Bundled Upgrade Business Case Campus Solutions 9.2 Interaction Hub Rev3 Oracle 12C 8.55

BUNDLED UPGRADE BUSINESS CASE CAMPUS SOLUTIONS 9.2 Interaction Hub rev3 Oracle 12C 8.55 PEOPLETOOLS

Rev. 08/18/2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oracle will stop support for our existing PeopleSoft Campus Solutions version 9.0 December 2019. Therefore, CWU must upgrade to maintain support and align our upgrade paths in sync with future Oracle/PeopleSoft versions. This upgrade will also put us in a position to leverage new and improved functionality within the PeopleSoft software. Because there are dependencies related to the Campus Solutions 9.2 Upgrade, we are including upgrades to PeopleTools, Oracle Database, and finally an upgrade to MyCWU. This packaged effort allows for our enterprise application customers to utilize new features in a consolidated timeline which significantly saves resources and money. Separating these upgrades out individually would take 4 times longer, cost at least 4 times as much, and prolong the impact on our customers.

Sponsoring Department(s): Information Services

Date of Business Case Preparation: August 2015

Contact Person Name/Phone: Jill Hernandez

New Product/Service If there is a draft or sample contract, please provide a copy.

Renewal of Existing Product/Service – if checked, include background information. If there is a site license agreement, existing contract or new contract draft, please provide a copy.

Change to a Business Process.

1. Problem Definition

1. Oracle will drop vendor support for our existing Campus Solutions 9.0 version of PeopleSoft December 2019. We must be on their latest release version 9.2 prior to this date in order to ensure federal and state compliance.

2. A pre-requisite for upgrading to Campus Solutions version 9.2 is PeopleTools 8.54 or higher. We are currently on PeopleTools version 8.53 and must upgrade our toolset in order to support the applications.

3. Oracle will drop vendor support for our existing database version 11.2.0.4 January 2018. We must be on version 12C prior to this date.

4. CWU’s current version of the PeopleSoft Interaction Hub is not mobile friendly. To fully take advantage of the 8.55 PeopleTools upgrade, we need to upgrade our Interaction Hub (portal).

2. Addressing Problem with CWU existing tools, services and products (i.e. PeopleSoft)

There are no existing tools that CWU owns that could replace these products.

3 3. Organizational Impact

 All Stakeholders

All MyCWU users (students, alumni, staff, and faculty) Information Services Service Desk Information Services Enrollment Management Student Success Division Business & Financial Affairs Division Operations Division Change Management

 Potential Partners/Primary Users

All MyCWU users

4. CWU Benefits Information Services continues to maintain our investment with Oracle/PeopleSoft by ensuring ongoing vendor support and system enhancement. This project will ensure that CWU is in good standing with support and maintenance of our enterprise systems. This upgrade could be delayed until 2017, but there are features and benefits that would serve us well for years to come. These improvements include standardizing the way application updates are delivered and providing a new framework that allows pages to be mobile friendly.

5. Strategic Alignment

Objective 5.4: Provide the facility and technology infrastructure and services appropriate to meet the university objectives, while maximizing sustainability and stewardship.

Outcome 5.4.3: Provide the technology infrastructure, systems, and campus services necessary for all departments to achieve their objectives and the objectives of the university.

6. Cost and Budget Projections

 Source of Funding (Speedtype) and Description of the Source of Funding.

None identified at this time. Information Services annual budget is not funded for these upgrades, nor can they be absorbed without causing a significant deficient in the budget.

 Cost Breakdown

Below are various options to be evaluated and determine what option best meets the needs of this request.

4 1. Moderate Consultant Approach Lab Upgrade:

Lab Upgrade Fees $404,320.00 Consulting (full-time) $783,360.00 Total $1,187,680.00

This proposal includes 2 full-time consulting resources on-site for 12 months. One consultant would fill a project manager role and the other would provide technical consultation for the upgrades.

2. Consultant Light Approach:

Lab Upgrade Fees $404,320.00 Consulting (20% of the project) $274,176.00 Total $577,579.00

This proposal includes 2 consulting resources on-site for partial project support. One consultant would fill a project manager role 20% of the project and the other would provide 6 months of technical consultation for the upgrades.

3. No consulting resources, augment CWU project management and technical staff:

Lab Upgrade Fees $404,320.00 Augmented staff (full-time) $190,600.00 Total $594,920.00

This proposal includes 2 full-time CWU temporary resources on-site for 12 months. One resource would fill a project manager role and the other would provide technical augmentation for the upgrades.

