Information Services Group, Inc. Public Sector

presspetManagement

Nov 10, 2013 (3 years and 8 months ago)

119 views




Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved





Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

A Report to the

Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services

on Current and Future Processes

for the Hyperion Software Deployment

P
resented by:

Information Services Group, Inc.

Public Sector

May 13, 2013







Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved



Copyright ©
2013
, Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical
means, includi
ng information storage and retrieval devices or systems, without prior writ
ten
permission from Information
Services Group, Inc.



Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
i

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

................................
................................
................................
................................
......................

1

Background

................................
................................
................................
................................
............

1

CURRENT STRATEGY MAN
AGEMENT AND BUDGETI
NG OVERVIEW

................................
..................

1

Current Tools

................................
................................
................................
................................
.........

2

Current Budgetar
y Chart of Accounts

................................
................................
................................
...

3

Requirements Not Supported in Current System

................................
................................
.................

3

CurrentStrategy Management and Budgeting Process Overview
................................
.........................

4

Current Strategy Management & Budgeting Challenges

................................
................................
......

6

CURRENT CAFR PROCESS

OVERVIEW

................................
................................
................................
.............

7

Current CAFR Tools

................................
................................
................................
................................

8

Current Process Overview

................................
................................
................................
.....................

8

Current CAFR Challenges

................................
................................
................................
.......................

9

FUTURE PROCESS: INTE
GRATED PLANNING, BUD
GETING, AND MANAGING

FOR RESULTS

...

10

Future Integrated Planning, Budgeting, Managing for Results Tools

................................
.................

12

Future Integrated Planning, Budgeting, and Managing for Results Chart of accounts

.......................

13

Future Integrated Planning,
Budgeting, Managing for Results Process Overview

.............................

13

Benefits to Integrated Planning, Budgeting, and Managing for Results

................................
.............

16

FUTURE PROCESS: CAFR

PRODUCTION

................................
................................
................................
......

17

Future CAFR for Results Tools

................................
................................
................................
.............

19

Future CAFR for Results Process Overview

................................
................................
.........................

20

Benefits to CAFR for Results

................................
................................
................................
................

21



Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
1

Introduction

In February 2013, t
he State of Oklahoma
(State)
Office of Management and Enterprise Services
(OMES)
engage
d ISG Public Sector to provide
business and technical consulting services for

the
assessment of implementing Oracle Hyperion Public Sector Planning and Budgeting.

This report
describes the State’s current processes for budget development and
CAFR production
, and then
sets forth a proposed new business process using the Hyperion too
lset.

Background

The State of Oklahoma

acquired the Oracle Hyperion software in
May 2012

to
replace
PeopleSoft EPM

and other tools
, and

to provide a modern

more comprehensive toolset

for
strategy management,
budget development

and adjustment,

and the Compr
ehensive A
nnual
Financial Report (CAFR). For enterprise financial, human resources and budgeting
administration,
t
he State currently uses Pe
opleSoft Financials and Supply C
hain Management
(FSCM) version 8.9, PeopleSoft Human Capital Management (H
CM) versio
n 9.0 and PeopleSoft
Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) version
8.8, in addition to a number of internally
-
developed tools
. When the Hyperion tool is fully implemented, the State plans to retire
PeopleSoft EPM.

The State has licensed the following Hyp
erion modules

in preparation for this deployment
:



Hyperion Planning Plus



Hyperion Public Sector Planning and Budgeting



Hyperion Financial Management Plus



Hyperion Financial Data Quality Management



Hyperion Financial Data Quality Management Adapter Suit
e



Hyperion Financial Data Quality Management Adapter for Financial Management



Oracle Essbase Plus



Oracle Scorecard and Strategy Management

Current
Strategy Management and

Budgeting Overview

The State of Oklahoma’s annual
budget process
, like most state g
overnments, can be
characterized as traditional incremental budgeting. Under this process, budgets are developed
and reviewed in the context of the previous year’s budget with funding decision
-
making
primarily focusing on the incremental change to the bud
get.

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
2

Also
similar to

most other states, this process has bot
tom
-
up and top
-
down
characteristics.

It is
bottom
-
up within the Executive branch beginning with agency submissions to the OMES and
culminating in the development of the Executive Budget, which s
erves as the initiation point for
the Legislative appropriation process. From a legislative perspective, budgeting is more top
-
down with appropriation decis
ions being made at an aggregate

level. Once budgets are
adopted and signed into law by the Governo
r, the process continues with the development of
Budget Work

Programs, which is a bottom
-
up budgeting process. Finally, budget adjustments
subsequent to budget adopti
ons are also made from a bottom
-
up perspective.

Though strategic plan

and limited perfo
rmance
data is incorporated into agency budget
request
submissions every other year, this information does not align to a comprehensive statewide
strategic
plan and typically serves
as contextual or reference information rather than
as a
driver
for the
allocation of budget r
esources.

Further, the state capital budget

does not directly
integrate to the operating budget. Hence, decisions regarding capital investment are often
made without direct access to information regarding the impact on long
-
term oper
ating
expenditures.

The State of Oklahoma currently develops its annual budget using a disparate collection of
software tools throughout the budget development and execution lifecycle.

