Presentation FDMFrom500SourceSystems

(1)

Se

Sesssision on #2#2060600

H

ow

U

ni

ted

T

e

chn

olo

gies Lin

ked

5

00

00 +

+

Sou

rc

e

Sys

t

e

m

s

to

H

yperion

S

yst

e

m 9

Financ

ial

M

a

nageme

nt

using

H

ype

rion

S

ys

tem 9

F

in

a

nc

ial

Da

t

a

Quali

t

y

Management.

Brady Laubscher Brady Laubscher S

Systystemems s AnalystAnalyst

United Technologies United Technologies Robert Cybulski Robert Cybulski President President F

(2)

2

2 2062060 0 | Hyp| Hyperion FDM at UTCerion FDM at UTC

A

g

en

d

a



 IntroductionIntroduction



 Why Hyperion FDM at UTC?Why Hyperion FDM at UTC?



 PPre-Ire-Immplemplemententatation ion PPlanninlanningg



 Implementation ApproachImplementation Approach



(3)

2

A

g

en

d

a



 IntroductionIntroduction



 Why Hyperion FDM at UTC?Why Hyperion FDM at UTC?



 PPre-Ire-Immplemplemententatation ion PPlanninlanningg



 Implementation ApproachImplementation Approach



(4)

3

U

(5)

4 2060 | Hyperion FDM at UTC

UTC Profile (cont.)

 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT

— 214,500 employees (2006) – 66% of these are based outside the United States

 REVENUES

— $47.8 billion (2006) – 60% is International Revenues

 INTERNATIONAL PRESENCE

— Over 4,000 locations in approximately 62 countries; UTC does business in approximately 180 countries

 NET INCOME

— $3.7 billion (2006)

 ASSETS

— $47 billion (as of Dec 31, 2006)

 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

(6)

Finit Solutions Profile



Hyperion Preferred Partner



Focus on Hyperion FDM, HFM and Hyperion Enterprise



Implemented Hyperion FDM (UpStream) to over 4 times as

many clients as next closest firm.



Focus on providing superior service and value to our clients

by providing Hyperion expertise, strong Finance /

Accounting knowledge and by being proactive.



Some of our clients include: United Technologies, Pfizer,

(7)

Why Hyperion FDM

at UTC?

(8)

Background on HFM

D > 300 Enterprise installations D

(9)

 Approximately 3,200 HFM users globally.

 Each UTC Business Unit has its own HFM application.

— Common HFM calendar.

— Common Chart of Accounts with the Business Units using additional accounts that roll up into the Corporate Chart of Accounts.

 Each Business Unit submits data to the UTC Corporate HFM

application.

HFM Applications and Design

(10)

Challenges HFM

Implementation Posed

 Increased Dimensionality in HFM

— The demands of data submission would increase due to HFM having more dimensions and detail than Hyperion Enterprise.

 Consistency

— One of the purposes in moving to HFM was to have a consistent consolidation and reporting process. It was not a best practice to keep all the data submission methods fragmented.

 Sarbanes Oxley and Audit

— The financial data in all HFM applications would have to comply with Sarbanes Oxley and Audit requirements.

(11)

Why UTC selected Hyperion

FDM

 Data Quality & Automation

— The previous process needed stronger controls. UTC wanted to ensure the data in HFM accurately reflected its ledgers.

— Pre-submission validation.

 Centralized Ownership versus Decentralized Ownership

— Responsibility for submitting data needed to be in the hands of the site users who ran the ledgers – not controlled by IT.

 Ease of use and Uniformity across Business Units

— Different sites used different processes, products and methods to submit results. UTC desired to create a consistent data submission process for all users.

 Scalability and Performance

— With data submitters all over the world, and a large number of ledgers, UTC needed a tool that was scalable and could handle the demands of the data submission process during the closing calendar.

(12)

Pre-Implementation

Planning

(13)

Implementation Readiness

 Source System Inventory

— With 500+ source systems, UTC developed an inventory of all source systems and reporting sites.

 Identify Source System Contacts

— For each source system, an IT contact was identified to assist with extracting data.

— For each reporting site, finance contacts were identified to assist with mapping and data submission and reconciliation.

 Categorization of Sites

— With a tight implementation deadline and the large number of sites, UTC categorized each reporting site into a submission method code (‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’).

(14)

Data Submission Methods



‘A’ sites

— Larger ledgers with strong internal controls and IT personnel in place.

— Use internal ledger tables, with IT support, to map from source codes to HFM members.

— Extracted data is in HFM loadable file format.

— Use a Hyperion FDM Excel template to load supplemental data.



‘B’ sites

— Source system to HFM mapping tables maintained in Hyperion FDM by a Finance owner.

— Use Hyperion FDM Excel templates to load supplemental data and any required detail that is not available in their main ledgers.



‘C’ sites

(15)

Project Planning

 Staffing

— Blended teams were developed for each Business Unit. Each Business Unit team was comprised of a full-time dedicated data integration lead.

 Consulting

— Finit Solutions assisted the Business Unit data integration leads with design, build, testing and data integration activities. As much as possible, the

Business Units took the lead.

