peoplesoft human capital management project · pdf filepeoplesoft human capital management...

oneusg

University System of Georgia PeopleSoft Human Capital Management

Project Charter

1 | P a g e

Revision Log

Publication

Date

Version ID Revision Summary

3/15/2015 0.1 Craig Golden – Initial Version

3/19/2015 0.2 Diane Kirkwood – Revisions

3/19/2015 0.3 Craig Golden – Revisions

3/22/2015 0.4 Vikki Williamson - Revisions

3/25/2015 0.5 Craig Golden – Watermark

12/4/2015 FINAL Kari Peterson – Update Version, Remove Watermark

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................. 1

Project Identification ...................................................................... 1 Project Background and History ...................................................... 1

Business Case ........................................................................... 2 Business Need ................................................................................. 2

Vision, Mission, Scope, Assumptions and Guiding Principles .... 3 Vision .............................................................................................. 3 Mission ............................................................................................ 3 Project Goals/Scope ........................................................................ 4 Critical Success Factors ................................................................... 6 Assumptions ................................................................................... 7

Requirements and Scope Definition .................................................... 7 User Experience ............................................................................... 7 Testing and User Acceptance ............................................................. 7 Communications .............................................................................. 8 Budget and Resource Allocation ......................................................... 8 Research Institution Deployment ....................................................... 8 Application & Customer Support ........................................................ 8

HCM Project Guiding Principles and Desired Outcomes ................... 9

Timeline and Milestones ......................................................... 12 HCM Project Timeline .................................................................... 12 Milestones ..................................................................................... 13

HCM Project Sponsorship and Major Stakeholders ................. 14

HCM Project Roles, Responsibilities, and Structure ................ 15

HCM Project Risks .................................................................. 16 Risk Mitigation Plan ...................................................................... 16

HCM Implementation Team Roster ......................................... 19

HCM Cross-Functional Team Roster ........................................ 20

Approvals ............................................................................... 21

Appendix – Project Roles and Responsibilities Team .............. 22

1 | P a g e

Executive Summary

Project Identification

oneusg

Scope of Document

This Project Charter is specifically for the ADP replacement portion of the oneusg HCM

initiative. This document covers the initial fit/gap and design phase for the ADP

replacement through the completion of rollout to all ADP institutions.

Each subsequent phase, including each Research Institution implementation and each major

functional extension (e.g. Recruiting) will have a separate Project Charter unique to that

initiative.

Each Project Charter will reference the overall oneusg Program Charter and follow the high

level principles and objectives set by the Chancellor and Executive Council.

Project Background and History

In 2008, the Board of Regents approved the initial Shared Services scope to centralize

payroll and benefits administrative functions with ADP and create a new organization in

Sandersville, Georgia to support and maintain the application. The project was deployed

over 13 months and went live in August, 2009 with the goals of achieving:

Reduced costs through economies of scope/shared capabilities

Development of effective and efficient human resource management and payroll

systems

Streamlined and standardized business processes

Improved functionality and service quality

Ultimately, the Regents vision was never fully realized. The shared services initiative

encountered significant challenges, including: resistance to centralization and change,

challenges with the ADP software and support and inability of the three research institutions

adopt that contain almost 50% of the employees to adopt due to significant limitations of

the software and inability to meet essential research institution needs.

2 | P a g e

Business Case

Business Need

Currently, the Human Capital Management technology footprint for the University System

consists of four solutions (ADP, 2 PeopleSoft Environments and a Mainframe), with multiple

third party relationships engaged to provide support services. The Sandersville center is

currently functioning at 50% of capacity and institutional business offices continue to

operate autonomously, which prevents the system from achieving the economies of scale

and risk avoidance that is achievable with business process standardization.

More environmental challenges are on the horizon. There is no automated solution to

holistically account for each full-time and part-time employee’s hours, which places the

University System at risk for being out of compliance with the Affordable Care Act. The

University of Georgia has indicated its legacy mainframe application needs to be replaced.

The University System finds itself at a crossroad. The original goals laid out by the Regents

when Shared Services was authorized are attainable; however, a shift in mindset is

required. All institutions must be willing participants. Business processes and software

should be standardized and policies deployed in support of the standardization, while also

ensuring essential functionality is available to meet the business requirements of the most

complex institutions. Solution providers and technology platforms also should be

harmonized to create the oneusg solution.

3 | P a g e

Vision, Mission, Scope, Assumptions and Guiding Principles

Vision

Provide a fundamentally sound and flexible human capital management platform, which

enables administrators to deliver superior customer service to our stakeholders (students,

faculty, employees, governing bodies and affiliates). Specifically, the project should:

Deliver efficiencies through the sharing / pooling of resources

Utilize existing investments in human capital and technology

o Institutional Resources

o Shared Services (Sandersville)

o Licensed Software

Reduce compliance risk through the harmonization and standardization of business

processes

Leverage thought leaders (academic and support) to position USG as the standard

for innovation and customer service excellence

Consolidate human resource functions onto a common technical platform (oneusg)

and eliminate redundant hardware, infrastructure upgrade and support costs

Consolidate call center and software support teams to maximize the use of our

internal human capital, provide consistent and reliable support and minimize costs

Mission

The mission of the project team is to work collaboratively to achieve the articulated vision,

to operate within the defined scope, time and resource boundaries, to conduct the project in

an open and collaborative fashion, to minimize risk to University System of Georgia entities

and to work toward the good of the University System of Georgia as a whole.