Accordingly, the
State’s budget process has been aligned around thes
e different tools and can be characterized
as having many discrete sub
-
processes with limited integration.

The lack of an integrated, end
-
to
-
end budgeting application drives many inefficiencies,
puts constraints

on budgetary analysis,
and
lacks
a platform

for effective implementation or integration of current or future policy
initiatives
to the budget process
such as strategy management to support Budgeting for Results
or linking capital and operating budgeting. The current budget process is described in
further
detail below.

Current
Strategy Management and
Budgeting Tools

Currently the State of Oklahoma has a myriad of software applications used for budgeting
throughout the budgeting lifecycle.

These tools include:



Budget Request System


This
application was built and is maintained by the State for
agency budget development and initial submission of agency budgets

requests,
performance measures, strategic plans and capital outlay requests
.



PeopleSoft EPM


Used by agencies and OMES to enter p
rogram work sheets (expenditure
plans), after the budget is finalized, for
load into

PeopleSoft commitment control.
Additionally, EPM is used for making all budget adjustments after the budget is loaded to
PeopleSoft.



Agency Internal
ly

Developed Tools


A
gencies have a myriad of internally
-
developed
budgeting tools. These tools are used to support
internal development of the agency
budget,
budgeting and performance management.

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
3



Microsoft Office


Oklahoma’s budgeting process is substantially dependent on

Microsoft
Office applications (e.g.
,

Excel
, Word
) throughout the budget lifecycle.

Excel, it can be
argued, is the most widely used budgeting too
l
.



Statistical Application


Used by the
Oklahoma Tax Commission

(and Oklahoma State
University
)
to provide

t
he
statistical/ econometric modeling tools for statewide revenue
forecasts

used by the Board of Equalization
.

Current Budgetary Chart of Accounts

The state currently utilizes the following PeopleSoft ERP dimensions for appropriated funds
budgeting and for
tracking actual expenditures with budget availability control.



Account
-

Object of expense or revenue source



Division
-

Organizational entity with budgetary responsibility



Department
-

Organizational child of division



Class
-

Fund grouping



Sub
-
Account


Expenditure and revenue details

Note: There is a need for a service/activity view of budgets (cross
-
organizational program view),
which will need to
be
implemented as a new dimension in ERP and budgeting. Additionally, a
new capital budgeting process is b
eing developed by the Department of Capital Asset
Management (DCAM) which will require the addition of a dimension to track capital projects
and related work break downs in
budgeting

and PeopleSoft ERP.

Requirements

Not Supported in Current S
ystem

Multiple

budgeting applications/tools are currently required due to limitations in the
PeopleSoft EPM application. These limitations have relegated this solution to use after the
budget is actually developed in other tools. Instead, the state has developed a cus
tom
application for budget development.

This necessitates significant data reentry, manipulation,
and reconciliation and significantly impairs the state

s analytical capabilities.

Oklahoma’s current budgeting tools provide minimal support for strategic pl
anning and
performance management to support Budgeting for Results and for integrating operating and
capital budgeting to improve decision support for capital investment.

Where supported, these
processes are supported inconsistently, provide limited repor
ting and analysis, and do not align
to leading practices.

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
4

Current Strategy

Management and Budgeting
Process Overview

The following table provides an end
-
to
-
end overview of the current budgeting process
,
including integrated strategic planning,

at the State of Oklahoma illustrating which of the
previously identified software tools are utilized throughout the budget process.

Table
1
: Current Budgeting Process

Budget Stage

Dates

Input

Tool

Output

Owner

Agency Capital
Budget Request

May
-

July

Guidance from
Long
-
Range
Capital Planning
Commission

Budget Request
System (internal
system)

Agency Capital
Plan

Agencies, Long
-
Range Capital
Planning
Commission

Long
-
Range
Capital Planning
Commission
Review

May


July

Agency
Input,
Executive Policy
Guidance,
Available
Funding

No standard tool
(spreadsheets,
etc.)

Capital plan

Long
-
Range
Capital Planning
Commission

Agency

Internal
Budget Request
&
Strategic Planning
(
Strategic Plan
every other year)

July
-

October

OMES
guidance

Agency internal
built systems,
spreadsheets,
etc. No
standard tool.

Data for input
into Budget
Request System

Agencies
(Divisions &
Departments)

Agency
Budget
Request
Submissions &
Strategy Plan
(Strategic Plan
every other year)

September


Oc
tober

Agency internal
budgets

Budget Request
System (Custom
State System)

Agency
Electronic
Submission to
OMES,
Submissions to
House and
Senate (reports,
not in system)

Agencies

Multi
-
Year Trend
Analysis

October


November

Historical data
and policy

Excel

Statutory multi
-
year revenue
and expenditure
reporting

OMES

OMES Review &
Hearings with
Agencies


Legislature Also
Conducts Hearings

October


December

Agency
Submissions,
Governor’s
Policy Guidance,
Statutory
Compliance

Budget Request
System (Cus
tom
State System)

Summary Sheets
for Hearings,

Executive
Budget Book
Content

OMES

Equalization
Board Produces
Revenue Estimate

December

Economic data

Econometric
modeling tools

Approved basis
for Executive
Budget
(statutory limits
based on this
estimate)

Oklahoma Tax
Commission,
OMES,
Equalization
Board

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
5

Budget Stage

Dates

Input

Tool

Output

Owner

Submission of
Executive Budget
to Legislature

January to
February

Agency
Submissions,
Revenue
Estimate,
Agency Hearings

The Executive
budget and
associated
Historical
budget are
developed using
Microsoft
Office.

