The document discusses the integration of Oracle applications like Primavera Contract Management, PeopleSoft, and Hyperion at the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport). It describes how Calance helped Massport integrate these systems after Massport upgraded PeopleSoft and revised its chart of accounts, which impacted reporting. The integration automates passing data between the applications like invoices, commitments, payments and budgets to streamline workflows and eliminate duplicate data entry. It also discusses how the Hyperion integration creates Massport's annual capital plan in days compared to previous months of manual work.

1. REMINDER
Check in on the
COLLABORATE mobile app
Integration of Primavera Contract
Management, PeopleSoft and Hyperion
at the Massachusetts Port Authority
Prepared by:
Jennifer A. Kelley
Manager, Project Controls
Capital Programs & Environmental Affairs
Massachusetts Port Authority
Adam Litton
Senior Software Engineer
Calance
Case study involving integration of
Oracle applications using
Dimension Integration Manager
Session ID#: 201420

2. ■ Massachusetts Port Authority (aka ―Massport‖)
▪ Quasi-state agency
▪ Governed by seven member Board, appointed by MA governor
▪ Thomas P. Glynn, CEO
▪ 1,100 Employees
▪ Massport is self-supporting and receives no state tax money
to support its operations or facilities.
▪ $600M Annual Operations funded by rates and charges
collected from Massport facilities
■ Massport owns and operates:
▪ Logan International Airport
▪ Port of Boston (Conley Terminal, Black Falcon Cruise Terminal)
▪ Hanscom Field in Bedford, MA
▪ Worcester Regional Airport

3. Jennifer Kelley
Manager, Project Controls
■ Construction Industry – 14 Years
■ Primavera Contract Management (aka ―Expedition‖) – 14 Years
▪ 15 Users
▪ 350 Funded Capital Projects in PCM
▪ Hundreds of custom reports in InfoMaker
■ Primavera P6 – 8 Years
■ Hyperion – 2 Years
■ With Massport for 8 years

4. ■ Serves a wide range of clients in the construction
management and project planning domains, including:
▪ School Districts
▪ General Contractors
▪ Municipalities
▪ Mining and Energy
■ Has been an industry leader in providing integration solutions
since 2001
■ Has a dedicated team of subject matter experts excited to
custom tailor integrations to solve your unique business
needs

5. ■ Project Controls Integration and Automation
■ Primavera
■ JD Edwards
■ PeopleSoft
■ Unifier
■ Oracle EBS
■ BI Publisher
Adam Litton
Senior Software Engineer
Oracle Primavera Practice

6. Capital Programs & Environmental Affairs
■ Department of Capital Programs & Environmental Affairs
▪ Project Delivery
▪ Development and Implementation of Capital Budget
▪ Five units:
— Environmental Management
— Safety Management
— Utilities Management
— Survey
— Everyone else – Administrative Staff, Project Controls, Construction
Management, GIS, Project Managers, Program Managers
▪ Sam Sleiman, Director
▪ ~85 Employees
■ CP&EA is considered a support department at Massport

7. Capital Program Overview
■ Rolling 5-Year Program
▪ Developed through Comprehensive and Coordinated Merit
Process to Meet the Authority’s Priorities of:
— Safety
— Security
— Operational Efficiencies
— Sustainability
— Customer Service
— Commitment to Surrounding Communities
■ Reflects Current Financial Constraints
— Projects with Secured Grants
— Grant Eligible Projects
— PFC Eligible Projects
— Cost Recoverable Projects
— Limits Increases to the Rates and Charges

8. Program Structure
Facility
Program
Project
Project Status
Complete
• All Work
Complete
• All payments
made
Ongoing
• At least one
commitment
executed
Proposed
• Funding Allocated
• No external
commitments
executed
Private
• To be
completed by
outside party
• Development
agreement
executed
Contingent on
Funding
Source
• Awaiting external
funds or new
revenue
Unfunded
• Project
backlog
Funded Not Funded

9. Program Structure
Agency WideWorcester Airport Hanscom FieldLogan Airport Maritime
Administration
Capital Programs
Data Storage
FARS
Information Systems
Network Operations
System Operations
Systems Security
Telecommunications
Resiliency
Hanscom Airside
Hanscom Landside
Logan Airside
Logan Landside
Logan Intermodal
Logan Mitigation
Black Falcon
Conley Terminal
Dredging
Fish Pier
Hoosac Pier
Maritime Other
Moran Terminal
Real Estate
Development
WTC
Worcester Airside
Worcester Landside