4 | P a g e

Project Goals/Scope

The oneusg HCM Implementation Project has the following goals:

Implement the selected software:

o PeopleSoft Human Resources

o PeopleSoft Employee Self Service

o PeopleSoft Manager Self Service

o PeopleSoft Absence Management

o PeopleSoft Time and Labor

o PeopleSoft Payroll

o PeopleSoft Benefits Administration

o PeopleSoft eBenefits

o PeopleSoft eProfile

o PeopleSoft eProfile Manager’s Desktop

o PeopleSoft ePay

o PeopleSoft Commitment Accounting

o Faculty Events (Custom)

o Other modules or customizations as identified and approved

o Recruiting*

o Onboarding*

o HR Analytics*

*Note: The University System Office (USO) has identified HR analytics,

recruitment and onboarding as a critical need and will be evaluating solutions

(in adherence with the process described in this document). A recruitment

and onboarding solution may be identified prior to the go-live of the pilot

deployment; however integration may not be built until a future date. It is

understood that this is required for research institutions to go live.

Future Phases may include:

o Performance Management

o Competency Management

o Succession Planning

o Health and Safety

Complete the implementation on time and within budget

Deploy standardized business processes across all institutions within the University

System of Georgia (USG)

Deploy functionality necessary to support the most complex institutions, even if less

complex institutions do not yet have the need

Design USG business practices and processes to fit software whenever practicable

make customization decisions on the basis of total cost of ownership

Implement a reliable, secure, and scalable technical architecture

Effectively manage associated organizational change

Eliminate paper-based processes

5 | P a g e

Enable mobile applications where available

Deploy third party solutions in areas where economics may warrant or significant risk

of compliance exists. Potential areas include:

o Garnishment Processing

o Cobra Administration

o Tax Filings

o W-2 and Payroll Distribution

o Non-Resident Alien (NRA) Processing

o ACA Compliance Reporting

o Benefits Billing

Provide a foundation to standardize additional business process and explore future

opportunities to standardize services

6 | P a g e

Critical Success Factors

Based on the project leadership’s experience, there is a set of critical success factors that

will guide planning and overall project execution. These include:

Executive Council, USO and Institutional leadership endorses and visibly supports

the project

The oneusg solution focus is to satisfy business requirements. Technology is only

one tool (of many) in that effort. Business process design, workflow, policies and

procedures, training and communication are considered equally important.

Project management team is assigned full-time

Project team composition represents all business areas

Core team members are allocated at greater than 50% to the project, and some

allowances are made for normal job responsibilities[NSA1]

Project team is empowered to make decisions. A process to socialize decisions must

be defined

Participation of institutional resources is encouraged, valued and rewarded

Key deployment and cutover dates will consider resource-intensive timeframes

Reengineering of business processes is strongly preferred to customizing software

Where necessary, experienced consultants will be engaged to facilitate

implementation efforts and provide knowledge transfer

Project information will be communicated frequently to all stakeholders (Faculty,

Students, Employees, Retirees, Practitioners, Executive Leadership, et al)

Data conversion and reporting will be addressed early in the project life cycle

Quality of solution and user impact will be a major consideration in defining project

timelines

Solutions will be piloted, evaluated and refined before being rolled out to the

University System as a whole

7 | P a g e

Assumptions

Projects are unique from many other aspects of business because there are significant

“unknowns” that can deter team members from making decisions. Assumptions are often

used as the basis for moving decisions forward without having 100% of the information. For

purposes of establishing goals and objectives, the following assumptions were used.

Assumptions for the oneusg HCM Implementation include:

Requirements and Scope Definition

All institutions will fully participate in the oneusg HCM initiative

Process changes and workarounds will be explored before customizations to

delivered software are proposed

The Subject Matter Experts (business owners) are responsible for requirement

accuracy, timeliness and completeness

Modifications will be approved only after an appropriate business case has been

reviewed and approved by the Project Leadership Team

The project team members will be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the

institutions they represent

Institutional project team members will communicate and collaborate with

institutional leadership on key strategic issues and represent an institution’s

viewpoint in the solution design

Where possible, oneusg will adopt “best business practices” that have been built

into the functionality of the human capital management software and related

products

The first phase of the oneusg HCM solution will transition off ADP (i.e., replacement

of existing ADP technology and service offerings). Future phases will add

functionality, including that required to support research institutions, and the

additional functionality will be in place before the research universities go live.

Institutions will not be forced to go “backward”; thus, functionality will be deployed

to ensure this commitment is met while acknowledging that change to a different

solution will not necessarily constitute going “backward”

User Experience

Emphasis will be placed on operational ease of use and business process efficiency

in widely used areas, including: Time Entry, Leave Requests, Mobile Applications,

Benefits Enrollment, Employee and Manager Self-Service

Testing and User Acceptance

Subject Matter Experts will develop user acceptance test scenarios.