Executive
Budget,
Historical
Budget

Governor/OMES

Agencies
Resubmit Agency
Revenue
Estimates

February to
March

Agency Input

No standard
tool. Agencies
submit via
emails, etc.

Guidance to
OMES

Agencies/OMES

Equalization
Board Revised
Estimate

February to
March

Economic data

The equalization
board receives
input from OSU
economists and
develops
estimates
internally using
Forecast Pro,
Excel and other
tools.

Revised
approved basis
for Legislative
Appropriations

& Governor’s
Action

Oklahoma Tax
Co
mmission,
OMES,
Equalization
Board

Legislative
Reviews and
Appropriation
Recommendations
(Including Veto
Override)

February to
May

Legislative
Authority,
Statutes,
Equalization
Board Guidance

Microsoft Office
is used to
manage
appropriation
bills,
language,
etc.

Appropriations
Bills

Legislature

Governor’s Action
on Appropriation
Bills (Including
Veto)

February to
May

Governor’s
Authority,
Statutes,
Equalization
Board Guidance

Microsoft Office
is used to
manage
appropriation
bills, language,
etc.

Signed
Appropriations
Bills

Governor/OMES

Equalization
Board Meeting


Revenue &
Expenditure
Authority
Adjusted to
Incorporate
Statute Changes

June


July

Statute
Changes,
Legislative and
OMES analysis

The equalization
board certifies
law changes that
aff
ect revenue.

Certification of
Balanced
Budget

Equalization
Board

By Line Developed

May


July

Signed
Appropriation
Bills

OMES develops
by line based on
appropriations
using Excel

Guidance an
Reconciliation
for Agency
Budget Work
Programs

OMES

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
6

Budget Stage

Dates

Input

Tool

Output

Owner

Agencies Submit
Budget Work
Programs

May


July

OMES guidance,
Agency
Authority

PeopleSoft EPM
is used to create
budget work
program.
Additional
documentation
from agencies
received outside
EPM.

Electronic
Submission to
OMES

Agencies

OMES review and
approval of
Agency Budget
Work Programs

May


July

Appropriations,
Equalization
Board Guidance,
Statutes,
Governor’s
Authority

PeopleSoft EPM
is used to review
and approved
agency work
programs.

Feed to
PeopleSoft
Budget Control

OMES

Input/Upload of
“Limits”

June

Statutes and
policy guidance
on ceiling
spending
thresholds for
specific
purposes

Limits are
developed in
Excel and
uploaded to
PeopleSoft EPM

Compliance
reporting for
agency budget
work program

OMES

Budget
Adjustments

July


June

State policies,
carryover
requirements,
operational
needs.

PeopleSoft EPM
is used to make
budget
adjustments
which adjust
PeopleSoft
budget control
levels

Approved
budget
adjustments
affected in
PeopleSoft
budget control.

Agencies, OMES


Currently Oklahoma does not have a comprehensive strategy management (strategic planning
and performance management) process or tools. It is envisioned this will be addressed as part
of this project. As previously noted, currently strategy management is
limited to collecting
agency goals, measures, etc. as part of the budget process. Additionally, some agencies have
their own internal strategic planning and performance management processes and tools.

Current
Strategy Management
and

Budgeting
Challenges


Oklahoma’s current budgeting tools and processes produce many challenges as Oklahoma
endeavors to improve its budgeting process and align toward a Budgeting for Results approach.
These challenges include:



Disparate Budgeting Applications


The state’s c
urrent collection of disparate budgeting
tools produces rampant inefficiencies with substantial and repeated data re
-
entry,
Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
7

manipulation, and reconciliation. Beyond inefficiencies, analysis capability is impaired and
confidence in the data is undermined.




Budgeting Dimensions/Chart of Accounts


The state’s current chart of accounts dimensions
do not provide for budgeting of and monitoring expenditures by cross
-
organizational and
cross
-
funding programs (grouping internal/external services or activities).

Additionally, the
state

s chart of accounts do
es

not, as currently configured, provide a standardized
foundation for implementation of capital budgeting.

Without adding dimensions to the
State’s current ERP solution, effectively integrating operating and

capital budgeting and
budgeting to strategic planning and performance management
, this capability

will be
substantially constrained. This will substantially impair the State’s eff
orts to more robustly
support

these processes.



Limited Functionality


The
state’s current landscape of budgeting tools does not provide a
foundation for integrating and optimizing processes.

There is substantially limited
functionality to support:



Capital budgeting
;



Strategic planning and performance management
;



Budgeting
decision packages
;



Budget book publication automation
; and,



End
-
to
-
end process integration
.

Current CAFR Process Overview

The State’s current Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) process, similar to many
states, can be described as very manual and
very labor intensive, requiring large amounts of
financial, statistical, and narrative information to be rekeyed into various applications such as
PeopleSoft, Excel spreadsheets, and Word documents that are ultimately compiled into a single
book for publis
hing by the December 31
st

deadline.

