1 / 17

What’s Next for Financial Management Line of Business (FMLoB)?

What’s Next for Financial Management Line of Business (FMLoB)?. AGA/GWSCPA 6 th Annual Conference Dianne Copeland, Director, FSIO May 8, 2007. Common Governmentwide Accounting Classification (CGAC) Structure. Common Government-wide Accounting Classification (CGAC).

ting
Download Presentation

What’s Next for Financial Management Line of Business (FMLoB)?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. What’s Next for Financial Management Line of Business (FMLoB)? AGA/GWSCPA 6th Annual Conference Dianne Copeland, Director, FSIO May 8, 2007

  2. Common Governmentwide Accounting Classification (CGAC) Structure

  3. Common Government-wide Accounting Classification (CGAC) Project Description: Develop a common accounting code structure, including an applicable set of definitions, which all federal agencies’ new financial management systems must adhere. The common accounting code structure will: • Accommodate both standard government-wide accounting-related functions and critical agency-mission-specific accounting functions (data); and • Include standardization of such items as Treasury Account Symbol/ Treasury Account Funds Symbol; Internal fund code; Budget fiscal year; Accounting quarter and month; Program; Organization; Project; Activity; Cost Center; Object Class; and Budget function (and sub function code)

  4. CGAC Benefits • Create common language and definitions for accounting classification • Provide greater specification in future system requirements to ensure all elements needed are being provided by financial systems • Reduce need to maintain cross-walks and perform reconciliations • Facilitate preparation and transmission of financial reports to OMB and Treasury • Facilitate government-wide exchange, comparison, and aggregation of similar data • Reduce costs and risks of implementing a new Federal financial management system or migration to a shared service provider through improved portability of an agency’s accounting classification structure • Achieve greater consistency and accuracy in government-wide reporting.

  5. CGAC Schedule

  6. Relationship of Elements and Derivation Rules • Some comments questioned whether derivation rules should be made standard, pointing out that agencies may derive elements differently. • FSIO and the agency reps discussed this issue extensively. • Agreement was reached on standardizing the derivation of certain attributes, particularly from the internal fund code and the program code. • There are benefits to standardizing the practice including: • Facilitating the implementation process by providing a uniform framework and reducing the number of decisions to be made. • Easing the transition when an agency moves to a new financial system or an SSP. • The CGAC document will specify derivation rules in the internal fund code and program code. In other areas, it will state that derivation will depend on system configuration.

  7. Storage of Data Elements • Comments related to mandating storage of data elements were mixed: • Some favored storing to facilitate querying in real time. • Some were concerned about saturating the data base or difficulty in correcting errors. • FSIO decided that storage of data elements would be best handled in the Core Financial System Requirements. • The real issue of storage was: • To be able to query transactions and view all associated classification data elements, or run a report within a reasonable amount of time. • To be able to audit transactions. • References to storage of data elements in CGAC will be removed.

  8. Further Activities to Plan CGAC Implementation Possible implementation options Refine standard after early adoption at one agency for proof of concept? Refine standard after early adoption at one agency for proof of concept? Modify some central agency systems, then agency systems, then remaining central agency systems? Modify some central agency systems, then agency systems, then remaining central agency systems? Define implemen-tation options Implement in agencies using current software products? Implement in agencies using current software products? Agree on a standard structure CGAC implementation is complete CGAC implementation is complete Update core requirements and test product compliance prior to agency implementation? Update core requirements and test product compliance prior to agency implementation? Require adoption by some or all feeder systems? Require adoption by some or all feeder systems?

  9. Business Process Standardization

  10. Business Process Work Stream Project Description: Develop a standard set of business practices for core financial management functions (funds control, payables management, receivables management, reporting) to be adopted by all federal agencies. The document/model will include: • Sequenced activities for core business processes • Data objects participating in a business activity • Relationships among the objects as they exist in the actual business activities • Data elements and definitions used by these objects • Business rules governing these objects

  11. Business Process Standardization • Funds Control • Exposure Draft released on March 6th • Currently reviewing 500+ comments to finalize document • Payment Management • Ready for internal OMB review April 26th in preparation for release of exposure draft • Receivable Management

  12. Business Process Standardization Benefits • Lower risk of agency migration to a Shared Service Providers (SSP) • Assurance that SSP’s process requirements are addressed/incorporated into the process standards • More efficient standardization of interfaces to other systems and Treasury • Potential savings and efficiencies on human capital costs • Improved integrity of financial management at both the individual agency and Government-wide levels and ensures compliance with financial management laws and regulations.

  13. Interface Standards

  14. Incremental Test Plans

  15. Incremental test coverage includes major new 2006 Core Requirements, new Treasury requirements, and functional capability of Agency interest • FMS/GWA - IPAC and P224 reporting and bulk file generation, including TAS/BETC changes • Reimbursable agreement establishment and tracking • Additional CCR validation edits from the 2006 Core requirements • Ability to “capture” additional document information • FMS FACTS I and II attributes • Advance/pre-payment

  16. Incremental Test Schedule

  17. Document Library and Points of Contact • FSIO and FMLoB documents on the web site • www.fsio.gov • FSIO main number • 202.219.0526 • Dianne.copeland@gsa.gov

More Related