solicitation 0900000751 attachment a - omes.ok.gov€¦ · web viewin february 2013, the state of...

Oklahoma Hyperion Business ProcessesA Report to the Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services on Current and Future Processes for the Hyperion Software Deployment

Presented by:

Information Services Group, Inc.Public Sector

May 13, 2013

Copyright © 2013 Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Copyright © 2013, Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval devices or systems, without prior written permission from Information Services Group, Inc.


Oklahoma Hyperion Business ProcessesOklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................... 1

Background..........................................................................................................................................1

CURRENT STRATEGY MANAGEMENT AND BUDGETING OVERVIEW..................................................1

Current Tools.......................................................................................................................................2

Current Budgetary Chart of Accounts..................................................................................................3Requirements Not Supported in Current System.................................................................................3

CurrentStrategy Management and Budgeting Process Overview........................................................4Current Strategy Management & Budgeting Challenges......................................................................6

CURRENT CAFR PROCESS OVERVIEW............................................................................................................7

Current CAFR Tools..............................................................................................................................8Current Process Overview....................................................................................................................8

Current CAFR Challenges.....................................................................................................................9

FUTURE PROCESS: INTEGRATED PLANNING, BUDGETING, AND MANAGING FOR RESULTS....10

Future Integrated Planning, Budgeting, Managing for Results Tools.................................................11

Future Integrated Planning, Budgeting, and Managing for Results Chart of accounts.......................12Future Integrated Planning, Budgeting, Managing for Results Process Overview.............................13

Benefits to Integrated Planning, Budgeting, and Managing for Results.............................................16

FUTURE PROCESS: CAFR PRODUCTION......................................................................................................16

Future CAFR for Results Tools............................................................................................................18

Future CAFR for Results Process Overview........................................................................................20Benefits to CAFR for Results...............................................................................................................21


Page i


May 13, 2013

Introduction

In February 2013, the State of Oklahoma (State) Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) engaged ISG Public Sector to provide business and technical consulting services for the assessment of implementing Oracle Hyperion Public Sector Planning and Budgeting. This report describes the State’s current processes for budget development and CAFR production, and then sets forth a proposed new business process using the Hyperion toolset.

Background

The State of Oklahoma acquired the Oracle Hyperion software in May 2012 to replace PeopleSoft EPM and other tools, and to provide a modern more comprehensive toolset for strategy management, budget development and adjustment, and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). For enterprise financial, human resources and budgeting administration, the State currently uses PeopleSoft Financials and Supply Chain Management (FSCM) version 8.9, PeopleSoft Human Capital Management (HCM) version 9.0 and PeopleSoft Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) version 8.8, in addition to a number of internally-developed tools. When the Hyperion tool is fully implemented, the State plans to retire PeopleSoft EPM.

The State has licensed the following Hyperion modules in preparation for this deployment:

Hyperion Planning Plus

Hyperion Public Sector Planning and Budgeting

Hyperion Financial Management Plus

Hyperion Financial Data Quality Management

Hyperion Financial Data Quality Management Adapter Suite

Hyperion Financial Data Quality Management Adapter for Financial Management

Oracle Essbase Plus

Oracle Scorecard and Strategy Management

Current Strategy Management and Budgeting Overview

The State of Oklahoma’s annual budget process, like most state governments, can be characterized as traditional incremental budgeting. Under this process, budgets are developed and reviewed in the context of the previous year’s budget with funding decision-making primarily focusing on the incremental change to the budget.


Page 1


May 13, 2013

Also similar to most other states, this process has bottom-up and top-down characteristics. It is bottom-up within the Executive branch beginning with agency submissions to the OMES and culminating in the development of the Executive Budget, which serves as the initiation point for the Legislative appropriation process. From a legislative perspective, budgeting is more top-down with appropriation decisions being made at an aggregate level. Once budgets are adopted and signed into law by the Governor, the process continues with the development of Budget Work Programs, which is a bottom-up budgeting process. Finally, budget adjustments subsequent to budget adoptions are also made from a bottom-up perspective.

Though strategic plan and limited performance data is incorporated into agency budget request submissions every other year, this information does not align to a comprehensive statewide strategic plan and typically serves as contextual or reference information rather than as a driver for the allocation of budget resources. Further, the state capital budget does not directly integrate to the operating budget. Hence, decisions regarding capital investment are often made without direct access to information regarding the impact on long-term operating expenditures.