At a summary level, the CAFR process can be described as follows:



A cash basis Combining Trial Balance (CTB) is prepared using the “Actuals” ledger data in
PeopleSoft, which is authenticated by the Office of the State

Auditor and Inspector;



GAAP Packages are prepared by state agencies and submitted to the State Comptroller,
where GAAP conversion forms are recorded using the “Adjusted” ledger in PeopleSoft,
spreadsheets, or Word documents, depending on the type of dat
a collected;



Using the “Actuals” and “Mod Accrue” ledgers in PeopleSoft, General Fund and Fiduciary
Fund financial reports are prepared on a modified accrual basis using PeopleSoft’s delivered
nVision reporting tool;

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
8



Audited agency reports, primarily fro
m component units such as the Turnpike Authority, are
provided by agency’s auditor to the State Comptroller, where the data is manually entered
into spreadsheets;



Entity
-
Wide Statements are prepared beginning with Fund statements created in nVision,
adding

Agency/Component Unit data manually aggregated in spreadsheets. Various
statement presentations are then prepared

using Excel;



Budget to Actuals Statements are prepared in Excel, using budget data provided by the
Budget Section;



Statistical data (trend

data and non
-
financial data useful in interpreting basic financial
statements) is collected using Excel; and



The CAFR book is compiled, manually consolidating all the various Excel spreadsheets and
Word documents into a single book for publishing.

The Of
fice of the State Auditor and Inspector performs various audits throughout the CAFR life
-
cycle process and then performs one final audit before the report is published.

Current CAFR Tools



PeopleSoft Financial



MS Excel



MS Word



nVision

Current Process Over
view

The following table provides an end
-
to
-
end overview of the current CAFR process at the State
illustrating which of the previously identified software tools are utilized throughout the CAFR
process.

Table 2: Current CAFR Process

Stage

Dates

Input

Tool

Output

Owner

Combining Trial
Balance

Fiscal year
-
end

PeopleSoft
accounting data

PeopleSoft
Financials

Cash basis
Combining Trial
Balance
statements

Comptroller

Agency GAAP
Conversion

Starting end of
June (fiscal
year
-
end)

PeopleSoft
accounting data
and
cash basis
CTB

Excel packet on
Comptroller web
site (“Blue
sheets”)

Completed Excel
worksheets

Agencies

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
9

Stage

Dates

Input

Tool

Output

Owner

CAFR GAAP
Conversion

July


cash

August


AP

Sept

Litigation

Oct

Medicaid

Completed
agency Excel
workbooks

Excel

PeopleSoft
journal entries
in separate

ledger (“Mod
Accrual”) for
modified accrual
basis

Comptroller

CAFR Compilation

September


October
(Higher ed
comes in Oct.
31)

Mod Accrual
ledger

nVision, Excel,
Word

Reports for
CAFR, narrative
and text for
CAFR

Comptroller

Preliminary
Auditor Review

October


November

CAFR reports
and narrative

Excel, Word

Audited reports
and text

State Auditor

CAFR Book
Assembly

December
(complete
book by Dec.
20)

Audited reports
and text

Word

CAFR Report
Book

Comptroller

Final Auditor
Review

December

CAFR Report
Book

Word

Final CAFR
Report Book,
GFOA Packet

State Auditor


Current CAFR Challenges

Oklahoma’s current CAFR process

and reporting toolset provide many challenges as the State
attempts to improve a manual and labor intensive process with an efficient
process that leads
to a shorter production lead time and drastic reduction in man
-
hours. Some of these
challenges include:



Numerous data sources


The State’s current process requires the collection, compilation
and organization of data from many sources

such as PeopleSoft, GAAP conversion forms,
agency’s audited financial statements, budget data, and statistical data;



Data rekeyed into disparate collection systems


As data is gathered from various sources,
much of the data is rekeyed into various syst
ems such as PeopleSoft, Excel, and Word; and



Manual assembly of the CAFR report


The assembly of the State’s CAFR report is entirely a
manual process, which requires the difficult task of merging large amounts of narrative text,
financial data and statis
tical data into a single report format. Last minute updates often
results in cascading changes throughout the report that require great effort to manually
update, introducing increased risk of report errors.



Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
10

Future Process:
Integrated Planning,
Budget
ing
, and Managing

for Results

The State of Oklahoma
desires

to leverage the Hyperion suite of applications as a tool for
inductively reengineering its
planning,
budgeting
, and performance management

processes and
shift the focus

to

allocating and managing
resources in the context of

services provided by the
State. This pivot in focus provides the foundation for transforming
planning and
budgeting
from allocating scarce state resources around organizational or statutory control to greater
optimization of th
e allocation of scarce resources based

upon

expected return on investment.

Under this new process, the State will establish strategic priorities through a consolidated
statewide strategic plan, link funding decisions to the strategic plan in the budget sy
stem, and
measure success based on financial and non
-
financial performance indicators.

The State does not see
Planning,
Budgeting
, and Managing

for R
esults and incremental
budgeting as mutually exclusive.

