Transcript No Slide Title

City/County Joint Implementation of an
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
System
Florida Government Finance Officers Association
Friday, November 16, 2012
Eric R. Johnson
Director of Strategic Planning and ERP Implementation
Hillsborough County
The underlying environment that brought
us together…
Underlying Factors
 Aging existing systems.
– Concerns about future software support.
– Mainframes running financial software.
 Demands for new functionality along with
capabilities of business intelligence.
 Focus on a more integrated solution rather
than continue manual and electronic
interfaces.
County Current Application Architecture
B34
Permit Plus
PAMS
SymPro
Primavera
OPTIX
Jury Witness
Disbursement
System
BUDPUB
CAIS
RWIS
Unfunded
Initiatives
Database
Total Recall
STARS
Cry Wolf
CAPES
FaxServer
Oracle Project
Accounting
OnCore
RecWare
Safari
MPEPROD
PERIS
FAMIS
FleetFocus M5
FAACS
CPREP/
BPREP
Banner Finance
ADPICS
General
Ledger
IDIS
GL &
Accounting
Controls
Mobility
Master
Accounts
Payable
Systemwide
ProCheck
CAMS
HAPPY
CaseWatch
CCB
Weighmaster
Peachtree
Accounting
Employee
Relations
Manager Self
Serve
Employee Self
Serve
Payroll
Payroll Self
Service
Time &
Attendance
Banner Courts
Class
Hansen
Firepay
Benefits
Company
Structure
Time
Accrual
Position
Management
Time Entry
Applicant
Tracking
ABRA
RIMS
LearnKey
Grieve
Lawson HRIS
Oaktree
PO Database
Genesys
Chameleon
SunPro
Crystal Reports
SpoolView
FMLA Leave
Access
Database
LXR
ATIS
JobAps
ImageNow
Personnel
ASSISTANT
Gyrus
County Future Application Architecture
ASSISTANT
Fewer
applications…
SymPro
Banner Courts
MPEPROD
Jury Witness
Disbursement
System
CCB
OnCore
ERP
Mobility
Master
Weighmaster
Cry Wolf
IDIS
Hansen
SunPro
Primavera
Public Sector
Accounting
Project &
Grant
Accounting
Budgeting &
Forecasting
Human
Capital
Management
Procurement
Reporting
Business
Analytics
ImageNow
OnBase
Total Recall
RIMS
CaseWatch
ABRA
CAMS
ProCheck
PERIS
HAPPY
Class
OPTIX
RWIS
FaxServer
FleetFocus M5
Permit Plus
RecWare
Safari
Chameleon
and better
integration.
A Unique City/County Project
The “County” represents a joint project
involving three entities: the elected Clerk of
the Circuit Court (the County’s
CFO/Comptroller), the Board of County
Commissioners through their appointed
County Administrator, and the Civil Service
Board (established by special act to serve a
number of local agencies including the
Clerk and BOCC) through an appointed
Civil Service Executive Director.
A Unique City/County Project
The “City” represents the City of Tampa, the
largest municipality within Hillsborough
County representing about one-third of the
County population, and with a strong mayor
form of government.
A convergence of interests…
two jurisdictions working on similar RFPs
during a period of scarce resources.
The answer: Issue a joint RFP with
combined requirements and options for a
joint or separate implementations.
A Unique Project
This joint project reflects a relatively rare
(from an historic perspective) joint effort
between County agencies and the City of
Tampa – hence the selection of the project
name – Project 1.
Project 1
Enterprise Resource Planning
Challenges
 Agreeing on scope – to “boil the ocean”
or not? We compromised on a scope.
 Who will run it? We have three IT
organizations between us. We
outsourced hosting.
 How do we split the cost? We used
metrics from the contract to split costs.
 Who will manage it? We developed
interlocal agreements on governance
and signed a three-party contract.
 How did we select a vendor? A joint
evaluation team.
Legislative Bodies
• Board of County Commissioners
• Mayor of Tampa/Tampa City Council
Escalation of issues
Delegation of responsibility
Project Sponsors
Joint
Governance
Committee
Project
Management
Team
• Clerk of Circuit Court
• Mayor of Tampa
• County Administrator
• Civil Service Director
• County Administration (1)
• City of Tampa (3)
• Clerk (1)
• Civil Service (1)
• AST Project Manager
• County Project Manager
• Tampa Project Manager
ERP Project Governance Model
Further Challenges
 We had 4 proposals – but all had material
deviations related to terms and
conditions. We threw them out and met
with industry before reissuing an RFP.
 We had 11 proposals in the 2nd RFP – but
found exceptions in every proposal. We
issued a best and final offer in which each
proposer accepted our terms and
conditions rather than resubmit new
documents.
 We sat through 4-day demos with
five finalists to keep the process
competitive.
… and even more Challenges
 Learning to play well with others
– When we have some interests that vary.
– When there are more of “them” than “us”
(or more of “us” than “them”).
– When we don’t want to let go of
something we have or we do.
– When one organization is largely
centralized while another is largely
decentralized.
Future Challenges
 We need to further resolve how post go-live
support will be achieved.
 We will likely be approached by potential
new participants.
 We expect future phases to roll out added
functionality.
 We have a single 5-year contract for remote
hosting by Oracle.
 We will need to implement future upgrades
in tandem under our joint licenses
for Oracle and 3rd party software.
The Results
 $6.6 million in savings over 5 years
through a joint implementation.
 Compatible systems between the
jurisdictions without having to mirror every
aspect of setup.
 A sign to the community that the City and
County can work together on major
projects.
Project 1
Enterprise Resource Planning