The State of Oklahoma currently develops its annual budget using a disparate collection of software tools throughout the budget development and execution lifecycle. Accordingly, the State’s budget process has been aligned around these different tools and can be characterized as having many discrete sub-processes with limited integration. The lack of an integrated, end-to-end budgeting application drives many inefficiencies, puts constraints on budgetary analysis, and lacks a platform for effective implementation or integration of current or future policy initiatives to the budget process such as strategy management to support Budgeting for Results or linking capital and operating budgeting. The current budget process is described in further detail below.

Current Strategy Management and Budgeting Tools

Currently the State of Oklahoma has a myriad of software applications used for budgeting throughout the budgeting lifecycle. These tools include:

Budget Request System – This application was built and is maintained by the State for agency budget development and initial submission of agency budgets requests, performance measures, strategic plans and capital outlay requests.

PeopleSoft EPM – Used by agencies and OMES to enter program work sheets (expenditure plans), after the budget is finalized, for load into PeopleSoft commitment control. Additionally, EPM is used for making all budget adjustments after the budget is loaded to PeopleSoft.

Agency Internally Developed Tools – Agencies have a myriad of internally-developed budgeting tools. These tools are used to support internal development of the agency budget, budgeting and performance management.


Page 2


May 13, 2013

Microsoft Office – Oklahoma’s budgeting process is substantially dependent on Microsoft Office applications (e.g., Excel, Word) throughout the budget lifecycle. Excel, it can be argued, is the most widely used budgeting tool.

Statistical Application – Used by the Oklahoma Tax Commission (and Oklahoma State University) to provide the statistical/ econometric modeling tools for statewide revenue forecasts used by the Board of Equalization.

Current Budgetary Chart of Accounts

The state currently utilizes the following PeopleSoft ERP dimensions for appropriated funds budgeting and for tracking actual expenditures with budget availability control.

Account - Object of expense or revenue source

Division - Organizational entity with budgetary responsibility

Department - Organizational child of division

Class - Fund grouping

Sub-Account – Expenditure and revenue details

Note: There is a need for a service/activity view of budgets (cross-organizational program view), which will need to be implemented as a new dimension in ERP and budgeting. Additionally, a new capital budgeting process is being developed by the Department of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) which will require the addition of a dimension to track capital projects and related work break downs in budgeting and PeopleSoft ERP.

Requirements Not Supported in Current System

Multiple budgeting applications/tools are currently required due to limitations in the PeopleSoft EPM application. These limitations have relegated this solution to use after the budget is actually developed in other tools. Instead, the state has developed a custom application for budget development. This necessitates significant data reentry, manipulation, and reconciliation and significantly impairs the state’s analytical capabilities.

Oklahoma’s current budgeting tools provide minimal support for strategic planning and performance management to support Budgeting for Results and for integrating operating and capital budgeting to improve decision support for capital investment. Where supported, these processes are supported inconsistently, provide limited reporting and analysis, and do not align to leading practices.


Page 3


May 13, 2013

Current Strategy Management and Budgeting Process Overview

The following table provides an end-to-end overview of the current budgeting process, including integrated strategic planning, at the State of Oklahoma illustrating which of the previously identified software tools are utilized throughout the budget process.

Table 1: Current Budgeting Process

Budget Stage Dates Input Tool Output OwnerAgency Capital Budget Request

May - July Guidance from Long-Range Capital Planning Commission

Budget Request System (internal system)

Agency Capital Plan

Agencies, Long-Range Capital Planning Commission

Long-Range Capital Planning Commission Review

May – July Agency Input, Executive Policy Guidance, Available Funding

No standard tool (spreadsheets, etc.)

Capital plan Long-Range Capital Planning Commission

Agency Internal Budget Request & Strategic Planning (Strategic Plan every other year)

July - October OMES guidance Agency internal built systems, spreadsheets, etc. No standard tool.

Data for input into Budget Request System

Agencies (Divisions & Departments)

Agency Budget Request Submissions & Strategy Plan (Strategic Plan every other year)

September – October

Agency internal budgets

Budget Request System (Custom State System)

Agency Electronic Submission to OMES, Submissions to House and Senate (reports, not in system)

Agencies

Multi-Year Trend Analysis

October – November

Historical data and policy

Excel Statutory multi-year revenue and expenditure reporting

OMES

OMES Review & Hearings with Agencies – Legislature Also Conducts Hearings

October – December

Agency Submissions, Governor’s Policy Guidance, Statutory Compliance

Budget Request System (Custom State System)

Summary Sheets for Hearings,Executive Budget Book Content

OMES

Equalization Board Produces Revenue Estimate

December Economic data Econometric modeling tools

Approved basis for Executive Budget (statutory limits based on this estimate)

Oklahoma Tax Commission, OMES, Equalization Board


Page 4


May 13, 2013

Budget Stage Dates Input Tool Output OwnerSubmission of Executive Budget to Legislature

January to February

Agency Submissions, Revenue Estimate, Agency Hearings

The Executive budget and associated Historical budget are developed using Microsoft Office.

