Challenges in the Implementation of PeopleSoft HRMS

1. Challenges in the Implementation of PeopleSoft HRMS Steve Daysh The University of Adelaide Australia

2. Understanding The University of Adelaide • Established in 1874. • 14,000 students including over 1,500 international students from 70 countries. • Produced 3 Noble Prize winners and many Rhodes Scholars. • Ranks high among the top universities in the Asia-Pacific region in winning research funds. • One of group of ‘8’ major research institutions in Australia.

3. Project Endeavour • 1998 committed to implementing new and improved enterprise-wide management information systems. • Support University of Adelaide strategic business direction • Selected PeopleSoft ERP and partnered with Ernst & Young (now Cap Gemini Ernst & Young (CGEY)) for the implementation. • Project kick off - 2 day retreat. • 3 days debating names of project: • Endeavour • Illumenation • MIS2001 • Camelot

4. Why PeopleSoft? • Interlinked Financials, Human Resources and Student Administration. • Partnerships with other suppliers (eg Microsoft). • Commitment to Higher Education • Vendor viability. • International Support Network with other Universities. • Australian Support Network.

5. Meet Project Endeavour

6. Project Endeavour Structure

7. Scope of Payroll • Payroll - $135,000,000 per annum. • 4,000 employees and scholars per fortnight. • 2,600 contract staff. • 600 casuals. • 800 scholars.

8. The HRMS Challenge • 1970’s legacy payroll system non-Y2K compliant. • Limited systems integration with HR. • Manual leave processing. • Limited reporting capability. • PeopleSoft HRMS had to be implemented within 7 months. • Time line versus budget. • Vanilla implementation! • Change business practices and policies wherever sensible and possible; modify only where absolutely necessary.

9. The HRMS Challenge (cont’d.) • This is a University environment!

10. HRMS Project Structure • CGEY team leader responsible for the day-to-day management of the team. • The University of Adelaide team leader represented the University's interests on the team. • Team members accountable to CGEY team leader.

11. Role of Client Sponsor • Advise the relevant functional Team Leader on matters of University policy, project priorities and scope. • Identify and raise with the Project Manager major issues affecting the progress of the project in their functional area, • Mobilise University resources to assist the project team to meet its objectives. • Resolve issues as requested/recommended by the functional team. • Commission working parties to address specific issues.Communicate to the University community the objectives and progress of the project. • Support / acknowledge success. • Supply refreshments.

12. Proposed HRMS Stages Best Practice Value Time Stage 1 Recruitment Reporting Workflow Employee Self-Service Stage 2 Salary Packaging Performance Management Training & Dev Career/Succession Planning OH&S Stage 0 Core HR Payroll

13. HRMS Business Objectives • Human Resources will be the best provider of human resource consultancy advice and service to our University clients. Our clients will appreciate that they are the primary focus of our activities.

14. Stage O System Scope The following PeopleSoft Student Administration/HRMS Version 7.5 HP Products were implemented: • Human Resources • Benefits • Payroll • Leave

15. Stage O (cont’d.) Functionality Scope • Position Management • Workforce Administration • Benefit Administration • Leave Management • Payroll • Management Reporting

16. HRMS Cornerstone

17. HRMS Critical Success Factors • Relationship with implementation partner. • Implementation complete by early November 1999. • All employees are paid correctly. • HR, Leave and Payroll systems are integrated. • Ability to create ad-hoc management reports. • Vanilla implementation. • Changes accepted across the University.

18. Threats to Implementation • Energy may decline. • Team operation fails. • Stress or decline in performance of some individuals resulting from workload. • Staff turnover. • The technology infrastructure is new to the University. • Setting process improvements which are not attainable in the timeframe and with the resources available. • Failure to obtain prompt decisions at various stages of the project would impact the critical path. • Union agreement eg. PeopleSoft algorithm versus the University of Adelaide algorithm.

19. Steps in the Implementation • Current state assessment • Future state solution • Data conversion requirements • Interface development requirements • Conference Room Pilot • Parallel Testing 1 and 2 • Acceptance Test Reporting • Approval to Go Live • Go Live

20. Current State Analysis The Implementation Approach Solution Definition Visioning People Technology Process Package Based Process Model

21. Future State Analysis CRP The Implementation Approach Solution Design

22. Base Package The Implementation Approach Solution Development Configuration Interfaces Extensions Modifications

23. USER-ACCEPTANCE TESTING The Implementation Approach System Implementation APPLICATION SUPPORT PRODUCTION CUTOVER

24. So How Did it Go? • Project plan was visible and under constant review and revision. • Lack of University of Adelaide technical resources created ‘dependencies’ on CGEY. • Unhealthy reliance on project payroll manager. • Finance were implementing new chart of accounts at the same time. • Project delivered within budget and under time (further GL work done after go live). • Almost drowned in bureaucracy. • Team meetings kept everyone on track. • Other teams weren’t in synch with our plan and critical paths, e.g. GL interface.

25. (cont’d.) • Well supported by University of Adelaide HR staff. • “Failure is not an option” drilled into team. • SUMO ... ‘Shut up and move on!’ • OCM too much and too late and needed to be driven by University of Adelaide not CGEY. • Training effective due to project team involvement. • Communications between Project Team and University IT almost non-existent. • Program office sometimes delayed things, i.e. templates for deliverables. • Post go live support not adequate. • Skills transfer to University of Adelaide IT not as effective. • Project delivered within budget, however work was done after implementation CGL interface, chart of accounts.

26. Lessons Learned • Project team: • Best staff selected. • Small team sizes: • Better transfer of knowledge • Better team understanding of critical issues and timings • Kept staff managing staff to a minimum • Perfectly sized (finely tuned) project teams but can be disadvantaged if staff lost due to unexpected leave.

27. Lessons Learned (cont’d.) • Project team: • Provide challenges but make it as much fun as possible. • Essential to recognise and manage staff stress quickly. • Rewards: • Bonus payments • Celebration of milestones

28. Lessons Learned (cont’d.) • Consultants: • Must be the right people for the team. • Must transfer knowledge. • Not accepted (sent back) if work or person unsatisfactory.

29. Lessons Learned (cont’d.) • Change management: • Reversion to old business practices when under stress. • Never enough training and support. • Best to use own staff rather than consultants.

30. Team Bonding Partner & Sponsor get friendly... Dinner at the local...

31. Go Live Day... …and we’re still smiling!!

32. Lessons Learned (cont’d.) • ‘Go Live’: • There is never enough time. • Anticlimax for project team. • Going live is only the beginning! • Keep post-implementation task list as short as possible.