Assessment Summary OIT–OAKS EPM Assessment

Transcription

Assessment SummaryOIT–OAKS EPMAssessmentApril 8, 2009SUPPLEMENT TWO – 0A1056

2Table of ContentsDocument Revision History.4Executive Summary .5Introduction .8Purpose . 8Scope . 8Key Drivers. 8Objectives. 8Context. 8Org Chart.10OAKS Steering Committee.10Assessment Approach .10OAKS EPM Mission Statement.12Findings.14Overview .14Interview Results .15Concerns .15Data 26Support.27Availability.28Business Requirements.28Organizational Assessment .33BI Capability Assessment.33Business Integration .35Data Architecture.36Technical Architecture .38Support Processes .39Development .40Organization .41Technical Assessment.42Architecture.42Data Quality.42Performance.42Security.47Tool/Technology capability usage (e.g. materialized views) .48Summary of Recommendations .49Approach .50Quick Hits .50BI Roadmap .53Maturing the Organization .54Next Steps.59Appendices .60Identified Business Processes.60Implementation Alternatives Analysis.62Cognos vs OBIEE.62

3Custom Data Warehouse vs EPM vs ORW .64Oracle vs Netezza .65Descriptions of Recommended Tools.65Existing Reports by Subject Area from Interviews.65PeopleSoft EPM Subject Area Analysis.69Existing ORW Tables .70Current Environment Summary.73Platforms.73Storage .73Software .85Conceptual Architecture .86Data Flow and Interfaces .86Security.89Assessment Process.91Interview Guide (sent to interviewees prior to interviewing).91Interview Participants – Information removed.94

4Document Revision HistoryRevisionNumber0123DateRevisionsMHR – Initial AuthoringMHR – Rearranged document to reflect thepresentation structure more closelyMHR - Enhanced technology comparisonsection6/11/2008 Reread and fixed a couple of errors

5Executive SummaryThe OAKS EPM/Data Warehouse implementation, technology and organization wereassessed in order to understand the current environment and to identify the root causes ofuser dissatisfaction and a low adoption rate. Based on that assessment, a BI roadmap andsuggested next actions were created to provide a future direction for the OAKS EPMorganization. A summary of the results includes: User Dissatisfactiono Users are not able to get the data they needo Users do not trust the data they can geto Users do not feel the EPM organization has been responsiveo Users are spending a lot of time and money working around the problems,in some cases implementing alternative data solutionsImplementationo The current implementation was not a really a PeopleSoft EPMimplementation, lacking a key component, the Multidimensional Warehouse(MDW)o The current implementation was not based on users’ requirementso The current database design poses a significant barrier to on-goingdevelopmento The lack of controls and balance points makes it impossible for users toverify the datao Job aids like the data dictionaries are not adequate to allow users to findthe data they needTechnologyo Given the current state and need for rapid results, the PeopleSoft EPMframework is the right place to starto The end user query and reporting tool, Cognos, is not the root cause ofthe performance and usability problemso The EPM team is not making effective use of the available tools, particularlywith respect to monitoring the environmento The EPM team requires additional tool support for key activities: Managing business requirements Data modeling Data quality analysis Version controlOrganizationo The current self service approach with only limited support for users andno centralized development will not meet the needs of the agencies nowor in the futureo The organization is understaffedo Reporting teams are scattered across EPM, FIN and HCM groups makingdevelopment inefficient with a separation of data and reporting knowledge.o Reporting and data expertise are separated, making problem resolutioninefficient and development difficulto The organization is lacking key roles including: Data Architect Release Manager

6ooo Cognos Master Developer Data Quality AnalystThere is no executive level data governanceKey processes like Incident Management, Problem Management andChange Control are not adequately defined, documented and monitoredQuality assurance processes for code and data are not sufficiently welldefined or executedThe assessment team recommends that a three pronged approach be undertaken to:oooRestore user confidenceImplement the BI roadmapRenew the organizationRestoring the users’ confidence requires making tangible improvements in the existingenvironment, in particular, making the data available on time, improving performance,simplifying the user experience and removing some long standing annoyances such as theinability to combine financial and human resource data.Implementing the BI roadmap will involve changing to a requirements focused iterativedevelopment approach that can quickly deliver solutions that are solidly founded on users’needs. The route to achieving this is to use the PeopleSoft EPM MDW as the basis forcustomized subject area data marts. The most pressing business needs are CashManagement reporting and reconciliation. Satisfying these needs will resolve a lot ofcurrent dissatisfaction. The BI roadmap will enable many different levels of usage, fromcanned reports to complex dashboards to ad hoc query with: Easy to use and fully descriptive metadataCentrally developed and maintained shared reports and applicationsData models that users can understand and useMaturing the organization is an ongoing process that must begin with processdocumentation, staffing, training and realigning key resources to create a BusinessIntelligence Center of Excellence. The ultimate objective is to increase the BI deliverycapabilities of the EPM organization and ensure that users can be effectively supported.For the OAKS EPM environment to deliver the operational and management reportingcapabilities that the State needs, progress needs to be made on all three fronts. Therecommended approach is to address each challenge in a separate stream of work. Restore the users’ confidence.A series of two to four week “quick hits” that will address (as much as possible)key issues in the current environment.Implement the BI roadmap.Execute a series of 12 week development cycles, each focusing on subject area andsatisfying key business requirements as defined by the organization.Mature the organization.Create a Business Intelligence Center of Excellence, adequately staff the EPMorganization and begin to formally improve the key support and developmentprocesses.

