Quest Q&A Magazine Issue 4 2016 - Page 13

Griffith was running on a supported version. Based on the Oracle roadmap, we knew we needed to upgrade to 9.2 at some point. We started with HCM, as we wanted to make sure that if we had any system issues or bugs that needed to be fixed we would be up to date. However, it was also an opportunity to review, change and remove legacy customizations–such as Australian tax rules–as well as consider new modules within the system. As such, Griffith implemented the recruitment and ePerformance modules as well as Fluid, all as part of the HCM 9.2 upgrade. Quest: What was Presence of IT’s role in the upgrade? Shane: Presence of IT worked in partnership with Griffith University, particularly in the technical and development space, design and configuration of new functionalities across HR (in particular Fluid), Time & Labor, and Payroll to upgrade and implement HCM 9.2 and to implement new modules such as Recruiting Solutions and ePerformance Management. The partnership with Presence of IT started long before I was at Griffith. We worked with them on HCM upgrades back in 2007. Chamanthi (Presence of IT): We came upon Griffith University via a recommendation from Oracle as a Specialist HCM Partner to assist with Griffith’s v7.6 upgrade to v9.0. Since then, we have been involved in various projects, support and training activities including upgrade to v9.2. Shane: Presence of IT has had a long standing working relationship with Griffith and they know our business processes. Presence of IT can tell us things we did back in 2008 while there are many staff members at Griffith who were not around then. During the HCM 9.2 upgrade, having Presence of IT provided a deeper understanding of what was required from a technical standpoint. Quest: How did the 9.2 upgrade compare to previous upgrades? Shane: Previous upgrades were perhaps more technical in nature and continued legacy customizations and functionality which were not optimal for Griffith’s operations. The upgrade to 9.2 was very much an opportunity and conscious move to review decisions and functionality of the past, decide whether to reinstall existing customizations or remove them, create new customizations where required, and implement new functionality in the process. Chamanthi: The outcome of this upgrade was very much focused on business value and realizing business benefits and not a technology refresh. So a key focus area was to de-customize where possible to optimize standard functionality, and look at new functionality available. We worked as a team working with the Oracle upgrade lab to run the upgrade script and create the actual instances; Griffith University IT and Business staff, and Presence of IT’s consultants across Functional and Technical workstreams. Shane: The upgrade took 18 months, which was longer than anticipated. One reason for the length of the project was that we had to split Campus Solutions from HCM before moving HCM to 9.2, a process which took about 6 months. We also wanted to document our business processes for the modules we were using and make decisions around our recruitment application because we were using another provider at that time. Our approach to examining previous customizations also took longer than expected, lengthening the process. Further, as we got closer to the scheduled delivery, we realized some of the timing of the upgrade did not coincide with change management timing of the overall university. Quest: You were able to reduce your customizations in HCM by 35 – 40%? What enabled this? Shane: Policies, processes and requirements change over time. Customizations that were relevant in the past, and in some cases previous decisions made, were no longer required as part of Griffith University’s evolvement and changes in the way it does business. More specifically, we were able to retire a customized bolt-on for time sheeting, we removed many of the previous customizations and we worked primarily with the delivered product. Because we had been using a different provider in the recruitment space, we had a workbench which was a large customization that was completely removed as well. Chamanthi: Rather than having certain employee groups Q&A • Issue 4 • 2016 13