1

What’s Next for Financial Management Line of Business (FMLoB)?

AGA/GWSCPA 6th Annual Conference

Dianne Copeland, Director, FSIO

May 8, 2007

2

Common Governmentwide Accounting Classification (CGAC) Structure

3

Common Government-wide Accounting Classification (CGAC)

• Accommodate both standard government-wide accounting-related functions and critical agency-mission-specific accounting functions (data); and

• Include standardization of such items as Treasury Account Symbol/ Treasury Account Funds Symbol; Internal fund code; Budget fiscal year; Accounting quarter and month; Program; Organization; Project; Activity; Cost Center; Object Class; and Budget function (and sub function code)

Project Description: Develop a common accounting code structure, including an applicable set of definitions, which all federal agencies’ new financial management systems must adhere. The common accounting code structure will:

4

CGAC Benefits

Create common language and definitions for accounting classification

Provide greater specification in future system requirements to ensure all elements needed are being provided by financial systems

Reduce need to maintain cross-walks and perform reconciliations

Facilitate preparation and transmission of financial reports to OMB and Treasury

Facilitate government-wide exchange, comparison, and aggregation of similar data

Reduce costs and risks of implementing a new Federal financial management system or migration to a shared service provider through improved portability of an agency’s accounting classification structure

Achieve greater consistency and accuracy in government-wide reporting.

5

CGAC Schedule

Activity End Date

Publish Limited Exposure Draft 9/29/2006

Publish Exposure Draft 11/17/2006

Conducted facilitated review sessions 3/7/2007

Resolve open items with Treasury and OMB 4/25/2007

Update document 5/16/2007

Conduct internal reviews 6/8/2007

Publish final CGAC Structure 6/20/2007

Review draft transition to implement CGAC recommendations

8/2007

Finalize transition paper and review draft Transition Plan 10 or 11/2007

6

Relationship of Elements and Derivation Rules

• Some comments questioned whether derivation rules should be made standard, pointing out that agencies may derive elements differently.

• FSIO and the agency reps discussed this issue extensively.

– Agreement was reached on standardizing the derivation of certain attributes, particularly from the internal fund code and the program code.

– There are benefits to standardizing the practice including:• Facilitating the implementation process by providing a uniform

framework and reducing the number of decisions to be made.

• Easing the transition when an agency moves to a new financial system or an SSP.

• The CGAC document will specify derivation rules in the internal fund code and program code. In other areas, it will state that derivation will depend on system configuration.

7

Storage of Data Elements

• Comments related to mandating storage of data elements were mixed:– Some favored storing to facilitate querying in real time.– Some were concerned about saturating the data base or

difficulty in correcting errors.• FSIO decided that storage of data elements would be best

handled in the Core Financial System Requirements. • The real issue of storage was:

– To be able to query transactions and view all associated classification data elements, or run a report within a reasonable amount of time.

– To be able to audit transactions.• References to storage of data elements in CGAC will be

removed.

8

Further Activities to Plan CGAC Implementation

Refine standard after early adoption at one agency for proof of concept?

Modify some central agency systems, then agency systems, then remaining central agency systems?

Update core requirements and test product compliance prior to agency implementation?

Require adoption by some or all feeder systems?

Implement in agencies using current software products?

CG

AC

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n i

s co

mp

lete

Possible implementation options

Agree on a standard structure

Define implemen-tation options

Refine standard after early adoption at one agency for proof of concept?

Update core requirements and test product compliance prior to agency implementation?

Require adoption by some or all feeder systems?

Implement in agencies using current software products?

CG

AC

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n i

s co

mp

lete

Modify some central agency systems, then agency systems, then remaining central agency systems?

9

Business Process Standardization

10

Business Process Work Stream

• Sequenced activities for core business processes• Data objects participating in a business activity• Relationships among the objects as they exist in the actual business

activities• Data elements and definitions used by these objects • Business rules governing these objects

Project Description: Develop a standard set of business practices for core financial management functions (funds control, payables management, receivables management, reporting) to be adopted by all federal agencies. The document/model will include:

11

Business Process Standardization

• Funds Control– Exposure Draft released on March 6th

– Currently reviewing 500+ comments to finalize document

• Payment Management– Ready for internal OMB review April 26th in preparation

for release of exposure draft

• Receivable Management

12

Business Process Standardization Benefits

Lower risk of agency migration to a Shared Service Providers (SSP)

Assurance that SSP’s process requirements are addressed/incorporated into the process standards

More efficient standardization of interfaces to other systems and Treasury

Potential savings and efficiencies on human capital costs

Improved integrity of financial management at both the individual agency and Government-wide levels and ensures compliance with financial management laws and regulations.

13

Interface Standards

14

Incremental Test Plans

15

Incremental test coverage includes major new 2006 Core Requirements, new Treasury requirements, and functional capability of Agency interest

1. FMS/GWA - IPAC and P224 reporting and bulk file generation, including TAS/BETC changes

2. Reimbursable agreement establishment and tracking3. Additional CCR validation edits from the 2006 Core

requirements4. Ability to “capture” additional document information 5. FMS FACTS I and II attributes6. Advance/pre-payment

16

Incremental Test Schedule

Activity Approximate End Date

FSIO Transformation Team accepted proposed test scope

11/16/2006

Executive Steering Committee approved test scope 12/12/2006

Publish draft Requirements Errata 5/2007

Publish final Requirements Errata 8/2007

Treasury populates IPAC test environment 9/2007

Treasury supports FSIO developing test interfaces 10/2007

Release draft incremental test materials 11/2007

Release final incremental test materials 2/2008

Treasury supports vendor pre-testing 2/2008

Conduct incremental tests, including Treasury support 3 to 8/2008

17

Document Library and Points of Contact

• FSIO and FMLoB documents on the web site– www.fsio.gov

• FSIO main number– 202.219.0526

• Dianne.copeland@gsa.gov