Executive Budget, Historical Budget

Governor/OMES

Agencies Resubmit Agency Revenue Estimates

February to March

Agency Input No standard tool. Agencies submit via emails, etc.

Guidance to OMES

Agencies/OMES

Equalization Board Revised Estimate

February to March

Economic data The equalization board receives input from OSU economists and develops estimates internally using Forecast Pro, Excel and other tools.

Revised approved basis for Legislative Appropriations & Governor’s Action


Legislative Reviews and Appropriation Recommendations (Including Veto Override)

February to May

Legislative Authority, Statutes, Equalization Board Guidance

Microsoft Office is used to manage appropriation bills, language, etc.

Appropriations Bills

Legislature

Governor’s Action on Appropriation Bills (Including Veto)

February to May

Governor’s Authority, Statutes, Equalization Board Guidance


Signed Appropriations Bills

Governor/OMES

Equalization Board Meeting – Revenue & Expenditure Authority Adjusted to Incorporate Statute Changes

June – July Statute Changes, Legislative and OMES analysis

The equalization board certifies law changes that affect revenue.

Certification of Balanced Budget

Equalization Board

By Line Developed May – July Signed Appropriation Bills

OMES develops by line based on appropriations using Excel

Guidance an Reconciliation for Agency Budget Work Programs

OMES


Page 5


May 13, 2013

Budget Stage Dates Input Tool Output OwnerAgencies Submit Budget Work Programs

May – July OMES guidance, Agency Authority

PeopleSoft EPM is used to create budget work program. Additional documentation from agencies received outside EPM.

Electronic Submission to OMES

Agencies

OMES review and approval of Agency Budget Work Programs

May – July Appropriations, Equalization Board Guidance, Statutes, Governor’s Authority

PeopleSoft EPM is used to review and approved agency work programs.

Feed to PeopleSoft Budget Control

OMES

Input/Upload of “Limits”

June Statutes and policy guidance on ceiling spending thresholds for specific purposes

Limits are developed in Excel and uploaded to PeopleSoft EPM

Compliance reporting for agency budget work program

OMES

Budget Adjustments

July – June State policies, carryover requirements, operational needs.

PeopleSoft EPM is used to make budget adjustments which adjust PeopleSoft budget control levels

Approved budget adjustments affected in PeopleSoft budget control.

Agencies, OMES

Currently Oklahoma does not have a comprehensive strategy management (strategic planning and performance management) process or tools. It is envisioned this will be addressed as part of this project. As previously noted, currently strategy management is limited to collecting agency goals, measures, etc. as part of the budget process. Additionally, some agencies have their own internal strategic planning and performance management processes and tools.

Current Strategy Management and Budgeting Challenges

Oklahoma’s current budgeting tools and processes produce many challenges as Oklahoma endeavors to improve its budgeting process and align toward a Budgeting for Results approach. These challenges include:

Disparate Budgeting Applications – The state’s current collection of disparate budgeting tools produces rampant inefficiencies with substantial and repeated data re-entry,


Page 6


May 13, 2013

manipulation, and reconciliation. Beyond inefficiencies, analysis capability is impaired and confidence in the data is undermined.

Budgeting Dimensions/Chart of Accounts – The state’s current chart of accounts dimensions do not provide for budgeting of and monitoring expenditures by cross-organizational and cross-funding programs (grouping internal/external services or activities). Additionally, the state’s chart of accounts does not, as currently configured, provide a standardized foundation for implementation of capital budgeting. Without adding dimensions to the State’s current ERP solution, effectively integrating operating and capital budgeting and budgeting to strategic planning and performance management, this capability will be substantially constrained. This will substantially impair the State’s efforts to more robustly support these processes.

Limited Functionality – The state’s current landscape of budgeting tools does not provide a foundation for integrating and optimizing processes. There is substantially limited functionality to support:

Capital budgeting;

Strategic planning and performance management;

Budgeting decision packages;

Budget book publication automation; and,

End-to-end process integration.

Current CAFR Process Overview

The State’s current Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) process, similar to many states, can be described as very manual and very labor intensive, requiring large amounts of financial, statistical, and narrative information to be rekeyed into various applications such as PeopleSoft, Excel spreadsheets, and Word documents that are ultimately compiled into a single book for publishing by the December 31st deadline.