8 | P a g e

Communications

Stakeholders will be engaged throughout the implementation to assist the project

team with adapting and converting institutions to the oneusg HCM platform

The University System community will be informed regularly about the project, its

objectives, and its impact on individuals, departments and institutions

Institutions and key stakeholders will have the ability to provide input, raise issues,

and address the needs of their respective areas

Key business decisions will be socialized with all institutions. Institutions will have a

mechanism to provide feedback to the oneusg project team

Budget and Resource Allocation

The University System leadership will provide sufficient budget for the project team

to successfully execute the project mission, scope, goals, and objectives

University System of Georgia institutions will commit the necessary human

resources to design, implement and test the system in a timely and efficient

manner, with the understanding that it will require the dedication of some of their

best staff members

Research Institution Deployment

Research Institutions who transition onto the oneusg platform will not lose

functionality or capabilities essential to their business requirements.

o For example, an institution that currently has an additional module or a third

party solution will not lose the functionality when it transitions. Rather, the

oneusg scope may be increased or an existing solution may be grandfathered

until an enterprise solution is available

Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Regents University and the University of

Georgia deployments may be managed with dedicated project teams under the

umbrella of the oneusg Program

Application & Customer Support

The oneusg support organization will be deployed shortly after the pilot project goes

live. The pilot project will be supported with project resources and existing Shared

Services personnel

The oneusg HCM support model will have a virtual support component in order to

allow existing staff to fully participate in the new organization

9 | P a g e

HCM Project Guiding Principles and Desired Outcomes

The following guiding principles and desired outcomes have been defined in support of this

mission:

• one set of uniform business procedures, policies and practices, accounting for the

greatest degree of complexity, not the least

• one technical platform / software solution

• one support team and service center

• one approach to solution delivery

• one source of data

• one governing structure

• one set of vendors to provide complimentary service offerings

1. GUIDING PRINCIPLE: one set of uniform business procedures, policies and

practices. Collaborate with thought leaders throughout the University System to

deploy best practice solutions to all institutions. Author and refine procedures

manuals and board policy in support of the agreed upon direction.

Desired outcomes:

Improved customer (faculty, staff, retiree and student) experience

Improved accountability and accuracy

More comprehensive and standardized business processes

Improved ability to adapt to future needs and deploy future solutions

Reduction in system-wide and institutional compliance risk

Elimination in “key person” risk associated with resource transitions

2. GUIDING PRINCIPLE: one support team and service center – Consolidate

redundant Human Capital Management support organizations into one

organization and increase the scope of Shared Services to serve as the primary

contact for all University System of Georgia employees and retirees. Repurpose

existing support staff in the oneusg virtual support organization.

Desired outcomes:

Increased visibility into the needs / issues facing University System employees

through standardized case management

Increased capacity at research institutions through the reduction of calls related

to common issues

Shifted practitioner responsibilities within institutions and shared services

Increased professional growth and advancement opportunities for staff

Enhanced skill level of workforce

Succession planning

10 | P a g e

3. GUIDING PRINCIPLE: one source of data. Consolidate the four (4) Human

Capital Management platforms into a single, centrally managed PeopleSoft 9.2

instance, with multiple “companies,” one for each institution. Work with key

stakeholders to define critical data elements that are shared by all institutions in

order to facilitate transparency, real-time analysis and benchmark against other

institutions.

Desired outcomes:

Improved user experience and mobile support for faculty, staff, retirees and

students

Consolidate upgrade hardware, consulting service and resource requirements into

a single platform.

Increased capability to provide accurate and timely responses to legislature and

other constituents requiring university system-wide data

Improved decision-making capabilities through real-time access to data

Reduced security risks related to sensitive data exposure

Elimination of errors and inconsistencies in reporting resulting from shadow

systems

Consistent and “best in class” technologies available to all institutions regardless

of size, budget, etc.

4. GUIDING PRINCIPLE: one set of vendors will provide complimentary service

offerings. Eliminate the resource drain of institutions designing “stand alone”

solutions in favor of collaborating to deploy enterprise solutions. Harvest savings

through negotiating with the purchasing power of the University System as a

whole rather than a standalone entity

Desired outcomes:

Reduction in costs through the economies of scale associated with purchasing on

behalf of the entire University System

Reduction in the resource requirements associated with institution-specific

solution deployment

Standard contract language with more substantive service level agreements

Reduction in integration requirements associated with disparate solutions

Reduction in institutions’ and university system risk through the deployment of

“best of breed” complementary service offerings

5. GUIDING PRINCIPLE: one approach to solution delivery. Deploy an approach

to business solutions that begins with a careful examination of our business

requirements, policies and practices. Collaborate with institutional resources to

develop a holistic business case and deployment plan. Obtain authorization from

the Executive Council prior to initiating any business transformation project.

Deploy solutions in phases, allowing for course corrections and time for business

11 | P a g e

processes and support organizations to mature. Gauge success of the business

transformation through the establishment of service level agreements and

metrics.

Desired outcomes:

Modification of business processes as needed to successfully adopt new systems /

solutions

Less institutional disruption through deployment of mature business solutions

Business policies and practices in line with institutional and strategic priorities,

and that support varying degrees of complexity across institutions

Informed stakeholder communities regarding the project, its objectives, and its

impact on all institutions

Timely, regular and visible progress reports and feedback mechanisms

Defined approval process for enhancement and change requests

Timely, regular and visible progress reports and feedback mechanisms

Solutions piloted, evaluated and refined before being rolled out to the University

System as a whole

Recognizable name and branding of the new human capital management system

Formalized plan for education and training of all stakeholders on the new system,

including students, faculty and staff.