 Offshore Resources

— UTC developed a Center of Excellence (COE), which included team

members based offshore, for the HFM and Hyperion FDM implementations as well as for steady state support.

— Due to the sheer volume of needed integrations, offshore team members were engaged to assist with data integration activities.

 Common Design Components

— Hyperion FDM development was standardized as much as possible across Business Units. If a script / report was developed for one Business Unit, it was mostly used by the other Business Units.

(16)

Implementation

Approach

(17)

Implementation Approach

Overview

 Admin Training

— All team members received detailed Hyperion FDM training.

 Design

— All Business Units participated in initial meetings to determine key design components, including location definition, naming conventions, security level definition, etc.

 Application Build

— The Business Units took the lead in building application components such as locations and security.

 Customizations

— UTC identified areas where customization would enhance the end user experience and data submission process.

 Data Integration

(18)

Data Integration – A sites



HFM formatted extract produced by a general ledger using

its own internal mapping tables.



Focused on verifying the extract was correctly mapped to

HFM members.



The core team processed the file and sent all

errors/problems back to the site contact for correction.



Once the file was loaded, the site contact was responsible

(19)

(20)

Data Integration – ‘B’ sites



General ledger extract that requires mapping to HFM

members.



Excel Hyperion FDM templates used to enter in any

required detail that is not available in the ledger (i.e. Fixed

Asset roll-forward activity, Intercompany partners on

Intercompany accounts, etc.)



Focused on UpStream training for the site contact.



General ledger extract requirements, mapping table

(21)

Triangulation and ‘B’ Sites

 Triangulation is the exercise of systematically creating a GL to

HFM mapping table using a GL to Hyperion Enterprise mapping and a Hyperion Enterprise to HFM Master mapping.

(22)

Data Integration – ‘C’ sites



Manual Excel FDM templates.



No site maintained mappings.



Focused on

— Verifying that the Excel FDM template was error free. — User training on the template and on the software.

(23)

‘C’ site Hyperion FDM Template

example

(24)

Customization



UTC used some of the following customizations to enhance

the process for end users:

— Dynamic Validation Entity Build

— This enhancement would evaluate entities loaded by a location and then add them to the Validation Entity table to be calculated /

consolidated inside HFM.

— Custom Merge Solution

— For some sites, only loading data as Replace presented challenges in data being erased. Loading data as Merge did not pick up items that were reclassified.

— A custom solution was developed to evaluate the previously loaded file and erase any that had been present in the original submission but had been reclassified to zero in subsequent submissions.

— Custom Reports

— Custom reports were created for the triangulation process, and additional logging reports were created for internal audit.

(25)

Summary

GL Extracts UTC Corp FDM Templates FDM UTC Corp HFM Otis FDM Otis HFM GL Extracts FDM Templates Carrier FDM Carrier HFM GL Extracts FDM Templates

Pratt & Whitney FDM Pratt & Whitney

HFM

GL Extracts

FDM Templates

Fire & Security FDM Fire & Security

HFM GL Extracts FDM Templates Hamilton FDM Hamilton HFM GL Extracts FDM Templates

(26)

Benefits Realized

and Lessons

(27)

Benefits Realized



Scalability

— Hyperion FDM has handled hundreds of different formatted GL extracts and provided a consistent method for the data submission of all financial data.



Controls & Accuracy

— Ensures all data is mapped and to valid HFM intersections before being loaded.

— Generates a check report after load which provides timely feedback on whether key validations have been passed.



Speed and Increased Detail

— By removing manual processes, Hyperion FDM allows UTC to collect more detail in shorter time frames than could be

(28)

Benefits Realized (cont.)



Performance

— Hyperion FDM performance and stability has been above expectations. Hyperion FDM has been extremely reliable.



Audit Trail

— The audit trail that Hyperion FDM provides allows end users to easily see the detail behind HFM values and allows UTC to remain Sarbanes-Oxley compliant.



Ease of Use – Everyone loves the Fish!

— End users are very comfortable navigating around Hyperion FDM and going through the process to submit their data. The ease of use has allowed UTC to push the responsibility of

submitting and signing off on the financial results down to the local controllers and site users.

(29)

Lessons Learned



Data Integration will take longer then expected.

— It is extremely difficult to predict how long it will take a user to correct a mapping or reconciliation issue. End users need to be given clear instructions and guidance on what is required of them to get them set up and ready to use Hyperion FDM (i.e. GL extract requirements, mapping instruction, etc.)



HFM Intersections will need to be a key training point.

— Many end users struggled with mapping their data to multiple dimensions and with understanding the intersections in HFM that their GL data needed to map to.



Strong tracking is crucial.

— With a large number of sites to integrate, it is important to keep track of where everyone is at in the data integration process to know who needs extra help to meet their

(30)

Lessons Learned (cont.)



HFM Metadata needs to be complete before starting

triangulation or mapping.

— One BU needed to re-triangulate 6 times. Rework may be caused if HFM metadata changes are made during the data integration process.



Migrating specific application components is difficult

between environments.

— There is no good way to migrate some application items, such as a single Import format or check report, between

(31)