4. No on-site consulting assistance or augmented staff:

Lab Upgrade Fees $404,320.00 No Consulting $0.00 Total $404,320.00

5 This proposal includes no consulting assistance or augmentation of CWU staff during these upgrades.

7. Alternatives

Alternative Reasons For Not Selecting Alternative Delay until 2017 Delaying upgrades always present risks in not staying current with the latest and greatest functionality. We would also be pushing the timeframe very close to Oracle’s end of support for Campus Solutions 9.0

8. Timing / Schedule (add lines as necessary)

Task Target Date Sign Statement of Work for Lab Upgrade with Sierra-Cedar October 2015 Start upgrades July 1st, 2016 Go-live July 1st, 2017

9. Technology Migration

Sierra-Cedar Lab will be leading the 4 core upgrades and migrating all data to the upgraded environments. CWU staff will assist in data validation and testing throughout this process; however the majority of the upgrade work is completed by Sierra-Cedar.

10. Project Resource Identification/Ongoing Ownership of Product

Resource Identification Resource Loading Chart

Project Resource Chart - Estimated Time Commitment

Resource July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April June July Sponsors 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Business Process 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Owners Application 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Managers CS Analysts 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

FS Analysts 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 80 80

HR Analysts 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 80 80

6 Project Manager 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

Portal Analyst 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

DBA/PSA 80 80 80 80 120 120

Security Services 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

Total Hours

Ongoing Support/Ownership of the product

Upon Completion of the Project the following will apply: Resource(s) Department Data Owner Steve DeSoer George Clark Marilyn Levine Data Steward All data stewards: Anna Fischer Chris Huss Kelly Minor Stuart Thompson Sue Noce Traci Klein Cindy Rickey Karen Hamel Lindsey Brown Kathy Gaer-Carlton Kelley Christianson Jill Hernandez Jamie Schademan Richard DeShields Ongoing Costs Information Services – approximately 700k/year (licensing, etc.) No additional costs incurred from upgrades Administrator for the Product/Software Information Services (updates, maintenance, etc)

11. Product Life/Application Sunsetting or Decommissioning

PeopleSoft/Oracle is our enterprise solution. At this time, there is no plan or other viable option for a replacement.

12. References

We used Sierra Cedar lab to upgrade our Finance and Human Resource applications previously.

------The following review section will be completed by the CWU PMO ------

13. Approvals This section should be left blank. The Project Management Office will complete.

7 Business Case shared with Security Services for compliance and audit review information Business Case shared with IS Network and Operations Business Case shared with IS Enterprise Applications

The following actions have been taken by the appropriate Sub-Council (ATAC or BTAC) and Enterprise Information System Committee (EISC): Date Action By

Upon secured funding and approval by the Enterprise Information System Committee (EISC), Enterprise Facilities Committee, or one of the two Sub-Councils (Academic or Business), the CWU PMO will provide the requestor with the documentation of approval and guidance on how to proceed toward purchasing and possible placement in the Project Management schedule. CWU procurement policies and procedures will be used to initiate a purchase.

If you have any questions, please contact CWU PMO staff: Ginger McIntosh 963-1466, Sue Noce 963- 2927, Keith Jones 963-2191, or Tina Short 963-2910.

8 CRITERIA RUBRIC VALUES Project 1, 4, 7, 10 Values Full Disclosure of Costs Includes implementation and maintenance 1: lots of unknown or hidden costs costs. 4: some costs are known 7 : many costs are known 10: all costs, direct & indirect, are known and tabulated

Strategic Alignment 1: no alignment Aligns with Strategic Plan 4: low 7: medium 10: high Value/Benefit to "Customer" Customers are consumers or users of 1: little value/benefit to the customer(s) the product or service could be students, 4: some value/benefit staff, faculty, other campuses, external 7: a lot of value/benefit to customer partners and even other services 10: essential/critical to customer(s)

Importance to Risk Mitigation 1: little risk to campus or customer if not offered Would the campus or customer be exposed 4: some risk to campus or customer if not offered to a risk or impact if the product or service 7: much risk to campus or customer if not offered is not offered? 10: high risk to the campus or customer if not offered Leverage Potential Multiplier effect: product or service can 1: little leverage potential, isolated service be leveraged for other users/customers on 4: some leverage campus or within CWU system; and/or adds 7: much leverage value for external partners 10: service could be leveraged by many Client Service 1: highly questionable Can this project be completed in the time 4: partial completion – substantial additional resources required frame requested? If yes, how much will 7: substantial completion – some additional resources required additional resources be needed? 10: complete – no additional resources required Required System/Service 1: does not affect other services Legal compliance requirement. Potential 4: other services/projects depend on it impact to core University services. Other 7: other services/projects depend on it and potential impact to core services/projects depend on it. University services 10: other services/projects depend on it, and/or potential impact to core University services, and/or legal compliance requirement. Organizational Impact to Users/Customer 1: low impact, low number of users Base 4: low impact, high number of users 7: high impact, low number of users 10: high impact, high number of users

NAME OF PROJECT: RUBRIC TOTAL:

Business Case Evaluation Rubric

Name: Date:

Revision Date:5/4/2015