6. GUIDING PRINCIPLE: one governance structure. Install a governing body

founded in the partnership between the USO and member institution presidents

(or designates), focused on leveraging the resources to deploy business

solutions to carry the University System into the future. Engage the governance

teams to define the vision and priorities of the oneusg platform so that service

offerings and technologies are in line with stakeholders needs. Utilize the

governance team to market the vision to sister institutions and stakeholder

communities to build support for the adoption of system-wide initiatives.

Desired outcomes:

Institutional “buy-in” to new business processes and technology solutions

Change resistance minimized

Solutions aligned with institutional and USO priorities

Informed university community regarding the project, its objectives, and its

impact on all academic and supporting units

Formal mechanism for resolving project conflicts between competing priorities,

vision, schedules, etc.

12 | P a g e

Timeline and Milestones

HCM Project Timeline

The projected timeline to complete the project is displayed in the graphic below. Pre-

planning, technical infrastructure installations, system-to-system integrations strategy and

analysis, and training occurred in 2014. The first phase of implementation began in January

2015. The timeline for R1 institutions is tentative and therefore subject to change to ensure

delivery of the essential functionality to meet the more complex business requirements.

13 | P a g e

Milestones

Primary milestones for the oneusg HCM Solution follow. A more detailed project plan will be

created upon the approval of the project charter.

Milestone Description Finish Date

Project Kick-Off 1/5/2015

Design Begins 3/17/2015

System Test Begins - Pilot 8/17/2015

User Acceptance Test Begins - Pilot 10/5/2015

Pilot Go-Live 1/1/2016

ADP Institution Go-Live (Less GSU) Early Summer 2016

GSU Go-Live Late Summer 2016

GRU Go-Live (Proposed) 1/1/2017

GT Go-Live (Proposed) Summer 2017

UGA Go-Live (Proposed) 1/1/2018

14 | P a g e

HCM Project Sponsorship and Major Stakeholders

15 | P a g e

HCM Project Roles, Responsibilities, and Structure The oneusg HCM implementation project will involve personnel from a variety of institutions and subject areas from across the

university system. The project structure must provide an organization that allows these disparate groups to come together in a

focused, team-oriented approach. Team members from participating institutions across the university system must be

considered “thought leaders” in the respective subject areas and be able to consider issues system-wide and think strategically

to design business processes and technology solutions that will benefit our stakeholders.

A successful project requires functional and technical leadership and teams to develop strong partnerships and a shared

commitment to its success. In our experience, successful projects are the direct result of truly functional leadership,

with the IT organization operating as the enabler of the functional vision in alignment with strategic technology

goals of the institution.

See Appendix for key roles and responsibilities in the project organization and a graphic representation of the project structure.

16 | P a g e

HCM Project Risks

Risk Mitigation Plan

The Issues and Risk matrix will be used for management of Risks and Issues across the project. The team has established a

foundational set of known oneusg program risks. Example as follows:

Risk Description

Probability / Impact

Negative Impact Planning Assumptions

Risk Trigger Owner Mitigation and

Contingency

Plan

H, M L Description Est. Sch. & Cost

Identify the potential risk/ barrier to delivering the product by the given date

Probability of the risk occurring/ Level of impact on the project

What would be the worst case scenario regarding this risk? How would the project be negatively affected?

How much time must be added to the schedule if the identified risk occurs? What additional costs will be charged to the client?

Specify the assumption related to the risk when the project plan was developed

How and when will you know if the impact will occur?

Contingency

Plan (What

steps would be

taken to avoid

the risk? What

would be done

if it happened?

Competing Projects will exacerbate resource constraints

M/H Competing Projects / responsibilities may cause over utilization of limited resources

Competing Projects timelines will be compromised.

Project Plan assumes a lower utilization rate, but that it will be adhered to.

New Project identified in impact analysis or by Sponsors

End-User Training will not be effective / sufficient to ensure users are prepared for deployment

L/H System Issue and Defect rates will be elevated and system will not be readily adopted and accepted by users

Unknown Training Plan incorporates adequate monitoring

Training attendance and participation are below proscribed benchmarks

17 | P a g e

A lack of clearly defined specific project deliverables, in writing, signed-off and agreed to by both leadership and the core team.

L / H Project Scope creep, schedule delays, miscommunication and cost overruns will result

Schedule and deliverable delays and cost overages will result

Leadership group will work with Team to define Project Golas, Objectives and Scope.

Decisions not returned in agreed timeframe.

Budget constraints and timely agreement on costs associated with scope changes.

L / H Final requirements gathered may result in a change order for costs associated with the additional effort to implement scope changes. Agreement and timely return of signed budget over run is critical for maintaining the project timeline.

Project schedule would be modified for the amount of days caused by a delay.

Leadership can complete review and signoffs on change orders within 48 hours of receipt of the change order.

Decision or feedback on change order is not returned within 48 hours.

The Project Team and Leadership do not build buy-in and commitment in all impacted groups

L / H If leadership (the leadership group and sponsor) do not build buy-in and commitment in all impacted groups then the project timeline and solution adoption may be negatively impacted.