It is the State’s intent to continue with its in
cremental
approach an
d focus on
funding changes

(decision packages) funding to the strategic plan (e.g.
goals, objectives, or programs) in Hyperion PSPB. However, Budgets will continue to be
developed and allocated, at a macro level, to programs, which wi
ll align to the strategic plan for
reporting
. In lieu of
zero
-
based

budgeting
,

which requires substantial re
-
justification of the full
budget with the intent of weeding redundancy and underperformance
,

the State intends to
implement a Budgeting for Result
s approach to
develop a new cross
-
organizational program
structure, aligning around external and internal services. This effort will provide a foundation
for identifying and addressing redundancy or underperformance without the administrative
burden of ze
ro
-
based budgeting, which has found very limited success in public sector.

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
11


Figure
1
: Oklahoma's New
Integrated Planning,
Budgeting
, and Managing

for Results
Process


The Hyperion application suite will serve as the foundation for this new strategic alignment of
Oklahoma’s
planning, budgeting, and performance management
.

Hyperion will provide an
integrated, end
-
to
-
end
planning, budgeting, and performance management
too
l, substantially
reducing

or

eliminating in many areas the need for offline budgeting tools
. Further Hyperion
Strategy Management will serve as a tool for inductively engineering new statewide strategic
planning and performance management processes
. Furt
her, the provided integration will
eliminate substantial data reentry, manipulation, and reconciliation.

Labor intensive activities,
such as publishing budget books, will be
largely

automated.

This will allow for greater focus on
budgetary
and performanc
e
analysis. Further, Hyperion will provide real
-
time data and tools to
support decision
-
making throughout the
planning, budgeting, and performance management
lifecycle.


In addition to
supporting the operating budget development
, Hyperion will support th
e State’s
new Capital Budgeting process

and

current year budget adjustments
.

Further, Hyperion will be
configured to integrate each of these sub
-
processes into the operating budgeting

including the
ability for

position budgeting
.

The new end
-
to
-
end
integr
ated planning,
budgeting
, and managing for results

process is
detailed in table 2.

Statewide
Strategic Plan

Budgeting

Performance
Management

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
12

Future
Integrated Planning,
Budgeting
, Managing

for Results Tools



Hyperion:




Planning, Public Sector Planning & Budgeting (PSPB)



Personnel cost planning



Composite Form De
finitions (Estimated 12
-
15 composite forms)



Base Budget (Estimated 2 composite forms)



Funding
Supplement
/A
djustment
Form (Estimated 1
-
2 decision packages)



Capital (Estimated 2 composite forms, New and Existing)



Central Forms (Estimated 4
-
5 composite forms:

Revenue, By Line, Limits, Long
-
Range Revenue)



Budget Execution (Estimated 3
-
4 composite forms: Budget adjustment, monthly
plan, plan update)



Reporting and Ad Hoc Analysis (Estimated 40 medium to complex reports)



Hyperion Financial Close Management
-

Publication of Executive Budget, Historical
Budget, Capital Budget (New, to be defined)



Hyperion Strategy Management
-

Strategic Planning and Performance Management



Statewide strategic plan forms, reports, and dashboards (process and related
configuratio
ns to be defined as part of project)


Provide for development
and
update
of
hierarchical

mission, goals, objectives, initiatives,
programs, performance
metrics and target
, etc.



Agency strategic plan forms, reports, and dashboards (process and related
conf
igurations to be defined as part of project)


Provide for development
and
update
of agency (or lower level) strategic plans which integrate to the
statewide
strategic plan for reporting.



Agency performance management forms, reports and dashboards (process

and
related configurations to be defined as part of project
) for

collection actual
performance information (e.g. how many lane miles of resurfacing were performed
in the prior month).



Microsoft Office


Will continue to be used by legislature as they
do
not plan to

access the
system

at this time
.

Additionally, these tools may be used for offline analysis, etc.
However, the use of Microsoft Office tools will be significantly reduced and replaced by
online Hyperion tools.

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
13



Statistical Applications


The E
qualization Board will continue to use its own tools for
statewide revenue estimates. However, this data will be enter
ed

or uploaded into Hyperion
to support reporting and analysis once available.

Note Hyperion Essbase and Financial Data Quality Managem
ent will be utilized for data storage
and integration but not by end users.

Future
Integrated Planning,
Budgeting
, and Managing

for Results Chart
of accounts

In addition to the current PeopleSoft budgeting dimensions, it is anticipated that the State wil
l
need to adopt at least two additional dimensions, where applicable, in the PeopleSoft and
Hyperion solutions:



Program


This hierarchical dimension will be used to track cross
-
organizational and/or
cross
-
funding programs. These programs will be parent t
o services provided by each
program.




Project


Currently there are multiple ways of tracking project funding in PeopleSoft.

A
common definition of project and related work breakdown structures will be essential to
managing the State

s

new Capital Budget

process.

Future
Integrated Planning,
Budgeting
, Managing

for Results Process
Overview

The following table provides an end
-
to
-
end overview of the future
integrated

process at the
State of Oklahoma.