At a summary level, the CAFR process can be described as follows:

A cash basis Combining Trial Balance (CTB) is prepared using the “Actuals” ledger data in PeopleSoft, which is authenticated by the Office of the State Auditor and Inspector;

GAAP Packages are prepared by state agencies and submitted to the State Comptroller, where GAAP conversion forms are recorded using the “Adjusted” ledger in PeopleSoft, spreadsheets, or Word documents, depending on the type of data collected;

Using the “Actuals” and “Mod Accrue” ledgers in PeopleSoft, General Fund and Fiduciary Fund financial reports are prepared on a modified accrual basis using PeopleSoft’s delivered nVision reporting tool;


Page 7


May 13, 2013

Audited agency reports, primarily from component units such as the Turnpike Authority, are provided by agency’s auditor to the State Comptroller, where the data is manually entered into spreadsheets;

Entity-Wide Statements are prepared beginning with Fund statements created in nVision, adding Agency/Component Unit data manually aggregated in spreadsheets. Various statement presentations are then prepared using Excel;

Budget to Actuals Statements are prepared in Excel, using budget data provided by the Budget Section;

Statistical data (trend data and non-financial data useful in interpreting basic financial statements) is collected using Excel; and

The CAFR book is compiled, manually consolidating all the various Excel spreadsheets and Word documents into a single book for publishing.

The Office of the State Auditor and Inspector performs various audits throughout the CAFR life-cycle process and then performs one final audit before the report is published.

Current CAFR Tools

PeopleSoft Financial

MS Excel

MS Word

nVision

Current Process Overview

The following table provides an end-to-end overview of the current CAFR process at the State illustrating which of the previously identified software tools are utilized throughout the CAFR process.

Table 2: Current CAFR Process

Stage Dates Input Tool Output OwnerCombining Trial Balance

Fiscal year-end PeopleSoft accounting data

PeopleSoft Financials

Cash basis Combining Trial Balance statements

Comptroller

Agency GAAP Conversion

Starting end of June (fiscal year-end)

PeopleSoft accounting data and cash basis CTB

Excel packet on Comptroller web site (“Blue sheets”)

Completed Excel worksheets

Agencies


Page 8


May 13, 2013

Stage Dates Input Tool Output OwnerCAFR GAAP Conversion

July – cashAugust – APSept–LitigationOct–Medicaid

Completed agency Excel workbooks

Excel PeopleSoft journal entries in separate ledger (“Mod Accrual”) for modified accrual basis

Comptroller

CAFR Compilation September – October (Higher ed comes in Oct. 31)

Mod Accrual ledger

nVision, Excel, Word

Reports for CAFR, narrative and text for CAFR

Comptroller

Preliminary Auditor Review


CAFR reports and narrative

Excel, Word Audited reports and text

State Auditor

CAFR Book Assembly

December (complete book by Dec. 20)

Audited reports and text

Word CAFR Report Book

Comptroller

Final Auditor Review

December CAFR Report Book

Word Final CAFR Report Book, GFOA Packet

State Auditor

Current CAFR Challenges

Oklahoma’s current CAFR process and reporting toolset provide many challenges as the State attempts to improve a manual and labor intensive process with an efficient process that leads to a shorter production lead time and drastic reduction in man-hours. Some of these challenges include:

Numerous data sources – The State’s current process requires the collection, compilation and organization of data from many sources such as PeopleSoft, GAAP conversion forms, agency’s audited financial statements, budget data, and statistical data;

Data rekeyed into disparate collection systems – As data is gathered from various sources, much of the data is rekeyed into various systems such as PeopleSoft, Excel, and Word; and

Manual assembly of the CAFR report – The assembly of the State’s CAFR report is entirely a manual process, which requires the difficult task of merging large amounts of narrative text, financial data and statistical data into a single report format. Last minute updates often results in cascading changes throughout the report that require great effort to manually update, introducing increased risk of report errors.


Page 9


May 13, 2013

Future Process: Integrated Planning, Budgeting, and Managing for Results

The State of Oklahoma desires to leverage the Hyperion suite of applications as a tool for inductively reengineering its planning, budgeting, and performance management processes and shift the focus to allocating and managing resources in the context of services provided by the State. This pivot in focus provides the foundation for transforming planning and budgeting from allocating scarce state resources around organizational or statutory control to greater optimization of the allocation of scarce resources based upon expected return on investment. Under this new process, the State will establish strategic priorities through a consolidated statewide strategic plan, link funding decisions to the strategic plan in the budget system, and measure success based on financial and non-financial performance indicators.

