LBNL Budget System Proposal

1. LBNL Budget System Proposal Finance Network October 14, 2004

2. Topics • Historical Background • Budget System Assessment Process • Scope of Budgeting at LBNL • Desired Functionality – Common Themes • Possible Solutions • Recommendation • Implementation Strategy • Return on Investment • Next Steps

3. Historical Background • 1996-1997:FMS implementation project • One goal was the implementation of PeopleSoft Budgets. • Determined that PeopleSoft Budgets was not capable of meeting LBNL’s needs. • Could not handle LBNL’s complex burden and overhead structures. • Overly rigid model for the dynamic nature of project budgeting at LBNL.

4. Historical Background • 1998-1999:Budget System RFP • Goal: Identify a commercially available budget system. • Determined that none satisfied the Laboratory’s requirements. • Lab management recommended the development of an in-house system.

5. Historical Background • 2000+: Janus system • Development plan - phased release approach. • Used by many for project budget formulation and execution. • Addresses only a portion of original Budget system requirements. • 2000-2001: Funding database project • Requirements developed by FSD, Divisions, and ISS. • Development put on hold by FSD and ISS to focus on higher priorities.

6. Historical Background • 2003: Major areas of budgeting functionality continued to lack automation and integration with the Laboratory’s enterprise financial management and reporting systems.(and still do today.)

7. Budget System Assessment • In 2003-2004, a Budget System Assessment was performed to: • Reexamine the Laboratory’s multifaceted business requirements in the budgeting area; • Study the available solutions; and • Make recommendations regarding the best course of action for providing the Laboratory with a comprehensive, integrated budget system. • The ultimate goal will be to implement a comprehensive, integrated budget system which standardizes Lab-wide budgeting processes, improves reporting and controls, and reduces the use of redundant systems.

8. Chuck Axthelm Margretta Campbell Lauretta Corsair Bridget Haverty Executive sponsors: Jeffrey Fernandez Gita Meckel Anne Moore Rich Nosek Ivy Tran Anil Moré Budget System Assessment Team

9. Budget System Assessment Process • Review existing requirements documentation. • Conduct interviews with Laboratory Management and staff to analyze current LBNL processes and requirements. • Assess the PeopleSoft 8.8 Budgeting module. • Assess budgeting solutions in use at other DOE Laboratories. • Assess fit/gap with existing and future LBNL systems. • Develop a recommendation for Management review.

10. What is “budgeting”, anyway?

11. Scope of Budgeting at LBNL

12. Scope of Budgeting at LBNL

13. Scope of Budgeting at LBNL

14. Scope of Budgeting at LBNL

15. Current System Capabilities (Janus)

16. Desired Functionality – Common Themes • Timely funding information • Institutional planning information • The Spend Forecast (formerly known as the “Management Report” • Resource (Labor) Planning • System Integration • Excel interfaces • Quick Budget Tool

17. Desired Functionality – Common Themes • What-if analysis capability • Budget vs. actuals reporting • Non-Project-Tree rollups • More reporting, and more flexible reporting

18. PeopleSoft’s Budgeting System • Investigated the latest version (8.8): • Still not capable of meeting LBNL’s needs: • Cannot handle LBNL’s complex burden and overhead structures. • Overly rigid model for the dynamic nature of project budgeting at LBNL.

19. Other DOE Laboratories’ Solutions Based on information gathered at the annual FMSIC and Budget Officers’ conferences, the team investigated the following Laboratories’ systems: • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s FACTS system (based on commercial software from Comshare); • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s FRx system (commercial software from Microsoft); • Brookhaven National Laboratory’s Budget and Forecasting System, written in-house using the PeopleSoft development tool set.

20. Fit / Gap Analysis

21. LBNL’s Janus System

22. LLNL’s FACTS System

23. PNNL’s FRx System

24. Brookhaven’s System

25. Recommendation Implement Brookhaven’s System at LBNL. Advantages: • Best fit to LBNL requirements. • Encompasses funds control and institutional planning functionalities. • Easily integrated with our PeopleSoft FMS. • Familiar look and feel. • Easily supportable technology. • It’s “free”.

26. Implementation Strategy

27. Current LBNL System Configuration

28. Implement ePME

29. Implement Funds Control Functionality

30. Integrate Funds Control with BLIS

31. Deploy New Reporting and Analytics

32. Implement Local Project Planning Functionality

33. Interface Janus to the New System

34. Provide a Quick Price Tool

35. Provide Standard Excel Interfaces

36. Implement Institutional Planning Functionality

37. Extend Reporting and Analytics

38. Provide Excel Download Capability

39. Integrate Planning Information with BLIS

40. Provide Additional System Integration

41. Future -- Refine ePME

42. Future -- Phase Out Janus

43. Return on Investment • Timely funding information • This will be made possible via the BNL system’s funds control functionality. • Institutional planning information • The Spend Forecast (formerly known as the “Management Report”) • These will be facilitated by the BNL system’s institutional planning functionality.

44. Return on Investment • Resource (Labor) Planning • This is a specific strength of the BNL system. • System Integration • System integration will be addressed at many points during the implementation. Integration with our other institutional systems will be further facilitated by the BNL system’s PeopleSoft architecture.

45. Return on Investment • Excel interfaces • This will be directly addressed through the planned standard Excel interfaces, the Quick Price Tool, and the standard Excel download formats. • Quick Budget Tool • This will be specifically provided in the implementation.

46. Return on Investment • What-if analysis capability • Integration with Excel will offer tremendous flexibility in this area for local planning purposes. Having an institutional planning system will facilitate what-if analysis at the institutional level. • Budget vs. actuals reporting • This will be addressed as we add new reporting options and flexibility.

47. Return on Investment • Non-Project-Tree rollups • This is really a reporting issue, and will be addressed as such. New trees to support alternative hierarchies will be developed and managed via the PeopleSoft tool set. • More reporting, and more flexible reporting • Enhanced reporting will be a major focus. Ad-hoc end-user reporting will be facilitated through the use of the Cognos reporting tool set.

48. Next Steps • Get approval (and some incremental funding) from the Enterprise Computing Steering Committee (ECSC). • The implementation schedule will depend on Management priorities, funding, and resource availability. • Obtain a copy of the system from BNL for demonstration and prototyping purposes. • When resources are available, begin work.

49. ?.