10. Capital Programs & Environmental Affairs
■ Systems that we use:
▪ Primavera Contract Management (PCM) Version 13.1
▪ InfoMaker 12.0
▪ Primavera P6
▪ PeopleSoft Version 9.1 (known in house as ―FARS‖)
▪ Hyperion Version 11.1.2.1
▪ Maximo (Asset Management)
▪ ACES (Automated Contract Execution System)
▪ Middleware for integrations between PeopleSoft and PCM
▪ Adept (Drawing Management Software)
▪ Facility Resource and Energy Distribution System (FRED) –
Utilities Management
▪ SharePoint

11. Capital Programs & Environmental Affairs
■ Systems that we use:
▪ Primavera Contract Management (PCM) Version 13.1
— Windows environment
— MS SQL Server
— InfoMaker 12.0
— 85 users, 10 power users
— Capital Programs oversees and supports PCM
▪ PeopleSoft Version 9.1 (known in house as ―FARS‖)
— Unix environment
— Oracle database v. 11g
— 300 users, 20 power users
— Supported by a dedicated team of 4 Massport IT staff
▪ Hyperion Capital Planning Version 11.1.2.1
— Essbase Server
— Planning – Web based front end

12. PeopleSoft Upgrade Project
■ In 2007, IT submitted a capital project funding request for
what would eventually develop into the ―PeopleSoft Upgrade
Project‖:
▪ Upgrade PeopleSoft from V. 8.8 to V. 9.1
▪ Reconfiguration of Procurement module
▪ Revision of the system’s chart field structure to improve
reporting and data access
▪ Replacement of aging system hardware
▪ Implementation of new Project Costing module
▪ Implementation of Hyperion Capital Planning application
▪ Integration of the Asset Management module with General
Ledger

13. PeopleSoft Upgrade Project
■ ―PeopleSoft Upgrade Project‖ was funded in the 5 year
capital program in FY 2010. Currently funded at $5.7M
■ Consultant selected in late 2011
■ Long design, testing and implementation process involving IT,
Accounting, Purchasing, Administration & Finance and
Capital Programs
■ In the interim, Capital Programs implemented middleware to
bridge PCM and PeopleSoft
■ PeopleSoft upgrade to 9.1 cutover to production in June 2012
■ Significant changes in PeopleSoft chart of accounts required
changes to cost code structure in PCM; subsequently, first
bridging middleware was taken off-line
■ IT requested that Capital Program advertise Request for
Proposal (RFP) to start competitive bid process for Bridging,
Phase II
■ Hyperion Capital Planning went live in September 2013

14. Integration/Bridging, Part 2
PeopleSoft Upgrade – Impact on CP
■ PeopleSoft Reconfiguration of Procurement module
▪ FARS POs and PCM Commitments (Master Contracts and
Work Orders)
▪ Conversion of Legacy Data (POs on master contracts that did
not have POs prior to June 2012)
▪ New Coding for all commitments in both FARS and PCM
■ Revision of the system’s chart field structure
▪ Cost code conversions in both FARS and PCM
▪ Huge impact on reporting in both systems
▪ Reports in PCM required modifications in InfoMaker
■ Hyperion Capital Planning application
▪ 5 year capital plan was developed in MS Access for many years
▪ Interface with both PeopleSoft (Actuals), PCM and P6 upload of
cash flows
▪ Report replication

15. Integration/Bridging, Part 2
PeopleSoft Upgrade – Impact on CP
■ Middleware could not be reconfigured in time for live cutover
to PeopleSoft 9.1 in June 2012
▪ Old bridging taken off-line
▪ Return to manual data entry and significant duplication of effort
in both systems (PCM and PeopleSoft)
▪ Challenges with legacy data in PeopleSoft and reporting post-
cutover
▪ Implementation of Hyperion on the horizon
■ In early 2013, RFP issued for reconfiguration of integrations
▪ IT and Capital Programs wanted to advertise professional
services opportunity
▪ Calance was selected and awarded the contract in July 2013