Project delays, poor application and process acceptance, Training delays and failures.

Leadership team provides continual communication with PMO and PM and ensures a representative is present at leadership meetings and is included in decision-making. OCM and Formal Communication Mechanisms will be built into the plan

Project Communication mechanisms identify areas of Risk

Timely receipt of information from Project Leadership and Sponsors

H / H Missed dates on project plan.

Development completion, system test, UAT and go-live delays.

Leadership group and sponsor will provide timely responses for requested project information.

Decision or feedback on RFI is not returned within 48 hours.

18 | P a g e

Requirements not defined within timeframe allotted

H / H Missed dates on project plan.

2 - 3 weeks or up to the time delays associated with reaching decisions on requirements. Additional resource costs associated with this delay.

- All requirements can be captured, documented and recorded in a 1st draft of the Fit / Gap documents. - Client decision makers are available during design sessions. - Client signoff can be accomplished with 2 drafts and a final document for the Fit / Gap Documents, Reports F / G docs and File Layouts.

- Immediate delays in design decisions including screen layout, business rules, edits, validation and calculations. - Changes in design decisions after 2nd draft is documented. - Delayed approval and/or signoff on final versions of design documents from Client

Change in State Leadership Office of Governor.

Change in University System Office Leadership

Change in Institute President

H/H Project Funding, Scope. Schedule, delivery could change

Memorandum of Understanding in place

19 | P a g e

HCM Implementation Team Roster

Role Benefits Human Resources Absence

Management Time and Labor Payroll Faculty Events

Financial Accounting & Budget Prep

oneusg Functional Lead

Diane Kirkwood Diane Kirkwood Diane

Kirkwood Diane

Kirkwood Diane

Kirkwood Diane

Kirkwood Lynn Hobbs

C

O

R

E

T

E

A

M

Consultant Amy Russell Paula Casey Alex MacIntosh Barney Woods Adel Riyad Paula Casey Carrie Vallone

Team Members

Travis Jackson (UGA)

Dorothy Young (SSC)

Stephanie Young (SSC)

Karin Elliott (USO)

Amy Phillips (KSU)

David Smith (GGC)

Morgan

Chaveous (GRU)

Vicki Hodges (GSO)

TBD (GT) Annette

Brown (CSU) Angela

Borque (GSU) Dana Daniels

(SSU)

Duane Ritter (UGA)

Karen Iler (GSO)

Laurie Jones (CSU)

Felecia Donald (GSU)

Shalonda Cargill (GT)

Crystal Matthews (NGU)

Eyvon Mitchell (GPC)

Marie Ballard Myer (USO)

Shari Peck (GRU)

Julie Camp (UGA)

Anne Dinkheller (SSC)

Collette Long (GSW)

Rodney Byrd (WGU)

Deborah Francis (GSO)

Mary Nevill (CCG)

Jacqueline Sargeant (GT)

Eddie Yates (GRU)

Sandy Schneider (GGC)

Dan Hann (GCSU)

Diane Strenkowski (SSC)

Valerie Harper (GPC)

Julie Camp (UGA)


Collette Long (GSW)

Rodney Byrd (WGU)


Mary Nevill (CCG)


Eddie Yates (GRU)


Dan Hann (GCSU)



Jennifer Cannida (SSC)

Julie Camp (UGA)


Collette Long (GSW)

Rodney Byrd (WGU)


Mary Nevill (CCG)


Eddie Yates (GRU)


Dan Hann (GCSU)



Jennifer Cannida (SSC)

Linda Noble (USO)

Kristine Lesher (SSC)

Laurie Bush (GRU)

Tracie Sapp (UGA)

Lynn Lamanac (KSU)

Susan Donoff

(USO) Reid

Tankersly (GSU)

TBD (GT)

Chad Cleveland (UGA)

Mary Renfroe (GSU)

Laura Craft (GRU)

Kim Brown (GSO)

Vanessa Snavely (GGC)

Nick Henry (DSC)

Donna Caldwell (NGU)

Diedre Jackson (ABAC)

TBD – (GT) Tracey Cook

(USO) Jan Fackler

(VSU) Connie Clark

(GSO) Marissa Wester

(SSC)

20 | P a g e

HCM Cross-Functional Team Roster Role

Sponsored Research

Policies and Procedures Enterprise Data

Change Management

Technical Infrastructure Procurement

Lead TBD Sherma Francis Laurie Jones Vikki

Williamson Glenn Leavell

Debbie Lasher

C

O

R

E

T

E

A

M

Consultant N/A N/A N/A Kari Peterson Steve Liquori Michael Herger

Team Members

Mary Renfroe (GSU)

Sandy Mason (GT)

Gary Brenamen (GSU)

Jeannie Ricketson (GRU)

TBD – UGA TBD – GT TBD – GSO TBD – KSU TBD – WGU

TBD – NGU TBD - VSU

Erika Gravett (KSU)

Diane Kirkwood (USO)

Karin Elliott (USO)

Susan Norton (GRU)

Laurie Jones (CSU)

Rebecca Carol (ARM)

Jamie Tanner (GSO)

Robert Elmore (GSU)

Duane Ritter (UGA)

Shalonda Cargill (GT)

