Harvard Assets Project Financial Managers Forum Update June 12, 2013

Harvard Assets Project Financial Managers Forum Update June 12, 2013

Project Update – High Level Timeline Project Phases 2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Discovery Phase (6/1/2012-4/30/2013) Jul 2014 Aug Sep 100% Planning & Analysis Phase 65% (12/15/2012-6/30/2013) Build Phase Test Phase Phase 1 Rollout Phase 2 Rollout Closure Phase Indicates percentage of work complete. Indicates percentage of unfinished work. Future phase timing TBD. 2 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Project Update – Status of Current Activities Project Governance Continuing governance meetings with Executive & Steering Committees and Business Sponsors; work streams working through design questions Change Management Stakeholder analysis complete; second communication with a project update sent Business Engagement “As Is” Meetings complete; leveraging SMEs from businesses for work streams Business Analysis Training Committee Reporting Requirements being compiled including functional business requirements and future business process flows Additional Oracle University Training Session Scheduled for July (7/15 and 7/16) Next Executive Committee Meeting 6/27 No Major issues foreseen. Confidence level is high. Issues needs to be resolved. Go- Live not in jeopardy. Major issues foreseen. Confidence level is very low. 3

Project Update – Asset Project Risks Project Risk Approach (Accept, Avoid, Transfer, Mitigate) Oracle’s Technical Infrastructure capacity may need to be augmented before full rollout Accept - Separate infrastructure upgrade project will need to be initiated Lack of business resources available to the project Avoid / Mitigate - Early identification of resource needs; backfill critical project team members if necessary Lack of agreement configuration decisions or Avoid / Mitigate - Early identification of critical areas where all schools will need to agree; careful tracking of key issues / decisions; early escalation where appropriate Resistance by the business to needed business process redesign Avoid / Mitigate - Early and frequent communication; focus on effective change management; inclusion of all TUBS in requirements gathering / design Key decisions on Accounting Policy and Treatment to enable system design and configuration Mitigate - Early decision making around policy and treatment questions; careful tracking of key issues / decisions; early escalation where appropriate Data Integrity & Conversion / Ability to meet Oracle requirements Mitigate - Identify data conversion issues early, set expectations around system requirements; consideration of all TUBS in data conversion plan Ability to rollout new solution to sponsored community during base year for calculation of overhead rates Accept – Schedule roll out to schools with significant sponsored impact at conclusion of base year Requirement of Oracle Assets to source information from AP Mitigate – Define options for addressing with AP; minimize changes directly to GL on critical process 4

Project Update – Next Steps & Deliverables Business Analysis – Continue Detailed Functional Requirements Business requirements, integration points, project scope – Complete Proposed Future State Design – Continue Business Process Flows by Role – Review with TUBs / Schools Change Management – Conduct Impact Analysis – Continue Communication Project Management – Project Planning for Next Phase – Develop Roll-Out Strategy 5

PROJECT SCOPE 6

Project Scope – In Scope Activities Oracle Assets solution fully tested and configured for Harvard’s required sub-ledger accounting addressing the following asset acquisition types: – Purchased assets (Equipment) – Non-Purchased Assets (Equipment) – WIP / Fabrications – Capital Projects (Building) – Capital Projects (MFE) – Capital Leases Integration between Oracle Assets and the following: – Other Oracle EBS applications (for all TUBs currently using Oracle AP) – ISIS space planning conventions 7

Project Scope – In Scope Activities Data conversion into new solution pending policy decision Future state business process design and gap analysis Phased implementation approach including full documentation and training Solution for addressing issue caused by making direct-to-GL adjustments to asset object codes Replacement of disparate legacy systems and tools currently tracking equipment / inventory including: – MAES (HMS, HSDM, Wyss) – Equipster (FAS, SEAS) – Access databases (HUIT, SPH) Develop reporting tools and templates to better track and manage assets and asset accounting 8

Project Scope – Out of Scope Activities Non-Oracle EBS AP Entities Assets out of scope: – Books – Collections Solution for addressing issue caused by making direct-to-GL adjustments to non-asset object codes Integration of scanners or RFID technology Changes to any applications currently pulling data from the general ledger or HDW pertaining to assets (e.g. GMAS, FRAP, etc.) 9

Project Scope – To Be Determined Separate tax depreciation books are possible, but manual process is currently working – further discussions will need to occur to determine cost / benefit Integration point with future HPPM / Capital Planning solution currently being developed Expensed items less than 5K – out of scope? 10

WORK STREAM UPDATE 11

Project Work Streams – Accounting Policy & Treatment Proposed Recommendations to Date: – Monthly depreciation with full month of depreciation in the month acquired – Exclude expenses charged to P-Card’s from WIP / Fabrications – Treatment of faculty transfers in / out will be addressed by a revision to policy as there are no design implications – While Oracle has the ability to adjust useful lives after an asset has been placed in service, this would lead to different useful lives within one object code and would potentially lead to issues on the sponsored side; the group recommends to not allow adjustment to the useful lives of any existing assets Other Topics Under Consideration: – Componentized buildings – the group is leaning towards componentization of all buildings using the same methodology as is currently in place for research buildings – Physical Inventory – some level of physical inventory (tagging, book-to-floor, floorto-book, and key data) will likely be required of all TUBs / Schools above a certain threshold – Additional Useful Lives – under review with HPPM 12

Project Work Streams – Equipment Management Role Individual (11 members) Work Stream Lead Sarah Axelrod Business Analyst Peggy Sangiorgi FSS Analyst Sharon Olson Project Manager / Change Manager Monica Fisher / Nick Shaw Team Members Alison Au (HUIT) Tom Bourgeois (SEAS) Kara Colannino (FAS) Sarah Elwell (FAS) Judy Lo (SPH) Nadege Volcy (HMS) Initial Meeting Thursday May 23, 2013 Process Workshop Tuesday, June 11, 2013 – 9AM to 1PM 13

Project Work Streams – Equipment Management Process Reconciliation Centralized vs. decentralized oversight of equipment Generation of tag numbers (Oracle assets requires unique tag numbers for all assets) Timing of when a tag # is assigned to an asset (i.e. time of purchase vs. time of receipt) How should fabrication (WIP) projects be handled? Who should have access to the assets system for the purposes of equipment management? Process Development How should non-purchased assets (i.e. gifts, inbound faculty, etc.) be handled? What processes should be in place to address disposal of assets? How should service centers (i.e. machine shop) be handled? How should components of capital projects related to research (i.e. lab build outs) be captured and tracked? Configuration Questions What attributes should be captured for a piece of equipment (i.e. location, user, etc.)? What reports are needed? 14