‘Conference Room Pilots’ Phase Steering Committee # 2 22 September, 2014

1. Core Business Applications Study ‘Conference Room Pilots’ PhaseSteering Committee # 222 September, 2014

2. Agenda • Progress report • Presentation of the solutions • Results of the technical study • Results of the functional study • Conclusions and recommendations

3. Progress report • Study launched in March 2004 in collaboration with Accenture • Initial recommendation made in June 2004 • To adopt a common solution • To pursue the off-the-shelf option • As a result of the recommendation • Expanded the scope to include PhD, Faculty Affairs, Development, and External Relations • Conduct Conference Room Pilot (CRP) study

4. Progress report CRP Workshops conducted with two selected vendors: • PeopleSoft: • Technical workshop conducted on 14 September and 6 October • Functional workshop conducted on 11 & 12 October • SunGard/SCT: • Technical workshop conducted on 13 September and 5 October • Functional workshop conducted on 25 & 26 October • CRP Workshops participation from: • MBA, EMBA, EDP, PhD, Faculty Affairs, Development, External Relations, & IT • Over 60 staff participated across two campuses

5. Progress report Held formal and informal departmental debriefing sessions • Follow-up sessions requested by the Business Experts ONLY with PeopleSoft. • Student Administrationon 9 & 10 November • Additional CRP workshops with PeopleSoft: • CRM on 8 November (no CRM solution from SunGard/SCT) • CMS on 22 November (HR Recruitment module)

6. Agenda • Progress report • Presentation of the solutions • Results of the technical study • Results of the functional study • Conclusions and recommendations

7. Self Service Components Timeframe of the Conference Room Pilots StudyWhere are we? • Presentation of the solutionsStructure of the Banner solution for INSEAD Luminis portal Banner Core Banner System Campus solution Student Administration Financial Aid Xtender Solutions Advancement Pocket Recruiter

8. Self Service Components Timeframe of the Conference Room Pilots StudyWhere are we? • Presentation of the solutionsStructure of the PeopleSoft solution for INSEAD Enterprise Portal CRM Portal Pack Core PeopleSoft System Campus solution Student Administration Contributor Relations Gradebook Campus self services CRM solution Marketing Online Marketing Sales Order Capture

9. Agenda • Progress report • Presentation of the solutions • Results of the technical study • Results of the functional study • Conclusions and recommendations

10. Results of the technical studyMain steps undertaken during the technical study The technical study consisted in the following elements: • Technical presentations were organised with SCT and PeopleSoft vendors: • Banner IT presentations were conducted on the 13th September and 5th October • PeopleSoft IT presentations were conducted on the 14th September and 6th October • A deliverable has been realised to compile the information collected and compare both packages using standard technical characteristics • A complementary study has been completed in order to clarify certain aspects of the technical architecture and components of both solutions (e.g. characteristics of Banner coming version 7.0, etc.) • A deliverable has been realised to analyse the specific concerns in INSEAD’s context • Realisation of an ‘As-Is’ applicative map • Interviews with IT Managers to collect specific concerns and expectations • PeopleSoft’s integration capability with MS SharePoint, • Etc.

11. Portal Luminis portal / Students, faculty Html Administrative users Java Enabled Web browser Native JVM LDAP • Self-Service Web Server • Oracle9iAS server V9.0.3 • Http: Apache or IIS • Core Application Web Server • Oracle9iAS server v1.0.2.2.2 • Http: Apache or IIS adapter Luminis EAI (or other EAI) Legacy systems Banner Database Server Directory Server Timeframe of the Conference Room Pilots StudyWhere are we? • Results of the technical studyPresentation of the solutions’ technical architectureBanner

12. Portal MS SharePoint/ PeopleSoft portal Web Server (WebSphere, WebLogic…) LDAP Web browser (Html 1.0) Integrated message broker • Application Server • Tuxedo server adapter Legacy systems Database Server: ( Oracle, DB2, SQL Server, Sybase) Reporting batch server (Windows) Directory Server Timeframe of the Conference Room Pilots StudyWhere are we? • Results of the technical studyPresentation of the solutions’ technical architecturePeopleSoft

13. Results of the technical studyThematic technical comparison of both solutions-1/2

14. Results of the technical studyThematic technical comparison of both solutions-2/2

15. Results of the technical studyINSEAD’s main technical concerns • The main INSEAD’s concerns collected during our interviews with IT Managers were the following: • Multi-campuses constraints versus centralisation of data • Convergence with ongoing projects (MS SharePoint Portal, Active Directory) • Technology standardisation • Data mass-updates and tracking • Data migration • Upgradeability

16. Results of the technical studyAs-Is applications map – Department view Each department has its own tools Lack of reusability Complex maintenance Lack of standardisation Integration needed

17. Results of the technical studyAs-Is applications map – Functional view But the applicative map reveals that similar functions (or “services” in a SOA architecture) are used by different departments IT and business architectures integration is needed

18. Results of the technical studyDiagnostic – technical environment • INSEAD information system was developed on specific needs • No harmonisation between departments  Multiple information systems with complex data synchronisations • Almost one specific application for each need and department  Data Management complexity • Multiple data validation interfaces • Complex and duplicated authentication system • Need of common and restricted technology directions The integration need should be the main technical goal while INSEAD will implement the new core business application.