Kristine Lesher (SSC)

Susan Donoff (USO)

TBD – GT TBD – GRU TBD – UGA TBD - GSU

Ed Townsend (USO)

George Hernadez (USO)

Michael Bracewell (USO)

Kevin Marshall (USO)

Mark Plaskin (USO)

Layne Francis (USO)

21 | P a g e

Approvals

Henry M. Huckaby, Chancellor - University System of Georgia Dr. Jere W. Morehead, President - University of Georgia

Dr. G.P. “Bud” Peterson, President - Georgia Institute of Technology

Dr. Ricardo Azziz, President - Georgia Regents University

Dr. Mark P. Becker, President - Georgia State University Dr. William J. McKinney, President – Valdosta State University

Dr. Bonita Jacobs, President – University of North Georgia Dr. Stanley C. “Stas” Preczewski, President – Georgia Gwinnett College

Dr. Brooks A. Keel, President – Georgia Southern University

22 | P a g e

Appendix – Project Roles and Responsibilities Team Role Institution / Individual Major Responsibilities

Executive Council University System Office

(Permanent)

University of Georgia (Permanent)

Georgia Tech (Permanent)

Georgia Regents (Permanent)

Georgia State (Permanent)

Valdosta State (Rotating)

Georgia Southern (Rotating)

North Georgia (Rotating)

Georgia Gwinnett (Rotating)

The Executive Council has ultimate responsibility for the success of

the oneusg program, including oversight of the Shared Services

Center, the oneusg implementation projects and the oneusg support

teams.

Provide the strategic context and direction for the shared services

initiative

Encourage other institutions to support and resource the project in

conjunction with the Project Leadership Team

Hold project constituents accountable for delivering the project’s

expected benefits

Monitor overall progress of the implementation project(s)

Review and approve the strategic roadmap

Review and approve the budget for oneusg projects and support

organization

Last point of escalation for project and support issues

Define and reinforce guiding principles that shape the decision-

making process

Executive Sponsor John Brown, Vice Chancellor of

Fiscal Affairs

The Project Sponsor is responsible for achieving alignment of

the project with the strategic goals outlined by the

Chancellor’s strategic plan.

Act as the conduit to the Executive Council concerning

alignment of the oneusg implementation project with the

strategic goals of the University System of Georgia and project

guiding principles

Appoint and/or approve recommended project leadership

Monitor project progress

In coordination with the executive council, recommend major

changes to scope, timeline or budget

23 | P a g e

Role Institution / Individual Major Responsibilities

System Office Leadership Team

John Brown, Vice Chancellor of

Fiscal Affairs

Marion Fedrick, Vice Chancellor of

Human Resources

Curt Carver, Chief Information

Officer

Steve Wrigley, Executive Vice

Chancellor of Administration

Houston Davis, Chief Academic

Officer

The System Office Leadership Team is responsible for ensuring

the oneusg priorities and roadmap support the Chancellor’s

strategic vision for the University System and for

disseminating information to constituent communities outside

of administrative services

Champion the project by lobbying for support and acceptance from

institutional executive leadership and the academic community

Reconcile practitioner and institutional priorities with university

system priorities

Resolve major policy or business practice issues (as needed)

Lead by example in implementing and following policies

Promote project communication and institutional culture change

Encourage buy-in on the part of the university system community

24 | P a g e


Human Resources Steering Committee

Marion Fedrick (USO) – Vice Chancellor of Human Resources

Katherine Kyle (GGC) – Chief

Human Resource Officer Rebecca Caroll (AA) – Chief Human

Resource Officer Karin Elliott (USO) – Benefits

Practitioner Robert Elmore (GSU) – HR / Payroll

Practitioner

Zenith Carter (NGU) – Payroll

Practitioner Julie Peterson (KSU) – Accounting

& Budget Carol Gibson (GT) – Accounting &

Sponsored Research

Susan Norton (GRU) – Chief Human Resource Officer

Juan Jarrett (UGA) – Chief Human Resource Officer

Kim Harrington (GT) – Chief Human Resources Officer

Linda Nelson (GSU) – Chief Human

Resources Officer Tom Gausvik (CSU) – Chief Human

Resources Officer

Provides input and direction to the HCM Implementation Project team. Group is ultimately responsible for the solution design of the oneusg HCM platform.

Implementation project oversight and issue remediation

Approve functional design approach and the deployment of

standardized business practices

Approve configuration approach and standardization of data

elements

Provide communications to constituent groups such as CBO, CAO,

CHRO, Payroll User Group, Budget Issues Committee, etc.

Recommend major policy or business practice changes (as

needed)

Review and submit policy recommendations to Executive Council

(or appropriate governing body) for consideration and approval

Provide resolution to issues that may cause barriers in

implementation

Reduce employee resistance to innovation and change

Provide advice / feedback and support to the Project Leadership

Team

Consider the needs of extended user communities outside of an

institution (e.g., Athletic Association, Sponsors, Physicians Practice

Group, Hospital, Research Institute, Foundations, Other Direct

Support Organizations)

Project Advisory Team John Fuchko (USO) – Audit Debbie Lasher (USO) –

Procurement Kimberly B. Washington (USO) –

Legal John Scoville (USO) – Technology

Infrastructure Stan Gatewood (USO) – Security Becky Prince (USO) – Shared

Services

The Project Advisory Team is an extension of the HCM Steering Committee and is called in to clarify, provide direction and to make strategic recommendations as requested by the HCM Steering Committee or Project Leadership Team.