16. Scope of Integration Solution
■ Integration between PeopleSoft and PCM
▪ Make workflows more efficient
▪ Improve data integrity, timeliness and accuracy
▪ Eliminate duplication of effort (huge problem)
▪ Interface must be consistent with Massport’s business practices
▪ Push invoice, construction requisition, and commitment data
from PCM into PeopleSoft (AP and Purchasing)
▪ Pull payment information, miscellaneous costs (e.g. direct
payments) and journal entries from PeopleSoft and push data
into PCM
▪ Convert legacy cost codes in PCM to map with PeopleSoft chart
of accounts.
■ Integration between Hyperion and PCM
▪ Extract data from Hyperion Capital Planning and integrate into
PCM

17. Scope of Integration Solution
■ Conversion of InfoMaker Reports
▪ 27 critical custom reports utilized by approximately 85 users at
Massport in various departments
▪ Cost code changes impact these reports
▪ Calance ultimately had to troubleshoot some pre-existing issues
with the reports that were not directly related to the cost code
conversion

18. Hyperion Capital Planning (v. 11.1.2.1)
■ Hyperion Capital Planning Application
▪ In development with Edgewater Ranzal from January-
September 2013
▪ Extensive requirements gathering and design phase
▪ Development and testing of prototype
▪ Successful Implementation in September 2013
— No outages, system worked as designed for Administration and
Finance (A&F) and Capital Programs
— Audit log automated and used daily by both teams
— Funding required vs Funding provided – separation of duties
— Out-of-balance monitoring functionality
— Integration with A&F financial model worked well
— Import of Actuals from PeopleSoft into Hyperion
— Import of Budget from Hyperion into Project Costing & PCM

19. Hyperion Capital Planning (v. 11.1.2.1)
■ Lessons learned from implementation
▪ Spent significant time at start of project gathering requirements.
▪ Development of prototypes in Excel helped in development of
application, specifically fixed vs. variable funding
▪ Common repository for capital program kept A&F and CP in
sync without emails, conflicting documents (one source of truth)
▪ One less draft than previous year, fewer iterations
▪ Level of detail in coding supports Rates & Charges process
▪ Ranzal, CP and A&F all worked very well as a team
▪ Planning at Class/Location/Purpose/Final Fund sometimes
difficult to manage
▪ Need more flexible report writer
▪ Capital and Operating applications have different metadata
▪ Need to capture Operating impact of Capital projects

20. Capital Programs Planning & Reporting
Three distinct Capital Planning & Reporting business processes:
1. Monthly Cash flow Forecast
2. Annual Budget
3. Actual Disbursements Reporting

21. Capital Programs Planning in Hyperion
Summary:
• P6 used to ―project plan‖ existing projects –
generating detailed cash flows by period for life of
project.
• Capital team enters specific cash-flow changes
for someall projects; other cash-flows are copied
from previous draft (cash-flow change flags
changed project)
• Treasury Team maintains funding lines @ COA
level of detail to meet cash required by projects –
either % or fixed $
• Funded Project cash flows fed into Excel
Financial Model to identify funding adjustments
• Specific funding changes entered into Capital
Planning
• Upon completion of planning process, any
changes to existing projects (cash required,
timing) or new projects need to be entered into
P6
• During planning process – ―new projects‖ need
to be added to Capital Planning and P6. Capital
team populates new projects with initial funding.
Cash Needed and Funding are managed separately
• Project plans in P6 are built-up by project and passed to Hyperion
(―cash needed‖)
• Hyperion is central mechanism to add funding lines (% or fixed amt) to
meet cash-requirements
• Only project-scope changes (size, timing) need to be entered in P6

22. Budget (Conceptual)
Actual
Spend
Life-To-Date (GL)
Funded Cash Flows
Total Project Amount (Not to Exceed)
Out Years
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6+
A
F
B C
Add New Projects
Adj Timing
Adjust Funding
& Source
Adj Amounts
Prioritize
Move InOut of Plan
Change Proj Scope
& Schedule
Project
Not controllable
in Budget
Inferred