Table
3
: To Be Budgeting for Results End
-
to
-
End Process

Budget Stage

Dates

Input

Tool

Output

Owner

Development of
Statewide
Strategic Plan
(Developed on
five
-
year basis and
updated in even
years)

Through July

Public,
Executive
Leadership,
Legislature

Hyperion
Strategy
Management

Statewide
strategic plan

Governor
,
OMES

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
14

Budget Stage

Dates

Input

Tool

Output

Owner

Agencies Goals,
Objectives and
Performance
Measures Updated
(Updated in Even
Years)

Through July

Public,
Governor,
Legislature,
Agency
Leadership

Hyperion
Strategy
Management

Departmental
strategic plans

Agencies

Agency Capital
Budget
Request

May
-

July

Guidance from
DCAM/OMES

Hyperion
Planning & PSPB

Agency Capital
Plan

Agencies,
DCAM/OMES

Capital Budget
Review

May


July

Agency
Submissions,
Executive Policy
Guidance,
Available
Funding

Hyperion
Planning & PSPB

Capital Program
Plan
document

DCAM/OMES

Agency

Internal
Budget Request

July
-

October

OMES guidance

Hyperion
Planning & PSPB

Data for input
into Budget
Request System

Agencies

Agency
Budget
Request
Submissions

September


October

Agency internal
budgets

Hyperion
Planning
& PSPB

Agency
Electronic
Submission to
OMES,
Submissions to
House and
Senate (report
-
only access to
Hyperion)

Agencies

Multi
-
Year Trend
Analysis

October


November

Historical data
and policy

Excel upload to
Hyperion
Planning & PSPB

Statutory multi
-
year r
evenue
and expenditure
reporting

OMES

OMES Review &
Hearings with
Agencies


Legislature Also
Conducts Hearings

October


December

Agency
Submissions,
Governor’s
Policy Guidance,
Statutory
Compliance

Hyperion
Planning & PSPB

Summary
Sheets for
Hearings,

Executive
Budget Book
Content

OMES

Equalization Board
Produces Revenue
Estimate

December

Economic data,
OSU economist
input

Econometric
modeling tools
(Forecast Pro or
replacement),
Hyperion
Planning & PSPB
(entered or
uploaded to
reflect Revenue
estimate)

Approved basis
for Executive
Budget
(statutory limits
based on this
estimate)

Oklahoma Tax
Commission,
OMES,
Equalization
Board

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
15

Budget Stage

Dates

Input

Tool

Output

Owner

Submission of
Executive Budget
to Legislature

January to
February

Agency
Submissions,
Revenue
Estimate,
Agency Hearin
gs

Hyperion
Planning &
PSPB, Hyperion
Financial Close
Management

Executive
Budget,
Historical
Budget

Governor/OMES

Agencies Resubmit
Agency Revenue
Estimates

January

Agency Input

Hyperion
Planning & PSPB

Submission to
OMES

Agencies/OMES

Equalization
Board
Revised Estimate

February

Economic data,
OSU economist
input

Econometric
modeling tools
(Forecast Pro or
replacement),
Hyperion
Planning & PSPB
(entered or
uploaded to
reflect Revenue
estimate)

Revised
approved basis
for Legislative
Appropriations
&
Governor’s
Action

Oklahoma Tax
Commission,
OMES,
Equalization
Board

Legislative
Reviews and
Appropriation
Recommendations
(Including Veto
Override)

February to
May

Legislative
Authority,
Statutes,
Equalization
Board Guidance

Microsoft Office
is used to
ma
nage
appropriation
bills, language,
etc.

Appropriations
Bills

Legislature

Governor’s Action
on Appropriation
Bills (Including
Veto)

February to
May

Governor’s
Authority,
Statutes,
Equalization
Board Guidance

Microsoft Office
is used to
manage
appropriation
bills, language,
etc.

Signed
Appropriations
Bills

Governor/OMES

Equalization Board
Meeting


Revenue &
Expenditure
Authority Adjusted
to Incorporate
Statute Changes

June


July

Statute
Changes,
Legislative and
OMES analysis

The equalization
board certifies
law changes
that affect
revenue.

Certification of
Balanced
Budget

Equalization
Board

By Line Developed

June


July

Signed
Appropriation
Bills

Hyperion
Planning & PSPB

Guidance an
Reconciliation
for Agency
Budget Work
Programs

OMES

Agencies Submit
Budget Work
Programs

May


July

OMES guidance,
Agency
Authority

Hyperion
Planning & PSPB

Electronic
Submission to
OMES

Agencies

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
16

Budget Stage

Dates

Input

Tool

Output

Owner

OMES review and
approval of
Agency Budget
Work Programs

May


July

Appropriations,
Equalization
Board
Guidance,
Statutes,
Governor’s
Authority

Hyperion
Planning & PSPB

Feed to
PeopleSoft
Budget Control

OMES

Input/Upload of
“Limits”

June

Statutes and
policy guidance
on ceiling
spending
thresholds for
specific
purposes

Hyperion
Planning & PSPB

Compliance
reporting for
agency budget
work program

OMES

Budget
Adjustments

July


June

State policies,
carryover
requirements,
operational
needs.

Hyperion
Planning & PSPB

Approved
budget
adjustments
affected in
PeopleSoft
budget control.