25 | P a g e


oneusg HCM Implementation Project Manager & Project

Advisor (member of Project Leadership Team)

Craig Golden (Consultant) Kurt Collins (Consultant)

The oneusg HCM Implementation project manager is responsible for managing the project using professional project management tools, techniques and processes.

Provide direct support to the Executive Sponsor, Executive

Council, System Office Leadership and HCM Steering Committee.

Act as the primary contact with vendors and other project

managers

Establish project work plan, project management methodology and

tools

Monitor and report project implementation status, risks and issues

Facilitate communication across teams

Review project deliverables for accuracy and completeness and

adherence to audit guidelines

Escalate issues to appropriate governing body

Facilitate completion of tasks and deliverables on time and budget

Ensure that a communication plan is developed and executed

Resolve issues related to project execution

Assign, manage, and supervise project team members

26 | P a g e


oneusg Functional Lead (Member of Project Leadership Team)

Diane Kirkwood – Human Resources

Lynn Hobbs - Financials

The HR Functional Lead(s) are charged with the functional design of the HCM solution. The lead will participate in design sessions with the implementation teams and work with the cross-functional teams to

ensure the overall objectives defined by the project are met.

Charged with understanding and applying the “big picture” to

decisions made on the project

Work closely with the project implementation manager

regarding scheduling logistics and participants

Work closely with the project manager in constructing project

plans and delivering status reports for the Leadership Team

Gather information and support for presentations to university

constituent groups such as practitioners, CHRO’s, CBO’s, CIO’s,

and CAO’s.

Facilitate discussion and participation among institution

resources and the consulting team to drive business process

development

Serve as a liaison between the Shared Services Center staff

and the project team to communicate design impacts on

existing service offerings

Escalate / elevate opportunities for standardization and policy

refinement

Review of functional designs

Active participant in the policies and procedures, sponsored

research, change management and enterprise data cross-

functional teams

27 | P a g e


Change Management Lead (Member of the Project Leadership

Team)

Kari Peterson (Consultant)

The change management lead orchestrates the deployment of communications and training in support of the HCM implementation.

Define the Communications and Training Plan to ensure all

stakeholder communities affected by the oneusg HCM

implementation are prepared for the change in business processes

and technology

Primary contact and coordinator with communications to ensure

appropriate branding and consistent messages concerning the

project

Serve as the primary liason between the project change

management team and the institution change management teams

Responsible for overseeing the development of quick reference

guides, instructor guides and web-based media in support of the

training plan

Work with the Project Manager to develop detailed and

dependency-driven project plans

Oversee the authoring of project communications

Partner with institutions to develop change plans for each of the

institutions impacted

Supervise content developers

28 | P a g e


oneusg Technical Lead (Member of Project Leadership Team)

Steve Liquori (consultant) The technical lead is responsible for managing all aspects of the development life cycle and the technical deployment of the oneusg HCM solution

Support development of system and technology road map

Work with the Project Manager to develop detailed and

dependency-driven project plans

Manage the development and execution of the data conversion

strategy

Oversee the development of custom interfaces and integrations

Supervise the development of reports and queries in support of

the HCM solution

Work with the Technical Infrastructure team on environment

installation, resource planning and resource allocation

Oversee the security and workflow deployment

Work with procurement team and selected 3rd party vendors to

ensure the HCM solution conforms to best practices, including

integration technologies and security standards

Work closely with Project Manager and Project Advisor to

construct and deliver reports to the leadership team

Maintain project schedules and provide weekly development

status updates

29 | P a g e


Project Budget and Procurement Lead (Member of the Project

Leadership Team)

Debbie Lasher

The project budget and procurement lead oversees the financial commitments of the oneusg project in addition to managing the development of RFP’s for third party service offerings:

Reconcile consultant status reports to invoices

Revise project financials and estimates at completion

Oversee the development of RFPs for service and technology

offerings

Partner with functional leads, implementation leads and

procurement consultant to assemble requirements in the

development of RFPs

Ensure the project adheres to financial and procurement controls

Work with system office personnel and project team leadership to

review resource plans and develop budget requirements by fiscal

year

Implementation and

Cross-Functional Team Members

See Implementation and Technical

Team Roster The implementation and cross-functional teams are responsible for

learning the software, configuring the software, actively participating in decision-making, and carrying out assigned work. Members of each team will represent the perspectives of their respective subject matter area with the goal of designing a solution that will scale to all

institutions within the University System of Georgia.

