AP/PO team meeting – 10/2/02

Present: Hua Ramer; Janet Larson; Dave Allen; Vera Laufenberg; Steve Carrola; Gareth Green; Jeanne Schiro; Mike Hardiman; Tom Fisher; Cathy Holmes

Absent: Charlie Simonson; Terri Mills

Janet introduced the baseline documentation. Janet reported that she had worked with the various other team members to go through the process, indentifying the various steps involved. Janet explained that much of the discussion in the last meeting regarded how to determine the measurement methodology for establishing baselines.

Janet mentioned that she will be adding a CORS process flow chart and baseline, per suggestions from Don.

If anyone wants copies of the documentation, let Janet know, and she’ll send it to you.

Janet lead a review of the process map for each of the procurement and AP processes on the list of business processes to be analyzed. Janet asked for any revisions that people felt were necessary.

Hua noted that, in regards to the check printing process map, we will soon switch to the Department of Administration processing our checks, as opposed to DoIT as is currently done. Hua said that she was told by Dave Diericks that we still don’t know exactly what the process will be with DOA’s printing of checks. However Hua said that she did not expect much change there.

Hua explained that in the next meeting we will review the pre-audit, 1099, and CORS process maps.

Hua asked for a brainstorming session to determine the requirements for the new AP/PO system. Hua stated that we must first identify the customers for the new system (i.e. who will be impacted in the implementation), and the needs the different customers have for the system.

A general brainstorming session followed. A list of customers was identified, and the team began to identify a list of customer needs. The team will continue this exercise during next meeting.

Hua mentioned that Don Miner has signed off on the project charter. Hua noted that Al Benzschawel has not signed off on it yet, and that Al may come back with questions and/or issues regarding the charter. Hua explained that this means that the team may need to adjust the project charter, or other documentation, based on feedback from Al.

The results of the brainstorming session follow:

APPO TEAM

Notes From October 2, 2002 Meeting

“Who will be impacted by the APPO system?”

Customers

  1. Accounting Services Staff
  2. Traveling Employees
  3. Departments’/Deans’ Offices
  4. Approvers
  5. Transaction Initiators
  6. Personnel with Financial Interests
  7. IT System Administrators
  8. Vendors
  9. State Treasury
  10. DOA
  11. UW-System
  12. Regulators
  13. Purchasing Staff
  14. Business Services Management
  15. Auxiliary

“What are the needs of these customers?”

Customer Needs

  1. Accounting Services Staff
    (Jeanne will gather information at the next Invoice Audit Staff meeting
    Gareth will review notes from the Change Management Meetings facilitated by Steve Schad from last year. The staff was given the charge to develop a “dream” system of what they would like to see in a new Accounts Payable system.)
  2. Traveling Employees
  3. Timeliness of payment
  4. Tracking status of TERs
  5. Easier TER form
  6. Training
  7. Better understanding of auditing requirements
  8. Departments’/Deans’ Offices
  9. Track status of each transaction
  10. Single Source Data at point of initiating transaction
  11. Consistency of data
  12. Enable Department to interface data between “shadow” systems and APPO system
  13. Improve routing and approval process
  14. Electronically approve positive approval
  15. Timeliness of processing
  16. Line item detail available

4. Approvers
a. Electronic Routing of approvals

b. Timeliness of approvals

  1. Tracking of approvals
  2. Ease of use by approvers
  3. Automatic Back-up of approvers, i.e. route to position not person
  4. Notification and reminders to Approvers
  5. Auditing Trails of Approvers

5. Transaction Initiators

  1. Friendly, easier data entry
  2. Automatic validation of data entry
  3. Templates
  4. Availability of historical information/searchable
  5. Training
  6. Ability to copy and modify previously used forms.