HR System Project

1
HR System Project
Software Selection Update
2
Why we need a new HR System

• Integral (current HR software supplier)will
  discontinue support at end of 2008
• Integral requires an IBM mainframe and OS,
  limiting opportunities for and making hardware
  upgrades risky
• Continued use of SSNs for ID purposes raises
  security concerns
• The current HR system has limited available data
  fields
• Changes to and adding new functions requires
  Brown to create special software for each
  initiative
• Example the Emergency System Notification (MIR3)
  
• Limitations on labor cost distribution make it
  difficult to account efficiently for sponsored
  research funding

3
Software companies we asked to submit proposals

• Banner owned by SunGard, known best for higher
  education student systems, including Browns.
  Some higher education clients include Notre Dame,
  Lehigh and Rice.
• Oracle large database and business software
  company with broad private and public sector
  client base. Moderate number of higher education
  clients, including Caltech, Dartmouth, and Yale.
• PeopleSoft large business software company with
  significant focus on HR processes. Owned by
  Oracle. Large number of higher education clients,
  including Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, and
  Princeton.
• SAP large German software firm known for
  finance, manufacturing and cost accounting
  utilities. Some major higher education clients,
  including Duke, Johns Hopkins, and MIT.

4
Recapping the Software Selection Criteria

• Functional Fit
• How it will serve Browns HR processing, data
  analysis and recordkeeping needs, now and in the
  future
• Technical Fit
• Integration with existing technologies and
  processes
• Consistency with Browns technology strategy
• Company Viability, Direction and Vision
• Customer base at research universities
• Financial stability, quality and reputation
• Soundness of vision and ability to execute
• Cost
• To purchase
• To implement
• To update and maintain over time

Additional Consideration Compatibility with
anticipated Financial System update
5
Using the Software Selection Criteria

• The criteria provide a structured, objective way
  to evaluate the software options
• The criteria were not designed to make the
  software selection a formulaic calculation

6
Vendor Evaluation Committee

• Brown appointed a Vendor Evaluation Committee
  to assess the options and prepare a report
  describing how each software meets the functional
  and technical fit criteria.

Roberta Gordon, Chair John Styer, Co-Chair Don
Schanck Terri-Lynn Thayer Betsy Warner Drew
Murphy Linnea Wolfe Donald Tom John
Spadaro Carolyn Killian Thomas Michael Tracy
Barnes Elizabeth Doherty
7
Evaluating the options . . .

• Software demonstrations
• Site visits
• Reference reviews
• Technical expert interviews

8
Initial impressions . . .
9
So where are we?

• No show stoppers. All four software
• options have characteristics that
• could work.
• PeopleSoft seems like a better option than Oracle
  for Browns new HR System, so we will continue to
  focus on that company and its HRMS products.
• We will concentrate on assessing and gathering
  information about SAPs HR software and services,
  about which we know the least.
• Already familiar with Banner, for now we will
  defer seeking further information about that
  company and its HR software.

10
Updating the Brown community
11
Making a decision

• The Vendor Evaluation Committee will continue to
  assess the options and deliver its report to the
  Executive Sponsors by mid December.
• The Executive Sponsors will select the software
  vendor by late January 2009.
• Beppie Huidekoper (chair), Karen Davis, John
  Deeley, Mike Pickett, Dick Spies, Rajiv Vohra

12
Questions?
For additional questions, suggestions and
information brown.edu/administrative/h
uman_resources/hrproject