Budget and Planning System

1. Budget and Planning System Finance Network January 12, 2006

2. Topics • Background – Budget System Assessment and recommendations • Budgeting overview • Recent progress • Timeline • Funding information and process flow • Funding, planning, and costing integration • Communication, challenges, and collaboration

3. 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.

4. Web Navigation: OCFO  Budget Office  Budget System Assessment Report Budget System Assessment Report

5. Budgeting Activities at LBNL

6. Current System Capabilities (Janus)

7. Recommendation Implement Brookhaven National Laboratory’s Budget 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”.

8. Current LBNL System Configuration

9. Phase I - Funds Control

10. Phase II – Planning

11. Institutional Planning

12. Future -- Phase Out Janus

13. Budget System Evaluation (Early 2005) • Added Division representatives to the Budget System core team. • Obtained access to a copy of the Brookhaven system for demonstration purposes. • Refined and prioritized the desired system functionality. • Conducted a fit-gap analysis of the Brookhaven software.

14. Fit-Gap Results Fit of the Brookhaven system to LBNL’s mandatory requirements: • Architecture and operational characteristics: 88% fit • Project and institutional planning: 68% fit • Funds control: 91% fit • Overall: 85% fit All of the gaps can be addressed through enhancements, interfaces, reporting, and procedures.

15. Recent Progress • Based on the fit-gap results, OCFO agreed to a “go” decision. • Received and installed the BNL budget system in the LBNL environment. • Have begun analysis of the system’s funds management processes and data architecture. • Completed an initial prioritization of the funds management reporting needs. • Have begun detailed analyses of the highest priority funds management reports.

16. Current Timeline

17. Funding Chart of Accounts • Fund Type – identifies the Congressional appropriation. • B&R Classification – identifies the DOE program funding source. • Budget Reference Number – identifies the “color of money”. • BRN Sub – additional detail for capital funds. • Program Task Number – identifies funds in the ES&H five-year plan. • Reimbursable Work Order Number – assigned for tracking Work For Others activities. • Institutional Budget Activity Number – (proposed); to be assigned for tracking LBNL overhead funded activities.

18. Funding – DOE Projects • Fund Type – identifies the Congressional appropriation. • B&R Classification – identifies the DOE program funding source. • Budget Reference Number – identifies the “color of money”. • BRN Sub – additional detail for capital funds. • Program Task Number – identifies funds in the ES&H five-year plan. • Reimbursable Work Order Number – not used. • Institutional Budget Activity Number – not used.

19. Funding – Sponsored Projects • Fund Type – values ‘1Y’, ‘2Y’, ‘3T’, ‘3Y’. • B&R Classification – Codes begin with ’40’, ’60’, and ’65’. • Budget Reference Number – not used. • BRN Sub – not used. • Program Task Number – not used. • Reimbursable Work Order Number – assigned for tracking Work For Others activities. • Institutional Budget Activity Number – not used.

20. Funding – Overhead Projects • Fund Type – always ‘WA’. • B&R Classification – always ‘YN0100000’. • Budget Reference Number – not used. • BRN Sub – not used. • Program Task Number – not used. • Reimbursable Work Order Number – not used. • Institutional Budget Activity Number – (proposed); to be assigned for tracking LBNL overhead funded activities.

21. Currently Available Budgeting Information • PC: Planned (Forecast) Costs -- via Janus • AC: Actual Costs

22. New Funding Information • PC: Planned (Forecast) Costs -- via Janus • AC: Actual Costs • PF: Planned (Forecast) Funds or Revenue • AF: Actual Funds or Revenue

23. Currently Available Analysis • PC vs. AC: Is our spending consistent with our plan?

24. New Analytical Capabilities • PC vs. AC: Is our spending consistent with our plan? • AF vs. AC: Is our spending within our available funding? Are we breaking the law? • PF vs. AC: Is our spending within our planned funding? • AF vs. PC: Is our planned spending within our available funds? • PF vs. PC: Is our planned spending within our planned funding? • PF vs. AF: Has the funding been made available by the DOE? What planned funding has not come in yet?

25. Funding Process Flow

26. Funding Process Flow

27. Funding Process Flow

28. Funding, Planning, and Costing Integration

29. Communication • The Budget System Assessment process involved over 50 participants from every Division and major operational Department. • The Budget System Evaluation process (including the requirements analysis and fit-gap) included six Division representatives. Working teams will continue to have cross-functional representation. • Division participation will be vital to this project’s success. We plan to engage each Division and operational Department directly at both the executive and end-user level. • In addition, we will reach out to the Laboratory’s administrative and business channels, including the Division Business Managers, Finance Network, etc.

30. Some Challenges • Sufficient technical, functional, and Division staff must be available to participate. • This system’s implementation will require changes to Laboratory business practices, including new kinds of systematic and procedural collaboration between the Divisions and the central Budget Office. • Laboratory participants must be willing to invest in changes to their local budgeting practices that will lead to a common benefit for the entire Laboratory.

31. Collaborative Implementation Activities • Ongoing two-way communication with the Laboratory’s business units. • Detailed design of screens and reports. • Reengineering of institutional processes and information flows. • End-user acceptance testing. • Training.

32. How You Can Help • Contribute your knowledge of budgeting at Berkeley Lab. • Represent your local business needs. • Take an institutional view. • Work toward the best possible and most cost-effective solution. • Provide a communication channel between the project and your Division or operational department. • Help to make the project a success.