19. Results of the technical studyDiagnostic – IT organisation • IT organisation has a single dimension • Most activities are focused on day-to-day operations and applications’ maintenance • No global technical coordinator exists to ensure that the expression of needs goes through a single channel • There is a lack of service-oriented and coherent project management that considers global directions and strategies • The objective should be to implement a Service-Oriented Architecture which would be supported by a technical architect involved in the translation of business functional requirements into technical design, with the help of integration tools • The same objective should be followed up for the business team in charge of the translation of business strategies and needs into functional solutions.

20. LDIS BANNER APIs XML Translators Adapters Web Part Web Part XML messaging SharePoint Portal SSO SSO Results of the technical studyDiagnostic – Integration with MS Share PointBanner • This integration has never been done so far, and a third party product or a specific development would be necessary (Luminis portal, even with Banner v7) • It should be possible using XML flux and translators

21. Visual Studio.Net Office, etc. .Net business processes AD applications Portal SSO integration WS-Security App Server: Windows Server 2003 Web Part Web Part PeopleSoft Application Server WSDL WSDL WS-Security SharePoint Portal SSO SSO Results of the technical studyDiagnostic – Integration with MS Share PointPeopleSoft • This integration has been done by Microsoft and a white paper (which indicates how to do it) is available • PeopleSoft and Microsoft use the wsdl standard to be full compliant without buying PeopleSoft portal. • Reuse of INSEAD forms is possible

22. Results of the technical studyOther general concerns • Multi-campuses constraints versus centralisation of data : • The business unit logic of Peoplesoft (a global unit + some business unit with own currency) is a very good response • No special feature for Banner (one unit – one currency) • The database is unique, in Fontainebleau for both products with performance tools and focus • Convergence with ongoing projects (MS SharePoint Portal, Active Directory) • Peoplesoft is fully compliant with Active Directory (Microsoft logon system) and ready for portal integration (forms) • Banner need specific integrations • Technology standardisation • PIA is technology up to date and web services ready • Banner has some API, but each integration point is specific • For the last points, they are detailed in the deliverable, Peoplesoft and Banner provide some features without a decisive gap : • Data mass-update and tracking • Data migration • Upgradeability

23. Results of the technical studyTechnical decision criteria

24. Results of the technical studySummary • Considering : • the strong integration needs and the products offers on this aspect • the applicative coverage • the architectural principles • the standard (Forms vs Peoplecode) developments tools and functions capabilities • the support We do recommend the implementation of Peoplesoft while anticipating the common known road hazards of such a large packaged software implementation

25. Results of the technical studyRisks identified on the technical side Banner • Specific development needed to answer the simple integration needs • Third party integration tools needed • Inability to merge with an “up to date” technology (web services, etc.) • Lack of editor’s experience in complex IT schema PeopleSoft • New skills • Learning curve • Lack of coherence due to unlimited flexibility and easiness • Campus Solution never implemented in France

26. Agenda • Progress report • Presentation of the solutions • Results of the technical study • Results of the functional study • Conclusions and recommendations

27. Results of the functional studyMain steps undertaken during the functional study The functional study consisted in the following steps: • Functional presentations: • A Banner functional two-day CRP was conducted on the 25th - 26th October • A PeopleSoft functional two-day CRP was conducted on the 11th - 12th October • Formal and informal debriefing sessions held within each Department concluded that there was a general request for follow up sessions with PeopleSoft, but not with Banner • Additional business cases have been proposed, compiled and integrated in the follow-up session’s agenda • Follow-up sessions with PeopleSoft • Student Administration: A two-day PeopleSoft follow-up CRP took place on 9th – 10th November • CRM: A complementary PeopleSoft CRP of their CRM solution was organised on 8th November (no CRM solution on SCT Banner’s side) • CMS: a presentation of the Recruitment module of PeopleSoft HR solution will be held on 22nd November to assess the functional fit with CMS needs.