The State does not see Planning, Budgeting, and Managing for Results and incremental budgeting as mutually exclusive. It is the State’s intent to continue with its incremental approach and focus on funding changes (decision packages) funding to the strategic plan (e.g. goals, objectives, or programs) in Hyperion PSPB. However, Budgets will continue to be developed and allocated, at a macro level, to programs, which will align to the strategic plan for reporting. In lieu of zero-based budgeting, which requires substantial re-justification of the full budget with the intent of weeding redundancy and underperformance, the State intends to implement a Budgeting for Results approach to develop a new cross-organizational program structure, aligning around external and internal services. This effort will provide a foundation for identifying and addressing redundancy or underperformance without the administrative burden of zero-based budgeting, which has found very limited success in public sector.


Page 10


May 13, 2013

Figure 1: Oklahoma's New Integrated Planning, Budgeting, and Managing for Results Process

The Hyperion application suite will serve as the foundation for this new strategic alignment of Oklahoma’s planning, budgeting, and performance management. Hyperion will provide an integrated, end-to-end planning, budgeting, and performance management tool, substantially reducing or eliminating in many areas the need for offline budgeting tools. Further Hyperion Strategy Management will serve as a tool for inductively engineering new statewide strategic planning and performance management processes. Further, the provided integration will eliminate substantial data reentry, manipulation, and reconciliation. Labor intensive activities, such as publishing budget books, will be largely automated. This will allow for greater focus on budgetary and performance analysis. Further, Hyperion will provide real-time data and tools to support decision-making throughout the planning, budgeting, and performance management lifecycle.

In addition to supporting the operating budget development, Hyperion will support the State’s new Capital Budgeting process and current year budget adjustments. Further, Hyperion will be configured to integrate each of these sub-processes into the operating budgeting including the ability for position budgeting.

The new end-to-end integrated planning, budgeting, and managing for results process is detailed in table 2.


Page 11

Statewide Strategic Plan

BudgetingPerformance Management


May 13, 2013

Future Integrated Planning, Budgeting, Managing for Results Tools

Hyperion:

Planning, Public Sector Planning & Budgeting (PSPB)

Personnel cost planning

Composite Form Definitions (Estimated 12-15 composite forms)

Base Budget (Estimated 2 composite forms)

Funding Supplement/Adjustment Form (Estimated 1-2 decision packages)

Capital (Estimated 2 composite forms, New and Existing)

Central Forms (Estimated 4-5 composite forms: Revenue, By Line, Limits, Long-Range Revenue)

Budget Execution (Estimated 3-4 composite forms: Budget adjustment, monthly plan, plan update)

Reporting and Ad Hoc Analysis (Estimated 40 medium to complex reports)

Hyperion Financial Close Management - Publication of Executive Budget, Historical Budget, Capital Budget (New, to be defined)

Hyperion Strategy Management - Strategic Planning and Performance Management

Statewide strategic plan forms, reports, and dashboards (process and related configurations to be defined as part of project) – Provide for development and update of hierarchical mission, goals, objectives, initiatives, programs, performance metrics and target, etc.

Agency strategic plan forms, reports, and dashboards (process and related configurations to be defined as part of project) – Provide for development and update of agency (or lower level) strategic plans which integrate to the statewide strategic plan for reporting.

Agency performance management forms, reports and dashboards (process and related configurations to be defined as part of project) for collection actual performance information (e.g. how many lane miles of resurfacing were performed in the prior month).

Microsoft Office – Will continue to be used by legislature as they do not plan to access the system at this time. Additionally, these tools may be used for offline analysis, etc. However, the use of Microsoft Office tools will be significantly reduced and replaced by online Hyperion tools.

Statistical Applications – The Equalization Board will continue to use its own tools for statewide revenue estimates. However, this data will be entered or uploaded into Hyperion to support reporting and analysis once available.


Page 12


May 13, 2013

Note Hyperion Essbase and Financial Data Quality Management will be utilized for data storage and integration but not by end users.

Future Integrated Planning, Budgeting, and Managing for Results Chart of accounts

In addition to the current PeopleSoft budgeting dimensions, it is anticipated that the State will need to adopt at least two additional dimensions, where applicable, in the PeopleSoft and Hyperion solutions:

Program – This hierarchical dimension will be used to track cross-organizational and/or cross-funding programs. These programs will be parent to services provided by each program.

Project – Currently there are multiple ways of tracking project funding in PeopleSoft. A common definition of project and related work breakdown structures will be essential to managing the State’s new Capital Budget process.

Future Integrated Planning, Budgeting, Managing for Results Process Overview

The following table provides an end-to-end overview of the future integrated process at the State of Oklahoma.

