University of Minnesota Enterprise Financial System

1. University of Minnesota Enterprise Financial System EFS UpdateOctober 13, 2005 www.finsys.umn.edu

2. 1. COA Values Subproject • Started with the structure proposed by the COA Design team • Looked at requirements from RFP, EFS teams, focus groups, other universities, etc. • Creating values and definitions for all ChartFields, except… • DeptID • Department-defined Program • ProjectID • ProductID • Creating a Chart of Accounts Manual • Developing COA maintenance procedures • Timeline: May 1 – October 31

3. Fund – source of funding, by campus location Area – department or unit within college Org – project or program within an area SubOrg – for detailed tracking of rev and exp Function – purpose of project or program (e.g. research, instruction) Object/Revenue – type of expense or revenue SubObj/SubRev – further refinement Balance Sheet – assets, liabilities and fund balances within a fund Current Chart COA Structure

4. COA Values Team Approach • 8 work groups for 11 ChartFields • Staffed with core team members and University representation: • A-REST (Account - Revenue; Expense; Statistics; Transfer) [1] • Balance Sheet Account [1] • DeptID & Program [2,3] • Fund [4] • Class [5] • ProjectID & Budget Reference [6,7] • ProductID [8] • CF1/CF2 & Statistical Code [9,10,11]

5. Revenue & Expense Accounts • No significant change in the number of revenue, expense and transfer codes • Substantial change in the actual revenue, expense and transfer code ‘values’ • Unique sponsored accounts are grouped together (and differentiated from non-sponsored accounts) • Travel-related activity is being grouped together (mileage; parking; travel) • Other like items are together so that users can see all the account options in one place (rather than dispersed, as is the case with the current chart of accounts)

6. Balance Sheet Accounts • Approach to numbering has not changed (1’s for assets; 2’s for liabilities; and 3’s for net assets) • This concept is best practice and is similar to CUFS today • With more emphasis on the balance sheet, definitions are being written for the first time • Some balance sheet accounts have been expanded, while others have been aggregated

7. DeptID & Program • Department • Campus differentiator is in the DeptID • “What is the level at which I need to isolate a group of funds, employees, or academic programs to support effective management of financial, human, and academic resources?” • Who does it • Eight characters • Program • “What is the level of activity for which I need to capture financial information?” • What you do • Started with five characters, but … • Renamed CF3 to give us an extra digit: UMProgram

8. Fund • Goal was to simplify and reduce the number of funds from today’s 1,400+ • Campus differentiation will not be in the Fund • Agency (9XXX) funds will be reduced greatly • Loan funds retain program details, and, therefore are the largest group of funds • Working with many parties to combine several unrestricted funds: tuition; O&M; ICR; University fee income; central reserves; and other unrestricted funds • Common theme: one activity, multiple funds • Fund will not be inferred

9. Class (Function) • 58 function codes today; 35 remain • Subtleties are confusing to departments • Primarily used by Accounting Services, SPA, and IRR • Goal was to simplify and reduce the number of function codes • Testing a table for inferring function • Class inference is a PeopleSoft customization • Departments still need to be involved in the assignment of Class codes • Programs must be set sufficiently ‘low’ to be assigned a single Class code

10. ProjectID & Budget Reference • Envisioned for sponsored & construction projects, as well as grants-in-aid • Additional candidates considered but not pursued: federal & state appropriations, bond issuances, restricted state specials • Facilities and sponsored ‘numbering’ schemes in the Compass and EGMS systems • Budget Reference – 4-digit numeric value meaningful within the department only

11. ProductID • Survey of other PeopleSoft universities revealed no use of, or interest in! • Purchasing – ‘Item’ and ‘Category’ • Auxiliaries & ISO’s – no value added as long as they have their current systems • Desire to keep the ChartField for its intended purpose • Will not use until we find that purpose!

12. CF1/CF2 & Statistical Code • Statistical Codes • Ideas for values collected • Will recommend use post-implementation • Optional user-defined ChartFields considered for: • Security types and portfolio investment managers (OAM) • UMF fund tracking • More detailed and specific ‘object’ codes • Fringe benefit categories

13. 2. Purchasing Subproject • Two teams have been merged into one • Includes these subprocesses: • Professional Services • Receiving • U-Wide Contracts • Procurement of Standard Goods & Services • Management of Bids • eProcurement (ePro)

14. Approach & Scope • Joint requirements gathering: Purchasing, Accounts Payable, Expenses • Sponsored and nonsponsored purchasing, including construction • Defining the best future processes • Identifying opportunities for business process improvements • Timeline: August 1 – June 15

15. Questions? • Gina Danyluk (COA Values) danyl001@umn.edu 624-0566 • Henry Hoefer (Purchasing) hoefe009@umn.edu 624-0716 • No new requirements, please!