the existing UT Austin Administrative ERP

Groups who will be involved

• IT developers and leaders• Business area specialists/leaders• UT leadership• UT System• Other UT Institutions• Other peer Universities and

University Systems

Timeline• July 21st – Have initial draft of UT

Administrative Systems Functionality completed; there will be a lengthy time period where this draft can be edited!

• November 21st – Comparative Analysis report due– What will it look like?

• Early December – Draft of Strategic Plan

Next Steps

• Project website• Start ERP analysis & interviews• Talk to other institutions / research

their experiences and gain knowledge from them

• Start meetings with each area at UT Austin to develop comparative materials

What Can You Do?

• Stay informed

• Talk about the project within your business area to raise awareness

• Begin to think about what features, reports, etc. your business area offers and work with your business area experts to begin cataloging these

Questions and Comments