Table 3: To Be Budgeting for Results End-to-End Process

Budget Stage Dates Input Tool Output OwnerDevelopment of Statewide Strategic Plan (Developed on five-year basis and updated in even years)

Through July Public, Executive Leadership, Legislature

Hyperion Strategy Management

Statewide strategic plan

Governor, OMES

Agencies Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures Updated (Updated in Even Years)

Through July Public, Governor, Legislature, Agency Leadership


Departmental strategic plans

Agencies

Agency Capital Budget Request

May - July Guidance from DCAM/OMES

Hyperion Planning & PSPB

Agency Capital Plan

Agencies, DCAM/OMES


Page 13


May 13, 2013

Budget Stage Dates Input Tool Output OwnerCapital Budget Review

May – July Agency Submissions, Executive Policy Guidance, Available Funding


Capital Program Plan document

DCAM/OMES

Agency Internal Budget Request

July - October OMES guidance Hyperion Planning & PSPB

Data for input into Budget Request System

Agencies

Agency Budget Request Submissions

September – October

Agency internal budgets


Agency Electronic Submission to OMES, Submissions to House and Senate (report-only access to Hyperion)

Agencies

Multi-Year Trend Analysis


Historical data and policy

Excel upload to Hyperion Planning & PSPB

Statutory multi-year revenue and expenditure reporting

OMES

OMES Review & Hearings with Agencies – Legislature Also Conducts Hearings

October – December

Agency Submissions, Governor’s Policy Guidance, Statutory Compliance


Summary Sheets for Hearings,Executive Budget Book Content

OMES

Equalization Board Produces Revenue Estimate

December Economic data, OSU economist input

Econometric modeling tools (Forecast Pro or replacement), Hyperion Planning & PSPB (entered or uploaded to reflect Revenue estimate)

Approved basis for Executive Budget (statutory limits based on this estimate)


Submission of Executive Budget to Legislature

January to February

Agency Submissions, Revenue Estimate, Agency Hearings

Hyperion Planning & PSPB, Hyperion Financial Close Management

Executive Budget, Historical Budget

Governor/OMES

Agencies Resubmit Agency Revenue Estimates

January Agency Input Hyperion Planning & PSPB

Submission to OMES

Agencies/OMES


Page 14


May 13, 2013

Budget Stage Dates Input Tool Output OwnerEqualization Board Revised Estimate

February Economic data, OSU economist input

Econometric modeling tools (Forecast Pro or replacement), Hyperion Planning & PSPB (entered or uploaded to reflect Revenue estimate)

Revised approved basis for Legislative Appropriations & Governor’s Action


Legislative Reviews and Appropriation Recommendations (Including Veto Override)

February to May

Legislative Authority, Statutes, Equalization Board Guidance


Appropriations Bills

Legislature

Governor’s Action on Appropriation Bills (Including Veto)

February to May

Governor’s Authority, Statutes, Equalization Board Guidance


Signed Appropriations Bills

Governor/OMES

Equalization Board Meeting – Revenue & Expenditure Authority Adjusted to Incorporate Statute Changes

June – July Statute Changes, Legislative and OMES analysis

The equalization board certifies law changes that affect revenue.

Certification of Balanced Budget

Equalization Board

By Line Developed June – July Signed Appropriation Bills


Guidance an Reconciliation for Agency Budget Work Programs

OMES

Agencies Submit Budget Work Programs

May – July OMES guidance, Agency Authority


Electronic Submission to OMES

Agencies

OMES review and approval of Agency Budget Work Programs

May – July Appropriations, Equalization Board Guidance, Statutes, Governor’s Authority


Feed to PeopleSoft Budget Control

OMES


Page 15


May 13, 2013

Budget Stage Dates Input Tool Output OwnerInput/Upload of “Limits”

June Statutes and policy guidance on ceiling spending thresholds for specific purposes


Compliance reporting for agency budget work program

OMES

Budget Adjustments

July – June State policies, carryover requirements, operational needs.


Approved budget adjustments affected in PeopleSoft budget control.

Agencies, OMES

Monthly Forecasts and Monthly/ Quarterly Updates (to Year End)

July – June Actual expenditure and revenues year to date, business requirements


Updated forecasts

Agencies, OMES

Performance Management (actuals)

July – June Various data sources holding supporting data


Monitor plan vs actual performance

Agencies collect data, OMES reviews/reports

Benefits to Integrated Planning, Budgeting, and Managing for Results

The State’s new ‘to be’ budgeting process and tools will provide substantial benefits to the state over the current process and tools including:

Efficiency:

Data manipulation and reconciliation will be substantially reduced.

Budget book publishing will be automated.

Data will integrate throughout the budget process, eliminating re-entry.

Agency systems will be eliminated, saving cost.

