Challenges in the Implementation

of PeopleSoft HRMS

Steve Daysh
The University of Adelaide
Australia

1
 Understanding
The University of Adelaide
Established in 1874.
14,000 students including over
1,500 international students from
70 countries.
Produced 3 Noble Prize winners
and many Rhodes Scholars.
Ranks high among the top
universities in the Asia-Pacific
region in winning research funds.
One of group of ‘8’ major
research institutions in Australia.
2
 Project Endeavour
1998 committed to implementing new and improved
enterprise-wide management information systems.
Support University of Adelaide strategic business direction
Selected PeopleSoft ERP and partnered with Ernst &
Young (now Cap Gemini Ernst & Young (CGEY)) for the
implementation.
Project kick off - 2 day retreat.
3 days debating names of project:
 Endeavour
 Illumenation
 MIS2001
 Camelot
3
 Why PeopleSoft?
Interlinked Financials, Human Resources and
Student Administration.
Partnerships with other suppliers (eg Microsoft).
Commitment to Higher Education
Vendor viability.
International Support Network with other
Universities.
Australian Support Network.
4
Meet Project Endeavour

5
 Project Endeavour Structure
E x e c u tiv e S te e r in g C o m m itte e

U o A P r o je c t D ir e c to r P r o je c t A u d ito r ( K P M G )

C G E Y P ro je c t M a n a g e r

P r o je c t O ffic e

H R M S Team F in a n c i a ls T e a m

S tu d e n t A d m in T e a m R e s e a rc h T e a m

T e c h n ic a l S e r v ic e s T e a m O rg C h a n g e M g m t T e a m
6
 Scope of Payroll
Payroll - $135,000,000 per annum.
4,000 employees and scholars per
fortnight.
2,600 contract staff.
600 casuals.
800 scholars.

7
 The HRMS Challenge
1970’s legacy payroll system non-Y2K compliant.
Limited systems integration with HR.
Manual leave processing.
Limited reporting capability.
PeopleSoft HRMS had to be implemented within 7
months.
Time line versus budget.
Vanilla implementation!
 Change business practices and policies wherever sensible
and possible; modify only where absolutely necessary.

8
The HRMS Challenge (cont’d.)

•This is a University environment!

9
 HRMS Project Structure
C lie n t S p o n s o r
S te v e D a y s h

CG EY Team Leader U oA Team Leader

C a th e rin e V a ls in g e r S u e T u rn e r

F u n c tio n a l T e a m T e c h n ic a l T e a m O CM

H R D e p t R e fe re n c e G ro u p E n d U s e r T r a in i n g

•CGEY team leader responsible for the day-to-day

management of the team.
•The University of Adelaide team leader represented the
University's interests on the team.
•Team members accountable to CGEY team leader.
10
 Role of Client Sponsor
Advise the relevant functional Team Leader on matters of
University policy, project priorities and scope.
Identify and raise with the Project Manager major issues affecting
the progress of the project in their functional area,
Mobilise University resources to assist the project team to meet its
objectives.
Resolve issues as requested/recommended by the functional team.
Commission working parties to address specific
issues.Communicate to the University community the objectives
and progress of the project.
Support / acknowledge success.
Supply refreshments.

11
Proposed HRMS Stages
Best Practice
Value

Time
Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2
Core HR Recruitment Salary Packaging
Payroll Reporting Performance Management
Workflow Training & Dev
Employee Self-Service Career/Succession Planning
OH&S

12
HRMS Business Objectives
Human Resources will be the best provider of
human resource consultancy advice and
service to our University clients. Our clients will
appreciate that they are the primary focus of
our activities.
Vision

Strategy Self Service

Workflow Strategy
Operational
Web

Operational
Administration
Stage 1
Stage 0 Admin

Stages 2, 3,
13
4 …..
 Stage O
System Scope
The following PeopleSoft Student
Administration/HRMS Version 7.5 HP
Products were implemented:

Human Resources
Benefits
Payroll
Leave 14
 Stage O (cont’d.)
Functionality Scope
Position Management
Workforce Administration
Benefit Administration
Leave Management
Payroll
Management Reporting
15
 HRMS Cornerstone
• Staff Plan
Smart • BPR
Card • Org Structure
•
•
Training
etc
EB
Campus Students
Superannuation
Comm
GL

