NY MTA Presentation.pptx

Getting Started with MultiFunction Shared Services at
NY MTA
Len DeSimone
President MTA Business Service Center
Ge#ng Started with Mul2-­‐Func2on
Shared Services
• Agenda
– MTA Overview
– Project Scope
– Startup
• Approach
• What Went Well
• Challenges
– Implementa2on
• Where we are today
• Challenges
Metropolitan Transporta2on Authority
• Largest transporta2on provider in Western
Hemisphere
– 9 Agencies providing Trains, Subways, Buses, Bridges and
Tunnels in NYC region
– $11.9B revenue
– 68,100 FTEs
– 2.6B rides per year
• Governed by 17 member board with a
consolidated Chairman and CEO posi2on
• Expenses exceeding revenue sources
Scope Review
• Project Scope
– Human Resources, Payroll, Accoun2ng , Payables, Call Center to be
moved to 375+ person organiza2on
– MTA-­‐wide deployment of PeopleSo\ 9 HCM, FCM, EPM, Portal
– Siebel Service Desk, Oracle for Document Management and Call
Center
– 21 months from Analysis to ini2al release
– 12 more months for second release
• Expected Results
– Approximately 30% reduc2on in cost to deliver services
– Metric-­‐driven organiza2on
MTA Startup Approach
• Conduct ini5al assessment (2005)
• Complete more detailed roadmap (06/07)
– Data Collec2on -­‐ “Get the right data right”
– High Level Process Design -­‐ “Why can’t we standardize?”
– Opera2ng Model -­‐ “Provide me with equal or be?er
service!”
– Business Case -­‐ “Show me the value!”
– Implementa2on Plan -­‐ “How can we possibly do this?”
– Governance -­‐ “Don’t make decisions without me!”
Data Collec2on – “Get the right data right”
• Gathered the following data from Agencies:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Transac2on Volumes
Time Study
Headcounts by func2on / process
Legacy Applica2ons, with func2ons, user status, data stats
Organiza2onal charts
Process Flows
• Did not limit data to just shared services “in scope” processes;
included complete HR and Finance Func5ons for full
transparency
High Level Process Design – “Why can’t we
standardize?”
• Defined each major business process
• Conducted working session to review the
processes and gain consensus
– Par2cipants shared current processes
– Compared to future state process – made
par2cipants jus2fy why the standard
process required customiza2on
– Allowed changes based on legal or
regulatory requirements
M an a g er/C o ll ea g ue
– 1 .1 Maintain Electronic Employee Records
1. 1.1
Complete change
in Self Service
Yes
Initiate change to
Employee Record
Yes
Sh a red Se rv ice s
– Incorporated leading prac2ces
– Defined responsibility between Agencies
and Shared Service center
SD -P ay ro ll
• Documented standard, future state business
processes that
Business Process Flows
Employee Administration
Self Service
available ?
No
1. 1.2
Contact Shared
Services
Go to Contact
Center
Process 10 .1
SocialSecurity
# Change ?
No
1.1. 4
Send Request for
SocialSec
#
change to SD Payroll
1.1. 5
Receive Request
for SocialSec
#
change
1 .1.3
Complete change
in PS Core
End Process
1 .1.6
Complete Change
Narratives
Opera2ng Model – “Provide me with equal or
be?er service!”
The BSC Opera,ng Model
describes the customers of and
services offered by the BSC.
•Organiza5onal Design – defines
new business structure and how the
BSC process transac2ons and
inquiries via self-­‐service and live
•Capacity Model -­‐ models the
number of people required to run
the Shared Service Center
Business Case – “Show me the value!”
Savings
Net
Benefits
Reduction in
Labor Costs
•
Developed a detail, 20-­‐year business
case incorpora2ng all program capital
and opera2ng costs and benefits
Reduction in
Other NonLabor Costs
•
Served as the basis for the capital
funding request and BSC budget
Reduction in
Other Savings
NonLabor Costs
•
Enabled “budget removal” of
impacted posi2ons at the Agencies
•
Refresh o\en to monitor return on
investment
•
Assists with maintaining Sr.
Management sponsorship (Board
Members included).
Capital
Expenditures
and other OneTime Costs
Investment
Operating
Expenditures
Restructuring
costs
Implementa2on Plan – “How can we possibly
do this?”
• Finance: Concurrent delivery of system, process, and organiza2on
across MTA
• Human Resources: Concurrent delivery of system (including self-­‐
service), process, and organiza2on for half of employee popula2on (Civil
Service Agencies require more 2me)
• IT: MTA-­‐wide PeopleSo\ support; BSC infrastructure and help desk
• Contact Center: Launch of contact center for all services provided
• Addi2onal enhanced features follow in later releases
Governance – “Don’t make decisions without
me!”
MTA / Project
Committees
BSC Customer
Engagement Committees
Agency
Presidents
Ongoing
Agency
Presidents
BSC Council
Q3-Q4 2010
Advisory
Committee
Controllers
Q3-Q4 2010
HR Directors
CIOs
Process
Committees
Execu5ve Sponsorship – This is the leadership
from above. It is important to the project and
is the driving force that supports the team and
assist with required company culture changes.
Shared Services Leadership – This is the direct
team leadership. A strong individual with
system, func2onal and management
experience. Needs a seat at the execu2ve
table, shared services is more effec2ve as peer
to agencies
Shared Services Leadership Team – A team of
individuals that know the company and
believe in shared services. If possible they
should be selected from the companies being
consolidated.
Agency Council – Team of execu2ves from
agencies that represent func2ons moving to
shared services
Exis5ng Boards – Discuss Shared Services at
regular mee2ngs HR Directors, CIOs,
Controllers to improve buy-­‐in and
communica2ons
Startup – What Went Well
• Ac2ve management of business case
• Realized savings early: Headcount funding was
pulled from future agency budgets BEFORE project
started (data collec2on cri2cal piece)
• Governance – had visible, vocal support from both
the Board and the CEO and was able to building a
strong governance group
• Agency Involvement / sponsorship –agencies
involved in the process from day 1
• Defined scope, roles of project and Agency subject
maler experts
12
Startup -­‐ Challenges
• First large-­‐scale, cross-­‐agency ini2a2ve
• Large union popula2on
• Agencies run separate, dis2nct HR and
Financial systems with disparate dis2nct
processes
• Agency Resistance to Change
Implementa2on Status
2009
2009
2010
2010
2011
2011
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3
R1
Plan
Analyze
R2 - HR
Design
Build
P
Test
Analyze
Deploy
Prod
Suppt
Design
•Go-live scheduled for January 2, 2011
• Release 1 on-time, on budget for January 2 delivery 2010,
includes Finance for all agencies, and HR for all but 2
• Release 2 is HR for remaining agencies also underway,
slightly behind schedule due to competing demands of
both releases
• Future releases for enhanced HR and Finance functionality
planned but not yet started
Implementa2on -­‐ Challenges
• Building the organiza5on – team has been stretched with both
running the project and trying to hire/ staff the necessary
organiza2on
• Resistance to change –as the new business model becomes “real”,
agencies voicing more resistance
• Required procurements have also been a drain on team resources
• Demand for Increasing Services -­‐ As budgets are cut, increasing
pressure from leadership to take on more scope faster
• Compe5ng Priori5es for Cost Reduc5on – agencies undergoing
their own streamlining ini2a2ves, leaving fewer resources to
support Shared Services Effort
Questions