Agencies, OMES

Monthly Forecasts
and Monthly/
Quarterly Updates
(to Year End)

July


June


Actual
expenditure and
revenues year
to date,
business
requirements

Hyperion
Planning & PSPB

Updated
forecasts

Agencies, OMES

Performance
Management
(actuals)

July


June

Various data
sources holding
supporting data

Hyperion
Strategy
Management

Monitor plan vs
actual
performance

Agencies

collect
data
, OMES

reviews/reports


Benefits to
Integrated Planning,
Budgeting
, and Managing

for Results

The State’s new ‘to be’ budgetin
g process and tools will provide substantial benefits to the
state over the current process and tools including:



Efficiency:



Data manipulation and reconciliation will be substantially reduced.



Budget book publishing will be automated.



Data will
integrate throughout the budget process
,

eliminating re
-
entry.



Agency systems will be eliminated
,

saving cost.



Effectiveness :

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
17



Data will be more accurate and, with the elimination of many shadow or offline
budgeting tools/processes, the
re

will be a single
version of the truth.



Real
-
time budgetary and policy analysis.




Budget analysis will be more accurate, timely, and comprehensive.



Budget recommendations/decisions will be made with strategic context.



Budget staff will spend more time analyzing and less
time crunching numbers.



The state will have a process and tools to optimize the allocation of scarce state human,
financial, and capital resources.

Future Process: CAFR Production

The State will leverage the Hyperion suite of applications

as a toolset

for
significantly improving
its current CAFR reporting process. Rather than gathering and consolidating the State’s
financial information manually using spreadsheets and Word document, the new toolset will
provide automated processes for data collection and d
ata validation from disparate data
sources, reduce manual data entry, and significantly reduce risk of errors. In addition,
automated workflow processes will be used

to move documents through the var
ious draft and
review stages, and more importantly,
create

a complete audit trail

to meet CAFR reporting
monitoring compliance requirements.

The process begins with the State Comptroller creating a CAFR application using Hyperion’s
Public Sector Planning and Budgeting (PSPB) to organize the collection of da
ta from various
disparate sources. Using customized data forms, task lists, and an approval routing process, the
collection and review of statewide information will be aggregated into a central repository
(Essbase), which in due course becomes the primary

data source for generating the State’s
CAFR. As financial, statistical, and narrative information are collected and audited throughout
the five
-
month CAFR process, CAFR reports (sub
-
reports) are generated and saved into the
CAFR repository for later comp
ilation into a CAFR book. The Hyperion Financial Reporting tool
will generate the majority of the reports. This reporting tool will provide

a graphical, object
-
based interface

to

enable staff to create reports that combine grids of data and text, charts,

graphs, and images.

Staff will

have complete control over layouts, formatting, fonts, and colors,
as well as a flexible range of output options enabling wide distribution via print, HTML Web
pages, PDF, and online viewing.

As a final step, a CAFR book te
mplate is created using Hyperion PSPB, which defines the overall
CAFR report layout. The CAFR report layout sections and subsections will be linked to live data
in PSPB, as well as other documents and sources. The reports within the CAFR book template
ca
n be periodically updated to accommodate last minute changes as needed.

At a summary level, the future CAFR process can be described as follows:

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
18



PeopleSoft Cash Basis Data
-

Using a prepackaged source adapter delivered with Hyperion
Data Quality Managemen
t, the cash basis data is transferred from PeopleSoft’s “Actuals”
ledger to the CAFR repository. A delivered web
-
based interface will enable staff to load,
review, and verify data from the PeopleSoft source system to the CAFR repository target
system. D
elivered audit reports will be utilized to authenticate data by the Office of the
Auditor and Inspector.



GAAP Packages


Using custom data collection forms created in PSPB, financial, statistical,
and narrative information are collected from agencies. Tas
k lists are used to manage data
collection forms assigned to agencies, which include due dates and responsible owners for
each task. The workflow approval routing process is used to facilitate the review of
agencies’ submitted data prior to updating the C
AFR central repository (Essbase).



Combining Trial Balance (CTB)

The CTB report and other cash basis financial reports are
generated in PeopleSoft as Crystal reports and cross
-
checked against Hyperion reports using
data that is transferred into the CAFR

repository with the Hyperion Financial Reporting tool.
Reports will be reviewed, approved, and saved into a final compilation staging area within
the CAFR repository to facilitate the publication of the CAFR book.



Agencies’ Audited Financial Reports


T
he state agencies’ and component units’ audited
financial statements are gathered using custom data collection form(s) created in PSPB.
Agencies attach their audited financial reports and/or key financial data into custom
form(s), updating the CAFR reposi
tory after review and approval by State Comptroller staff.
Optionally, agencies can key their financial data into Excel spreadsheet templates provided
by the State Comptroller and then attach their updated file) to the custom data collection
form created
in PSPB. State Comptroller staff review, approve, and import agencies data
directly into the CAFR repository using SmartView.



Modified Accrual Basis Data


The modified accrual basis data is gathered using custom data
collection forms created in PSPB. Ag
encies attach their GAAP conversion forms and/or key
modified accrual basis data into custom form(s), updating the CAFR central repository after
review by State Comptroller staff. Optionally, agencies can key their modified accrual data
into an Excel spre
adsheet template provided by the State Comptroller and then attach their
updated files to the custom data collection form created in PSPB. State Comptroller staff
review, approve, and import agencies data directly into the CAFR repository using
SmartView.