28. Results of the functional study Feedback from INSEAD’s business DepartmentsOverall evaluation from all departments

29. Results of the functional study Feedback from INSEAD’s business DepartmentsOverall comments from all departments Main comments common to INSEAD’s departments • On PeopleSoft solution • A better-quality functional coverage (iso-scope) • A good flexibility to adapt to business needs and exceptions • CRM capability • A standard approach to manage multi-campus and multi-currency constraints • A user-friendly interface • On Banner solution • A disappointment in the software’s evolution between v3 and v6 • No CRM capability • Insufficient management of multi-currencies • A non-user friendly interface (v7 could not be demonstrated by SCT)

30. Results of the functional studyFunctional analysisCustomer Relationship Management • The PeopleSoft solution offers aflexible and user-friendly CRM capability, while SunGard-SCT offers no specific solution for this INSEAD need. • Main enhancements of the PeopleSoft CRM modules • Comprehensive View of the Constituent (360° view) • Support for Marketing and e-Marketing campaigns and multi-channel communications • Better customer segmentation • Contract Management (from proposal to signature) • More Automation of Processes • Improved Prospect Management • Analytic reporting capability • CRM would be applicable not only to Marketing and to Sales, but also to Development and External Relations • CRM online Marketingtoolkit may also be used for Admissions, Financial Aid and Operations needs (specific self services, surveys, etc.)

31. Results of the functional studyFunctional analysisAdditional Marketing / Recruitment considerations

32. Results of the functional studyFunctional analysis Admissions

33. Results of the functional studyFunctional analysisFinancial Aid and Student Financials

34. Results of the functional studyFunctional fit/gap analysisOperations

35. Results of the functional study Feedback from INSEAD’s business DepartmentsEvaluation from MBA department

36. Results of the functional study Feedback from INSEAD’s business DepartmentsEvaluation from EMBA department

37. Results of the functional study Feedback from INSEAD’s business DepartmentsEvaluation from EDP department

38. Results of the functional study Feedback from INSEAD’s business DepartmentsEvaluation from PhD department

39. Results of the functional study Feedback from INSEAD’s business DepartmentsEvaluation from Development and External Relations Departments

40. Results of the functional studyApplications’ functional coverage The following schemes show which applications would be replaced by Banner or PeopleSoft:

41. Results of the functional study Analysis of impacts on existing applications • We can classify impacts of the new Core Business Application on existing applications as follows: • No impacts: some applications will be simply replaced by the new system without any supplementary impacts. • Data migration: For some replaced applications, we have to migrate data from legacy databases to the new system. This can generate an important charge considering the complexity of the current data model at INSEAD. • Interface automation: manual interfaces have to be automated in order to communicate with the new system. • Interface adaptation: For some applications, interfaces would have to be adapted to the new system. • Review technology: In case of compatibility problems, the technology of the application may be reviewed.

42. Results of the functional study Analysis of impacts on existing applications

43. Results of the functional study Analysis of impacts on existing applications

44. Results of the functional study Banner ‘to-be’ scheme

45. Results of the functional study PeopleSoft ‘to-be’ scheme

46. Results of the functional study Summary • The functional coverage is not a main distinct factor between Banner and PeopleSoft, as they often have the same limits (e.g. scheduling, sectioning and grouping, etc.) • The quality of the functional coverage is not the same though • PeopleSoft’s flexibility as well as usability are key differenciators for business experts

47. Agenda • Progress report • Presentation of the solutions • Results of the technical study • Results of the functional study • Conclusions and recommendations

48. Conclusions and recommendationsConclusions • The technical study is completed • So is the functional study - with exception of CMS workshop on 22/11 • The implementation costs and efforts are key elements for the decision making on next steps • The scope and the phasing of the implementation effort is essential

49. Conclusions and recommendations Reminder: decision criteria identified • Functional Criteria • Ability to adapt to INSEAD’s business strategy • Ability to manage business processes at institution/programme/campus levels • Ability to manage business exceptions • Baseline delivery of online services • Usability and user-friendliness • Tracking capability • Workflow management • Data integrity • Data confidentiality management • Cost Criteria • Cost of implementation • Cost of maintenance • Timeframe of implementation • Vendor Criteria • Reputation • Multi site support • Technical Criteria • Compatibility with INSEAD’s technical direction • Equal support to multiple campuses • Technical flexibility to support modifications • Upgradeability • Ability to interface to other key applications • Implementation Risks Criteria • Early player • IT risks (learning curve)

50. Conclusions and recommendationsRecommendations Our recommendations are the following: • Choose PeopleSoft as your new institutional Core Business Application • Implement PeopleSoft on the following scope: • Functional scope: marketing & sales, recruitment & admissions, financial aid, operations, participant financials, alumni management, and fund raising • Organisational scope: MBA, EMBA, EDP, PhD, Faculty Affairs, Development, and External Relations • Parallelise specific technical projects (portal, LDAP, …) with the Core Business Applications project