Based upon our initial assessment and system analysis we had completed back on May 26, 2008 we had made three suggestions in that we re-engineer the Financial system, create an interface program to communicate back and forth or do nothing and use double entry.

We also discussed that our mission was based upon a five year life cycle of the application in that we would better benefit in spending the additional monies to properly interface between the two applications to prevent data duplication which was option two.  Because we have decided to go forward with option two and with no experience with the financial system this was a risk however because we added additional features to option two to minimize the risk it helps us to accommodate everyone request.

On a serious note, we have no experience with the financial system or the ability to adapt to this system efficiently.  We can only hope at this point that we understand how the older system operates and when beginning to redesign we don't wait and proceed quickly before any major failures happen in the existing financial system.

Also this project brings some serious reality into the project because its surprising how offer this type of issues happens.  We made some good and bad decisions over the years when dealing with this type of migration but feel we are heading in the right direction with this proposal.  We discovered through experience in almost all cases its better to migrate to the new and phase out the old.  The process takes time because during the migration we are also evaluating the data to ensure what we move is viable and reliable.

And finally, our goal with this project was to keep the system operating and at the same time migrate to the new system. Granted this takes longer to implement when using this method however it ensures each department still stays running, each department get there requests and better yet we still get the new system in the end.