A 3–4 week assessment that produces a binding migration plan within ±15% on timeline and budget. Customization inventory, ChartField design, report triage, integration topology, compliance footprint — all evidence-based.
Most PeopleSoft to Fusion projects fail not in execution, but in scoping. The assessment is where the project succeeds or fails.
Traditional consultant-led PeopleSoft migrations spend the first six months on 'discovery' — interviewing users, mapping processes, cataloguing customizations, writing 200-page deliverables. By the time real work starts, 30–40% of the budget is consumed and the team's attention has wandered. The assessment becomes a sunk cost rather than a foundation.
Syntra ETL's PeopleSoft migration assessment compresses that work to 3–4 weeks because the heavy lifting is automated. The discovery engine crawls PSRECDEFN, PSPCMPROG, PSPNLDEFN, the App Engine catalog, the IB service registry, and the reporting library in 48 hours — producing a complete inventory of what's actually in your PeopleSoft system. Stakeholder time is then spent on decisions (retire, replace, rebuild?) rather than on data gathering.
The output is a binding plan: a phased timeline with named workstreams, a budget with ±15% confidence, and a risk register with named owners. If we deliver and the project comes in 20% over, the overrun is on us. That kind of accountability isn't possible without doing the discovery rigorously up front.
Each deliverable is a working artifact, not a slide deck. Every item ships as queryable data plus a stakeholder-ready summary.
Every PeopleSoft module in operational use with PS_* table row counts, growth rates, transaction volumes. The starting point for sizing every other deliverable.
Every PeopleCode script (PSPCMPROG), App Engine, Component Interface, IB service. Each carries source code, last-modified date, derived business purpose, and a Fusion-equivalence recommendation.
ChartField usage analysis from PS_LEDGER and PS_JRNL_LN, proposed Fusion 6-segment COA design, routing rules for non-material ChartFields, finance-lead review checkpoints.
nVision/SQR/Crystal/PSQuery library with retire/preserve/rebuild classification per report. Typical outcome: 50–70% retired, 20–30% preserved against archive, 5–15% rebuilt in Fusion.
Every upstream system feeding PeopleSoft, every downstream system consuming PeopleSoft data, every batch interface. Re-platform plan for each: OIC, REST, ESS-scheduled file, OCI Streaming.
Retention requirements per data domain (SOX, IRS, HIPAA, FERPA, state law). Archive vs Fusion-retention recommendations. Auditor-evidence pack design.
Three to four weeks, automated where possible, decision-focused where it matters.
Read-only Oracle user provisioned in PeopleSoft, Syntra discovery engine connected, scope confirmed. Kickoff workshop: business drivers, timeline constraints, compliance footprint, target Fusion pillars.
Discovery engine crawls PSRECDEFN, PSPCMPROG, PSPNLDEFN, App Engine catalog, IB service registry, nVision/SQR/Crystal/PSQuery libraries. Initial customization inventory produced and shared.
Finance workshop: ChartField → COA design. HR workshop (if HCM in scope): effective-dated history depth, payroll history strategy. SCM workshop (if in scope): item, supplier, customer scope. Hybrid CS workshop (higher ed): CS retention strategy.
Draft crosswalks shared with functional leads for review. Customization inventory walked with technical lead for retire/replace/rebuild decisions. Risk workshop: top 10 risks identified, owners and mitigations agreed.
Sized timeline, budget, and resource model produced. Phased migration plan written. Compliance and retention plan written. Sign-off pack assembled.
Stakeholder presentation: assessment findings, recommendation, plan, risks, budget. Q&A. Sign-off triggers contract for delivery phase (or assessment ends as standalone advisory).
Six patterns we see again and again. Pre-warning means pre-mitigation.
Most PeopleSoft customizations are duplicates, abandoned features, or now-redundant under Fusion native functionality. Identifying these early shrinks migration scope by 30–50%.
Customers typically run 200–500 nVision/SQR/Crystal reports but only 30–80 are in regular use. The rest can be retired, dramatically simplifying the post-migration reporting story.
Most PeopleSoft customers use only 4–6 ChartFields heavily even when 10–15 are configured. The Fusion 6-segment COA constraint is rarely a real problem; it's a design opportunity.
Higher-ed customers consistently need Campus Solutions to stay on PeopleSoft because Fusion has no equivalent. Plan the hybrid integration up front; don't discover it in month six.
IB services accumulated over 10+ years usually include broken, duplicated, and abandoned connections. Cleanup during assessment reduces re-platform effort by 30–50%.
Customers typically claim 'we need everything forever' but actual regulatory requirements are bounded. Right-sizing retention saves significant storage and access-management cost.
