Is There Really a Need?

Yes, there is!  Our current suite of administrative systems is very old and continuing to operate and maintain them puts us at substantial risk. In addition, severe limitations in system capabilities expose us to negative audit findings with significant consequences.  Lack of effective integration between systems hampers us, leads to extra work and yields inconsistent information. UA is one of the few major universities that have not replaced their enterprise systems-and that places us at a competitive disadvantage. Even more compelling is the fact that, with the advent of recent business intelligence tools, we are  in a great position to make a giant leap forward at this time.

The following assessment, drawn from the Executive Summary for the Enterprise Systems Replacement Proposal (link to full document) dated February 17, 2008, was prepared at the request of the University leadership:

"In November 2007 the President's Cabinet requested that the Chief Information Officer assess what would be required to go forward with an enterprise systems replacement strategy, assuming PeopleSoft and Kuali. During December 2007 and January 2008 a team of business and technical leaders concentrated on the PeopleSoft component, drawing heavily on the experiences of ASU and other institutions. These findings were then integrated with the previously compiled Kuali findings and incorporated with companion findings, most notably the need and opportunity for greatly improved information.

ASU's recent experience with PeopleSoft provided a baseline, which they shared openly with us in a number of different ways, including comprehensive peer-to-peer visits and discussions. One of the most important strategies is that very aggressive implementation schedules helps control costs and manage scope. This proposal adopts that strategy. Based directly on our peer-to-peer conversations, the UA proposed timeline, though slightly less compressed than ASU's, compared to other institutions it is very aggressive.  . . The business case for moving forward is compelling. Our current suite of administrative systems is technologically very old. Our ability to operate and maintain these systems is at great risk. (Payroll is a good example.) Severe limitations in system capabilities expose us to negative audit findings with substantial consequences. (Sponsored Projects is a good example.) Lack of effective integration between systems hampers us and leads to extra work, audit recommendations and inconsistent information. (Matrix and SIS are good examples.) "