Effectiveness :

Data will be more accurate and, with the elimination of many shadow or offline budgeting tools/processes, there will be a single version of the truth.

Real-time budgetary and policy analysis.

Budget analysis will be more accurate, timely, and comprehensive.

Budget recommendations/decisions will be made with strategic context.


Page 16


May 13, 2013

Budget staff will spend more time analyzing and less time crunching numbers.

The state will have a process and tools to optimize the allocation of scarce state human, financial, and capital resources.

Future Process: CAFR Production

The State will leverage the Hyperion suite of applications as a toolset for significantly improving its current CAFR reporting process. Rather than gathering and consolidating the State’s financial information manually using spreadsheets and Word document, the new toolset will provide automated processes for data collection and data validation from disparate data sources, reduce manual data entry, and significantly reduce risk of errors. In addition, automated workflow processes will be used to move documents through the various draft and review stages, and more importantly, create a complete audit trail to meet CAFR reporting monitoring compliance requirements.

The process begins with the State Comptroller creating a CAFR application using Hyperion’s Public Sector Planning and Budgeting (PSPB) to organize the collection of data from various disparate sources. Using customized data forms, task lists, and an approval routing process, the collection and review of statewide information will be aggregated into a central repository (Essbase), which in due course becomes the primary data source for generating the State’s CAFR. As financial, statistical, and narrative information are collected and audited throughout the five-month CAFR process, CAFR reports (sub-reports) are generated and saved into the CAFR repository for later compilation into a CAFR book. The Hyperion Financial Reporting tool will generate the majority of the reports. This reporting tool will provide a graphical, object-based interface to enable staff to create reports that combine grids of data and text, charts, graphs, and images. Staff will have complete control over layouts, formatting, fonts, and colors, as well as a flexible range of output options enabling wide distribution via print, HTML Web pages, PDF, and online viewing.

As a final step, a CAFR book template is created using Hyperion PSPB, which defines the overall CAFR report layout. The CAFR report layout sections and subsections will be linked to live data in PSPB, as well as other documents and sources. The reports within the CAFR book template can be periodically updated to accommodate last minute changes as needed.

At a summary level, the future CAFR process can be described as follows:

PeopleSoft Cash Basis Data - Using a prepackaged source adapter delivered with Hyperion Data Quality Management, the cash basis data is transferred from PeopleSoft’s “Actuals” ledger to the CAFR repository. A delivered web-based interface will enable staff to load, review, and verify data from the PeopleSoft source system to the CAFR repository target system. Delivered audit reports will be utilized to authenticate data by the Office of the Auditor and Inspector.


Page 17


May 13, 2013

GAAP Packages – Using custom data collection forms created in PSPB, financial, statistical, and narrative information are collected from agencies. Task lists are used to manage data collection forms assigned to agencies, which include due dates and responsible owners for each task. The workflow approval routing process is used to facilitate the review of agencies’ submitted data prior to updating the CAFR central repository (Essbase).

Combining Trial Balance (CTB) –The CTB report and other cash basis financial reports are generated in PeopleSoft as Crystal reports and cross-checked against Hyperion reports using data that is transferred into the CAFR repository with the Hyperion Financial Reporting tool. Reports will be reviewed, approved, and saved into a final compilation staging area within the CAFR repository to facilitate the publication of the CAFR book.

Agencies’ Audited Financial Reports – The state agencies’ and component units’ audited financial statements are gathered using custom data collection form(s) created in PSPB. Agencies attach their audited financial reports and/or key financial data into custom form(s), updating the CAFR repository after review and approval by State Comptroller staff. Optionally, agencies can key their financial data into Excel spreadsheet templates provided by the State Comptroller and then attach their updated file) to the custom data collection form created in PSPB. State Comptroller staff review, approve, and import agencies data directly into the CAFR repository using SmartView.

Modified Accrual Basis Data – The modified accrual basis data is gathered using custom data collection forms created in PSPB. Agencies attach their GAAP conversion forms and/or key modified accrual basis data into custom form(s), updating the CAFR central repository after review by State Comptroller staff. Optionally, agencies can key their modified accrual data into an Excel spreadsheet template provided by the State Comptroller and then attach their updated files to the custom data collection form created in PSPB. State Comptroller staff review, approve, and import agencies data directly into the CAFR repository using SmartView.

Fund Financial Reports – The Fund Financial Reports for the General Fund, Fiduciary Fund, and Proprietary Fund are generated using data transferred to the CAFR repository; cash basis data is transferred from PeopleSoft and modified accrual data is gathered using PSPB data collection forms in the CAFR repository. The Hyperion Financial Reporting tool is used to create and generate Fund Financial Reports. Reports are reviewed, approved, and saved into a final compilation staging area within the CAFR repository to facilitate the CAFR book publishing.