23. Chart of Accounts String in Hyperion
Project Location Purpose Class Final Fund
L1252 4200 7870 314 DH506
Project Location Purpose Class Fund Final Fund FF Category
L1252 4200 7870 314 310 DH506 GRANT
Data Entry
Reporting
• Class can imply Fund due to 1:M relationship
• FF Code can imply Final Fund Category due to 1:M relationship
• Best-practice is typically to treat 1:M as levels within your hierarchy versus
splitting out to a separate field; only reason to split to a separate field is to
support reporting/extracts

24. Hyperion  PCM Integration
■ Used to develop 5 year plan in MS Access
■ Manual Implementation of Board approved capital program in
PCM literally took months of manual updates (creation of new
projects, funding and budget adjustments on existing
projects)
■ Hyperion integration a huge success
▪ Run once a year after Board approves 5 year plan
▪ File extracted from Hyperion and stored as a control document
on the Dimension Server
▪ Dimension integrates Hyperion data into PCM:
— Creation of new projects in PCM
— Adjusts budget and funding documents in PCM for existing projects
— Updates projects status as appropriate
■ This process can be completed in days now!

25. Cost Code Modifications/Chart of Accounts
■ Data mapping
▪ Cost code structure had to be revised to move data between
PeopleSoft and PCM
▪ Cost code changes were made to serve needs of both the users
and to accommodate system requirements
▪ Right level of detail to support integrations, reduce effort,
workload
▪ Infer/derive information where we can
▪ Requirement to map to Treasury document that is posted to
Massport intranet for coding, ―Capital Funding‖ spreadsheet
▪ Invoices, requisitions, contracts, work orders, and purchase
orders may have multiple combinations of chartfield codes/cost
codes associated with them. Costs associated with each
combination must be tracked and handled properly by the
integration for the program to be successful.

26. Cost Code Modifications/Chart of Accounts
■ Massport revised its Chart of Accounts structure to the
following:
Chartfield Size Example Note
Fund 3 char 190 A grouping of accounts for
common purpose
Class 3 char 095 Source of original payment or
revenue
Account 5 char 17001 Natural Account – nature of
transaction
Location 4 char 2100 Geographic location associated
with a transaction
Purpose 4 char 5000 Identified business purpose for
allocation of costs
Project BU 5 char MPCAP Control field to identify type of
project
Project ID 15 char A255 Unique project identifier,
assigned by Capital Programs
Project Activity 15 char 02 Predefined activities that can
be assigned to a project,
referred to as “Budget
Category”
Activity Category 5 char I&E Predefined funding sources;
referred to as “Final Funding
Category”
Activity Sub-Category 5 char PFC03 Predefined Final Funding
subcategories user to provide
additional levels at which to
define and track funding
resources; referred to as “Final
Funding Code”

27. PCM Legacy and New Cost Code Strings

28. Cost Code Conversion
■ Considerations
▪ Multiple combinations of chartfield codes/cost codes can be
used. Costs associated with each combination must be tracked
and handled properly by the integration for the program to be
successful.
▪ Cost code changes impact reports in both PCM and PeopleSoft
▪ PCM Cost Codes Modifications ―Exception‖ Projects
— Certain projects with long lives and tons of legacy data were not
included in the cost code conversion integration.
▪ New Cost Code structure is simpler to track
▪ Legacy Cost Code ―Class‖, ―Fund‖, and ―Grant Code‖ roll up into
new Cost Code ―Final Funding Code‖
▪ ―Project Phase‖, ―Location‖, and ―Purpose‖ information are
preserved from the legacy Cost Code to the New Cost Code

29. PCM  PeopleSoft Invoice Integration
■ Professional Services/Consulting invoices are created in the
PCM Invoice Module and uploaded from PCM into
PeopleSoft Accounts Payable staging tables.
■ When approved for payment they are sent to PeopleSoft via
the Dimension
■ Invoices must pass a series of business rule validations.
Examples of validation tests will be:
▪ Valid Project ID
▪ Valid Contract Number
▪ Valid project status indicating funding available
▪ Sufficient funds available under project
▪ Valid Contract Service Dates
▪ Valid Chartfield Codes
▪ Valid Cost Codes