Fund Financial Reports


The Fund Financial Reports for the General Fund, Fiduciary Fund,
and Proprietary Fund are generated using data transferred to the CAFR repository; cash
basis data is transferred from PeopleSoft and modified accrual data is gather
ed using PSPB
data collection forms in the CAFR repository. The Hyperion Financial Reporting tool is used
to create and generate Fund Financial Reports. Reports are reviewed, approved, and saved
into a final compilation staging area within the CAFR repos
itory to facilitate the CAFR book
publishing.

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
19



Entity
-
Wide Financial Statements
-

The Entity
-
Wide Financial Statements are generated
using data from the CAFR repository with the Hyperion Financial Reporting tool. Financial
statements are reviewed, approved, and saved in a “Final” compilation staging a
rea within
the CAFR repository to facilitate the CAFR book publishing.



Budgeted to Actuals Statements


The Budgeted to Actuals Statements are generated using
data from the CAFR repository with the Hyperion Financial Reporting tool. Statements are
revi
ewed, approved, and saved in a “Final” compilation staging area within the CAFR
repository to facilitate the CAFR book publishing.



Statistical Section


The statistical data is gathered using Excel spreadsheets by State
Comptroller staff and saved in th
e CAFR Repository. The statistical data is reviewed,
approved, and saved in a “Final” compilation staging area within the CAFR repository to
facilitate the CAFR book publishing.



CAFR Assembly and Publishing


The “Budget Book” publication functionality

within PSPB is
used to assemble the formal CAFR document. The output can be generated in either PDF
formant and/or a deployable HTML for website publishing. Additionally, the State’s “CAFR
Book” can be re
-
used in future years as a basis for the new “CAF
R Book.”

Future CAFR for Results Tools



Public Sector Planning and Budgeting

(PSPB)



Hyperion Planning Plus



Hyperion Financial Management

Plus



Financial Data Quality Management



Financial Data Quality Management

Adapter for Financial Management



Oracle Scor
ecard and Strategy Management



Hyperion SmartView for Office Fusion Edition



Oracle
Essbase

Plus



MS Word



MS Excel



MS PowerPoint



Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
20

Future CAFR for Results Process Overview

The following table provides an end
-
to
-
end overview of the future CAFR process at the S
tate of
Oklahoma.

Table 4: To Be CAFR for Results End
-
to
-
End Process

CAFR Stage

Dates

Input

Tool

Output

Owner

GAAP Packages

1
st

GAAP
Package due to
July 30
th
,


2
nd

GAAP
Package
August 13
th
,
and


3
rd

GAAP
Package
October 8
th

PeopleSoft
accounting data
or other non
-
PeopleSoft data
as appropriate.

input forms
created in
Hyperion PSPB
and available for
agencies input

Agencies input
to forms,
attached Excel,
Word, which is
saved in Essbase

Agencies

Combining Trial
Balance (CTB)

August 30th

PeopleSoft
accounting data
from “Actuals”
ledger

Cash basis data
exported from
PeopleSoft to
Hyperion PSPB
using Hyperion
Financial Data
Quality
Management;

“Cash Basis”
data input into
Essbase via
Hyperion PSPB

State
Comptroller

Audited Agencies
(mostly
Component Units)

Audit Deadline
November 16
th

for Component
Unit Financial
Statements

Audited agency
annual financial
reports in Excel,
Word, and PDF

Collected using
Hyperion PSPB
Forms.


Component Unit
Financial
Statements
gene
rated using
Hyperion
Financial
Reporting

Agencies input
to forms,
attached Excel,
Word, which
save in Essbase


Component Unit
Financial
Statements

Agencies






State
Comptroller


Fund Statements

Audit Deadline
November 16
th

for Fund
Financials

Data stored in
Essbase

Generated using
Hyperion
Financial
Reporting

Fund
Statements


General Fund,
Proprietary
Funds, and
Fiduciary Funds

State
Comptroller

Entity
-
Wide
Statements

Audit Deadline
for December
1
st

for Entity
-
Wide
Statements

Data stored in

Essbase

Hyperion
Financial
Reporting

Statements
stored in CAFR
repository

State
Comptroller

Oklahoma Hyperion Business Processes

Oklahoma OMES

May 13, 2013


Copyright ©
2013
3

Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Page
21

CAFR Stage

Dates

Input

Tool

Output

Owner

CAFR Book
assembled using
Hyperion PSPB,
Budget Book

December
(complete
book by Dec.
20)

CAFR Repository


Forms, Excel,
Word, Logos,
Graphics,
Charts, etc.
mapped to CAFR
Report template

Hyperion PSPB,
Budget Book

CAFR Report
Book

Comptroller

Final Auditor
Review

December

CAFR Repository


Forms, Excel,
Word, Logos,
Graphics,
Charts, etc.

Hyperion PSPB,
Budget Book

Draft Oklahoma
CAFR Book

State Auditor


Benefits to CAFR for Results

The State’s new ‘to be’ CAFR process and tools will provide substantial benefits to the state
over the current process and tools including:



Enables automated data collection and validation from disparate data sources;



Reduces m
anual data entry;



Links report templates to underlying data, ensuring that any corrections are automatically
reflected throughout the CAFR;



Moves documents using automated workflow through the various draft and review stages;



Automates CAFR publishing; and



Provides a familiar, user
-
friendly interface.