Entity-Wide Financial Statements - The Entity-Wide Financial Statements are generated using data from the CAFR repository with the Hyperion Financial Reporting tool. Financial statements are reviewed, approved, and saved in a “Final” compilation staging area within the CAFR repository to facilitate the CAFR book publishing.

Budgeted to Actuals Statements – The Budgeted to Actuals Statements are generated using data from the CAFR repository with the Hyperion Financial Reporting tool. Statements are


Page 18


May 13, 2013

reviewed, approved, and saved in a “Final” compilation staging area within the CAFR repository to facilitate the CAFR book publishing.

Statistical Section – The statistical data is gathered using Excel spreadsheets by State Comptroller staff and saved in the CAFR Repository. The statistical data is reviewed, approved, and saved in a “Final” compilation staging area within the CAFR repository to facilitate the CAFR book publishing.

CAFR Assembly and Publishing – The “Budget Book” publication functionality within PSPB is used to assemble the formal CAFR document. The output can be generated in either PDF formant and/or a deployable HTML for website publishing. Additionally, the State’s “CAFR Book” can be re-used in future years as a basis for the new “CAFR Book.”

Future CAFR for Results Tools

Public Sector Planning and Budgeting (PSPB)

Hyperion Planning Plus

Hyperion Financial Management Plus

Financial Data Quality Management

Financial Data Quality Management Adapter for Financial Management

Oracle Scorecard and Strategy Management

Hyperion SmartView for Office Fusion Edition

Oracle Essbase Plus

MS Word

MS Excel

MS PowerPoint


Page 19


May 13, 2013

Future CAFR for Results Process Overview

The following table provides an end-to-end overview of the future CAFR process at the State of Oklahoma.

Table 4: To Be CAFR for Results End-to-End Process

CAFR Stage Dates Input Tool Output OwnerGAAP Packages 1st GAAP

Package due to July 30th,

2nd GAAP Package August 13th, and

3rd GAAP Package October 8th

PeopleSoft accounting data or other non-PeopleSoft data as appropriate.

input forms created in Hyperion PSPB and available for agencies input

Agencies input to forms, attached Excel, Word, which is saved in Essbase

Agencies

Combining Trial Balance (CTB)

August 30th PeopleSoft accounting data from “Actuals” ledger

Cash basis data exported from PeopleSoft to Hyperion PSPB using Hyperion Financial Data Quality Management;

“Cash Basis” data input into Essbase via Hyperion PSPB

State Comptroller

Audited Agencies (mostly Component Units)

Audit Deadline November 16th

for Component Unit Financial Statements

Audited agency annual financial reports in Excel, Word, and PDF

Collected using Hyperion PSPB Forms.

Component Unit Financial Statements generated using Hyperion Financial Reporting

Agencies input to forms, attached Excel, Word, which save in Essbase

Component Unit Financial Statements

Agencies

State Comptroller

Fund Statements Audit Deadline November 16th

for Fund Financials

Data stored in Essbase

Generated using Hyperion Financial Reporting

Fund Statements – General Fund, Proprietary Funds, and Fiduciary Funds

State Comptroller


Page 20


May 13, 2013

CAFR Stage Dates Input Tool Output OwnerEntity-Wide Statements

Audit Deadline for December 1st for Entity-Wide Statements

Data stored in Essbase

Hyperion Financial Reporting

Statements stored in CAFR repository

State Comptroller

CAFR Book assembled using Hyperion PSPB, Budget Book

December (complete book by Dec. 20)

CAFR Repository – Forms, Excel, Word, Logos, Graphics, Charts, etc. mapped to CAFR Report template

Hyperion PSPB, Budget Book

CAFR Report Book

Comptroller

Final Auditor Review

December CAFR Repository – Forms, Excel, Word, Logos, Graphics, Charts, etc.

Hyperion PSPB, Budget Book

Draft Oklahoma CAFR Book

State Auditor

Benefits to CAFR for Results

The State’s new ‘to be’ CAFR process and tools will provide substantial benefits to the state over the current process and tools including:

Enables automated data collection and validation from disparate data sources;

Reduces manual data entry;

Links report templates to underlying data, ensuring that any corrections are automatically reflected throughout the CAFR;

Moves documents using automated workflow through the various draft and review stages;

Automates CAFR publishing; and

Provides a familiar, user-friendly interface.


Page 21

solicitation 0900000751 attachment a - omes.ok.gov€¦ · web viewin february 2013, the state of...

Documents