30. PCM  PeopleSoft Invoice Integration
■ This integration eliminates the duplication of effort as invoice
is initially entered in PCM; invoice information is then sent to
PeopleSoft staging tables for review and approval by AP
■ AP no longer needs to enter invoices already queued up in
PCM
■ Capital Programs knows exactly when an invoice is entered
in PeopleSoft as Voucher ID is collected when AP builds the
Voucher after reviewing in PeopleSoft staging tables

31. PeopleSoft  PCM Invoice Payment
Integration
■ Complete round trip by bringing payment information back
into PCM, including:
▪ Voucher ID
▪ Paid date
▪ Check #
▪ Amount paid
■ This integration eliminates the need to manually update
payment information from PeopleSoft weekly disbursement
reports

32. PCM  PeopleSoft Requisition Integration
■ Construction requisitions are created in the PCM Requisitions
Module and uploaded from PCM into PeopleSoft Accounts
Payable staging tables.
■ When approved for payment, they will be queued to be sent
to PeopleSoft via Dimension
■ Requisitions must pass a series of business rule validations.
Examples of validation tests will be:
▪ Valid Project ID
▪ Valid Contract Number
▪ Valid project status indicating funding available
▪ Sufficient funds available under project
▪ Valid Contract Service Dates
▪ Valid Chartfield Codes
▪ Valid Cost Codes

33. PCM  PeopleSoft Requisition Integration
■ Massport typically withholds a percentage of each requisition
payment, called retainage, until all work is completed, or
Massport is satisfied that work is progressing as planned
■ The integration implements our retainage calculations
■ Retainage may be partially released during a monthly
progress payment and/or fully released as a standalone
requisition at the end of a project
■ PCM and PeopleSoft maintain both the amount due (net
payment) and amount earned (gross/earned value) for each
requisition

34. PeopleSoft  PCM Requisition Payment
Integration
■ Complete round trip by bringing payment information back
into PCM, including:
▪ Voucher ID
▪ Paid date
▪ Check #
▪ Amount paid
■ This integration eliminates the need to manually update
payment information from PeopleSoft weekly disbursement
reports

35. Invoice and Requisition Integrations
■ One source of truth
▪ PCM kicks off transactions
▪ One point for data entry
▪ Elimination of duplication of
data entry in PeopleSoft
■ Tracking items is made easier
▪ CP knows when voucher is
built
▪ Automation of payment info
update in PCM
■ Biggest impact – we know
right away when there is a
problem!!
■ CP enters enough info to
create a shell voucher
■ AP does not have to worry
about accuracy of coding, this
is automated
■ CP is more self-sufficient in
terms of diagnosing problems
before items are sent to AP
for payment
■ AP no longer has to run
weekly disbursement reports
for CP to update payments
Improve CP workflows Improve AP workflows

36. PeopleSoft  PCM Misc. Cost Integration
■ Miscellaneous Payments originate in PeopleSoft as ―Invoices‖
which are not tied to a PO. These are referred to by CP as
―Non-Contract Payments‖.
■ When new Miscellaneous Payments are found in PeopleSoft,
the Integration will validate that the Payment amount against
the PCM Project’s Budget and Funding
■ This Integration will bring valid PeopleSoft Miscellaneous
Payments into PCM Invoices on misc. PCM commitment POs
(one PO for each PeopleSoft Vendor with Non-Contract
Payments). In addition to creating the Invoices, this
Integration will create these PCM POs if needed
■ This integration handles reclassifications (such as transfers
between projects or to/from an operating account) or adjusted
funding allocations of the previous expenditures on a project.
■ We no longer need to scour PeopleSoft GLs for such items –
this is now automated!!

37. PCM  PeopleSoft Work Order Integration
■ Work Orders are identified as line items in the master
contract in the Committed Contracts module in PCM as a
when they are approved by the Capital Programs
Department.
■ Each of these work orders must be set up as a purchase
order in the FARS Procurement module. Information
identifying the correct coding for each work order (PO) will be
validated by Dimension
■ Purchasing users will receive an email notification including
all required fields and chart of accounts strings
■ Once the purchase order has been dispatched by Massport
Purchasing, the purchase order number in PeopleSoft is
pushed back down to a custom field in PCM in the work order
line item

39. Questions?

40. Please complete the session
evaluation
We appreciate your feedback and insight
You may complete the session evaluation either
on paper or online via the mobile app