Managers
Staff
Student PeopleSoft HRMS
Administration Superannuation
• Bonding

• Planning

ABS • Scoping 
• Leveraging Staff DEETYA
• Communication

Suppliers

Tax
Financials
Auditor
General

Intranet
Union ……………Research

16
 HRMS Critical Success Factors
Relationship with implementation partner.
Implementation complete by early November 1999.
All employees are paid correctly.
HR, Leave and Payroll systems are integrated.
Ability to create ad-hoc management reports.
Vanilla implementation.
Changes accepted across the University.

17
 Threats to Implementation
Energy may decline.
Team operation fails.
Stress or decline in performance of some individuals resulting
from workload.
Staff turnover.
The technology infrastructure is new to the University.
Setting process improvements which are not attainable in the
timeframe and with the resources available.
Failure to obtain prompt decisions at various stages of the
project would impact the critical path.
Union agreement eg. PeopleSoft algorithm versus the
University of Adelaide algorithm.

18
Steps in the Implementation
Current state assessment
Future state solution
Data conversion requirements
Interface development requirements
Conference Room Pilot
Parallel Testing 1 and 2
Acceptance Test Reporting
Approval to Go Live
Go Live
19
The Implementation Approach
Solution Definition
Current State Analysis

Visioning

People
Technology Process

Package Based
Process Model 20
The Implementation Approach
Solution Design
Future State Analysis

CRP

21
The Implementation Approach
Solution Development

Configuration
Base Interfaces
Package
Extensions

Modifications

22
The Implementation Approach
System Implementation

USER-ACCEPTANCE
TESTING

APPLICATION
SUPPORT

PRODUCTION
CUTOVER
23
 So How Did it Go?
Project plan was visible and under constant review and revision.
Lack of University of Adelaide technical resources created
‘dependencies’ on CGEY.
Unhealthy reliance on project payroll manager.
Finance were implementing new chart of accounts at the same
time.
Project delivered within budget and under time (further GL work
done after go live).
Almost drowned in bureaucracy.
Team meetings kept everyone on track.
Other teams weren’t in synch with our plan and critical paths, e.g.
GL interface.

24
 (cont’d.)
Well supported by University of Adelaide HR staff.
“Failure is not an option” drilled into team.
SUMO ... ‘Shut up and move on!’
OCM too much and too late and needed to be driven by
University of Adelaide not CGEY.
Training effective due to project team involvement.
Communications between Project Team and University IT
almost non-existent.
Program office sometimes delayed things, i.e. templates for
deliverables.
Post go live support not adequate.
Skills transfer to University of Adelaide IT not as effective.
Project delivered within budget, however work was done after
implementation CGL interface, chart of accounts. 25
 Lessons Learned
Project team:
 Best staff selected.
 Small team sizes:
 Better transfer of knowledge
 Better team understanding of critical issues and
timings
 Kept staff managing staff to a minimum

 Perfectly sized (finely tuned) project teams

but can be disadvantaged if staff lost due
to unexpected leave.
26
 Lessons Learned (cont’d.)
Project team:
 Provide challenges but make it as much
fun as possible.
 Essential to recognise and manage staff
stress quickly.
 Rewards:
 Bonus payments
 Celebration of milestones

27
 Lessons Learned (cont’d.)

Consultants:
 Must be the right people for the team.
 Must transfer knowledge.

 Not accepted (sent back) if work or person

unsatisfactory.

28
 Lessons Learned (cont’d.)
Change management:
 Reversion to old business practices when
under stress.
 Never enough training and support.

 Best to use own staff rather than

consultants.

29
 Team Bonding
Partner & Sponsor get friendly...
Dinner at the local...

30
 Go Live Day...
…and we’re still smiling!!

31
 Lessons Learned (cont’d.)
‘Go Live’:
 There is never enough time.
 Anticlimax for project team.

 Going live is only the beginning!

 Keep post-implementation task list as short

as possible.

32