7These three streams of activity must proceed at the same time. Below is one possibletimeline that shows all three efforts beginning at the same time.Implement BI RoadmapProject Kick‐StartDevelopment Cycle 1Development Cycle 2User Acceptance TestingDevelopment SupportRenew the OrganizationDBA/PerformanceDataStage DevelopeExample CalendarBusiness AnalystData ArchitectCognos DeveloperPossible DatesWeeksProject InitiationProject ManagementQuick HitsExpected (avg. 3 weeks)Process Spec.Project �Feb19‐Feb26‐Feb1 1 24 1 8 5 1‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐MMMM Aa a a a pr r r r r8‐Apr15‐Apr22‐Apr2 1 2 29 6 3 0 7‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐A MMMMp a a a ar y y y �Jan20‐Jan27‐Jan3‐Feb10‐Feb17‐Feb2 1 1 2 34 3 0 7 4 1 7‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐F MMMMM Ae a a a a a pb r r r r r r14‐Apr21‐Apr0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 71 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5Manage Projects10Note: Team composition may varyKick‐StartCash ManagementAssetsIntegrity Reporting Close Process, CAFR aOBM DashboardFunds Management Grants Management Basic Agency Rptg.UAT AUAT BUAT CUAT DUAT EUAT FIntegrate Payroll Proj.UAT GUHUIThe next steps towards implementing an effective EPM environment for the State of Ohioare: 28‐AprReview the prioritization of the proposed business solutionsSocialize the results of the assessmentIssue an RFP that includes the following key requirements:o Rapid iterative development of core shared solutionso Immediate relief for current problemso Support for renewing the organizationBegin implementing any of the recommendations that the EPM organization is ableto address, including:o Tuning batch processeso Tuning reportso Defining and documenting procedures

8IntroductionPurposeTo perform a complete assessment of the entire OAKS EPM/Data Warehouse in order toidentify opportunities and recommend solutions on how the OAKS can better address thebusiness drivers and support the reporting needs of the State.ScopeIncludes the people, process and technology that touch the EPM/DW environment.Other key aspects of the EPM/DW Assessment scope include: Business needs Source systems Downstream applications Security as it relates to reporting tools Technology Infrastructure Development, maintenance and usage processes Organizational readinessKey Drivers Users have been slow to adopt the current EPM implementationThere has been dissatisfaction with the tools associated with analysis and reportingThe analytic capabilities of the environment have not been fully utilized or realizedMany state agencies lost standard reporting (in the conversion toPeopleSoft) that was not replaced by the EPM implementationAgencies that have tried to utilize the EPM environment for reporting arefrustrated by data quality issues and interface complexity Identify business priorities and BI requirementsDetermine the degree to which the current environment satisfies the BI needsDetermine the organizations readiness to support a best practices BI environmentOffer solutions to better leverage/enhance/replace the existing EPMimplementation to meet the BI needs of the StateObjectivesContextThe following is quoted from OAKS project documents:The State of Ohio processes approximately 1.5 million payments per year, manages deposits ofover 50 billion annually and pays approximately 64,000 employees every two weeks. With OAKS,the State of Ohio has implemented the most comprehensive Enterprise Resource Planning System(ERP) of any state.Transforming the Way Ohio Does Business

9The Ohio Administrative Knowledge System (OAKS), is a project in which Ohio's State governmentis viewed as an enterprise, replacing numerous decaying and fragmented systems around the Statewith one integrated computer system for performing some of the State's primary administrativetasks.In 2002 the Ohio Department of Administrative Services (DAS), Auditor of State (AOS), Office ofBudget and Management (OBM), Office of Information Technology (OIT), and Treasurer of State(TOS) assessed the State's existing central administrative computer systems and determined thatan EnterpriseResource Planning (ERP) system would be a better tool for performing the State's critical centralbusiness functions.Scope OAKS is in the process of integrating the following major Statewide business functions:capital improvements, financials, fixed assets, human resources and procurement. OAKS hasreplaced the Central Accounting System, and the human resources system (HR2K). AssetsManagement System(FAMS) was implemented in July 2008.ParticipantsEvery State agency and every employee of the State is involved in OAKS in some way. All Stateemployees are involved as well, some in executing the project deliverables and others are simplycalled upon to adapt and provide feedback on the OAKS self-service systems. OAKS does not onlyaffect the State’s agencies but also includes the legislative and judicial branches of government.More than 500individuals from 83 State agencies, boards, commissions, universities and other organizationsparticipated in defining the nearly 2,100 business requirements, and counting, that go into buildingOAKS.When OAKS is fully functional, State agencies, State employees, vendors and citizens will be able tobenefit from its advanced technology, such as "self-service" applications on the World Wide Web.Management Reporting: One of Ohio’s biggest current challenges is to both access and analyzeaccurate data for use in managerial decision making and strategic planning. Stated simply, therequirements provide for a system that

o The end user query and reporting tool, Cognos, is not the root cause of the performance and usability problems o The EPM team is not making effective use of the available tools, particularly with respect to monitoring the environment o The EPM team requires additional tool support for key activities: Managing business requirements