Learn the software and tools

Actively participate in the decision-making and configuration of the

software

Prepare for training and consulting

Communicate project progress and issues to their constituent

organizations

Review business issues and document recommended solutions

Plan, document, and test procedures

Develop the system to best serve the needs of the university

Populate system with institution-specific data

Perform manual data entry as required

Practice on the system

Test the system

30 | P a g e


Human Resources Implementation Team

Paula Casey (Consultant) – Lead

The Human Resources Implementation Team will design the future

state solutions in the following areas:

Define and Manage Positions

Create Organizational Structure

Maintain Employee Data

Update Employee Information

Update Job Information

Track Seniority

Update Compensation

Track Citizenship Information

Track Employment Contracts

Review and Report Job Summary Information

Track Secondment Contributions - FPS

Archive or Delete Employee Records

Track and Report Regulatory Information

Track Global Assignments

Identify Global Assignment Information

Identify Travel and Education Allowances

Complete Assignment and Update Competencies

Benefit Implementation

Team

Amy Russell (Consultant) – Lead

The Benefits Implementation Team will design the future state

solutions in the following areas:

Manage Benefits

Bill Employee for Benefits

Change Benefits Retroactively

Manage Flexible Spending Accounts

Monitor Benefits Compliance

Manage Benefits Enrollment

Change or Enroll Employees in Benefits

Elect Benefits

Initiate Benefit Enrollment Events

Provide COBRA Benefits

Review Current Benefit Enrollment

31 | P a g e


Faculty Events Implementation Team

Paula Casey (Consultant) – Lead

The Faculty Implementation Team will design the future state


Track Tenure and Probation

Track Flexible Service and Tenure

Track Faculty Events

Track Advancement

Grant Tenure

Absence Management Implementation Team

Alex MackIntosh (Consultant) – Lead

The Absence Management Team will design the future state solutions

in the following areas:

Manage Absences

Authorize and Track FMLA Leave

Manage Leave Transfers

Define Absence Tracking and Assign Schedules

Request and Approve Absences and Vacations

Provide Absences to Payroll

Record Absences, Vacations, Accruals and Entitlements

Analyze Absence Information and Identify Trends and Patterns

Payroll Implementation Team

Adel Riyad (Consultant) – Lead

The Payroll Team will design the future state solutions in the

following areas:

Manage Payroll

Create Employee Payroll

Create Payroll Taxes

Administer Garnishments

32 | P a g e


Time and Labor Implementation Team

Barney Woods (Consultant) – Lead

The Time and Labor will design the future state solutions in the

following areas:

Manage Time and Labor

Enroll Time Reporters, Assign Schedules and Setup TCD

Review Schedules and Forecasts

Report Time

Request Overtime and Obtain Approvals

Request Absences and Approvals

Review and Resolve Time Entry Exceptions

Create Payable Time

Resolve Time Administration Exceptions

Approve Time

Distribute Time Information

Review and Adjust Time Summaries

Financial Accounting /

Budget Prep Implementation Team

Carrie Vallone (Consultant) – Lead

The Financial Accounting / Budget Prep will design the future state


Enter Payroll Distributions

Enter Stipends & Payroll Adjustments

Project Encumbrances

Create Retroactive Distributions

Pay Benefit and Tax Liabilities

Remit Benefit and Retirement File to Providers

Reconcile Banking Transactions

Process TIGA

Budget Positions

Administer Payroll to GL Accounting Interface

33 | P a g e


Sponsored Research Cross-Functional Team

TBD - Lead The Sponsored Research cross-functional team that serves as an

extension implementation teams. Specifically, the team is tasked with

insuring the oneusg solution supports the research components of the

University System.

Document Sponsored Research Requirements

Define Test Scenarios

Review / Approve Business Processes and Specifications that

impact sponsored research

Execute Test Scripts

Assist in developing and administering sponsored research specific

training materials

Policies and Procedures Cross-Functional Team

Sherma Francis- Lead The Policies and Procedures team is tasked with deploying policies in

support of the oneusg HCM solution. Additionally, the team will revise

and supplement the HRAP, BPM and Board Policy to facilitate the

transition to a set of common business practices and data elements

across all institutions.

Revise BPM, HRAP in support of standardization and centralization

of certain business functions

Provide clarification to ambiguous terminology

Suggest Board Policy where needed to support the standardization

and centralization of certain business functions

Partner with State Accounting Office to adopt statewide business

policies and practices where needed

Enterprise Data Cross-Functional Team

TBD - Lead The Enterprise Data team is responsible for defining and

administering data elements that will be shared across all

institutions. Shared data elements will be identified during the design

phase of the oneusg solution.

34 | P a g e


Change Management Cross-Functional Team

Kari Peterson – Lead The change management team will work to develop a common change

plan (communications and training) across all institutions. The

change management team will integration with existing change

networks to share deliverables, timelines, approaches.

Procurement (Third Party Vendor Service Provider) Cross-

Functional Team

Debbie Lasher – Lead The procurement team is tasked with the creation and administration

of Requests for Proposals (RFP’s) for third party services in support

of the oneusg HCM platform. Additionally, the procurement team will

consolidate institution specific service agreements into university

system wide services agreements that can be utilized by all

institutions. The initial scope of the procurement team will focus

service currently provided by ADP including:

Garnishment Processing

Cobra Administration

Tax Filing

Benefits Billing

Affordable Care Act (ACA) Compliance

Payroll Tax Filing

Non-Resident Alien (NRA) Tax Administration

Time Clocks

Background and Credit Checks

Technical Infrastructure Cross-Functional Team

Glenn Leavell – Lead The technical infrastructure team is tasked with the procurement of

hardware, building and administering the technical foundation or the

services and the deployment of the PeopleSoft architecture. The

technical team will also support networking and security issues

identified by the project team