A PeopleSoft migration assessment is a structured analysis of your PeopleSoft environment that produces a sized, risk-ranked plan for moving to Oracle Fusion (or any target platform). It covers: data volumes per module (PS_LEDGER row counts, PS_VOUCHER, PS_EMPLOYEES, PS_PAY_CHECK), customization inventory (PeopleCode scripts, App Engine programs, Component Interfaces, IB services), reporting library (nVision, SQR, Crystal, PSQuery), integration topology (every system upstream and downstream of PeopleSoft), and compliance footprint (SOX, IRS, HIPAA, FERPA exposure). Without this assessment, migration projects routinely double in cost and timeline as 'surprise' complexity surfaces in month four. A Syntra ETL assessment completes in 3–4 weeks and produces a binding effort estimate within ±15%.
3–4 weeks for a mid-size single-pillar (Financials-only or HCM-only) environment. 4–6 weeks for full multi-pillar (Financials + HCM + SCM) or Campus Solutions-hybrid scenarios. The first week is discovery — the Syntra extractor crawls PSRECDEFN, PSPCMPROG, PSPNLDEFN, the App Engine catalog, the IB service registry, and the reporting library to inventory everything in scope. Weeks two and three are analysis and crosswalk design proposals. Week four (or weeks five and six for complex scope) is stakeholder review and sign-off on the recommended approach, timeline, and budget.
Seven deliverables. (1) Module inventory: which PeopleSoft modules are in operational use, with row volumes per major table. (2) Customization inventory: every PeopleCode/App Engine/CI/IB customization with a retire/replace/rebuild recommendation. (3) ChartField design proposal: how PeopleSoft ChartFields collapse to Fusion's 6-segment COA, with finance review checkpoints. (4) Report inventory: nVision/SQR/Crystal/PSQuery with retire/preserve/rebuild recommendations. (5) Integration topology: every upstream/downstream system with re-platform plan for OIC/REST/file-feed. (6) Compliance footprint: retention requirements per data domain. (7) Sized plan: phased timeline, budget, resource model with ±15% confidence.
Yes — and sometimes the recommendation is 'don't migrate yet' or 'don't migrate everything'. Common 'don't yet' scenarios: pre-migration PeopleSoft customization debt so deep that a 12-month consolidation programme inside PeopleSoft would dramatically reduce migration risk and cost. Common 'don't migrate everything' scenarios: Campus Solutions has no Fusion equivalent, so higher-education customers commonly keep CS on PeopleSoft and migrate only Financials + HCM. The assessment surfaces these patterns with concrete data so the decision is evidence-based, not narrative-based.
Most assessments today are PeopleSoft 9.2 environments — 9.1 is well out of Premier Support. For customers still on 9.1 or earlier, Syntra ETL's assessment includes an upgrade-vs-migrate analysis: the cost and risk of upgrading 9.1 → 9.2 before migrating, versus migrating directly from 9.1 to Fusion. In most cases direct migration is faster and cheaper, but the assessment quantifies the trade-off rather than assuming. For 9.2 environments, the assessment notes the current PeopleTools release (8.59, 8.60, 8.61), bundle level, and PUM image, since these affect extract behavior.
Yes. Campus Solutions is its own assessment workstream because Fusion has no Campus Solutions equivalent — the migration question is fundamentally different ('what do we do with CS?' rather than 'how do we move CS to Fusion?'). The CS assessment covers: student record retention requirements (FERPA, accreditation body requirements), Campus Solutions continued-operation cost vs hybrid integration cost, integration patterns to keep CS in sync with Fusion HCM (employee = student worker scenarios) and Fusion Financials (student billing → AR). Output: a CS strategy recommendation with concrete OIC integration design.
Fixed-fee, scoped by environment size. Single-pillar mid-size assessments typically $35K–$60K. Full multi-pillar enterprise assessments $75K–$150K. Higher-education hybrid (Financials + HCM + Campus Solutions) typically $90K–$180K. The fee is credited against the migration project if Syntra ETL is engaged for delivery. Importantly, the assessment is binding — Syntra ETL will deliver the migration within the assessed timeline and budget at ±15%, or the cost overrun is on us. Customers get certainty, not a 'rough order of magnitude' that doubles in month four.
Light touch by design. Required: a PeopleSoft administrator who can grant read-only database access and answer system-architecture questions (~4 hours/week for 4 weeks); a finance lead for ChartField/COA discussion (~6 hours total across 2–3 workshops); an HR lead if HCM is in scope (~4 hours); a security lead for read-only access provisioning (~2 hours). Optional but valuable: a compliance lead for retention requirements (~2 hours), an audit lead for evidence-pack review (~2 hours). Total client effort: 20–30 hours across 4 weeks. No long meetings, no 50-page questionnaires.
Fixed-fee, 3–4 weeks, binding plan with ±15% confidence. The fee credits against migration delivery if you proceed. The clarity is yours either way.