NY MTA Presentation.pptx
Transcription
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