I think there are a number of aspects of the answer that raised some questions. I'm satisfied overall with the answer. I think there are a couple of things to be aware of.
First of all, the problem we were raising in the report was that the data from the existing system couldn't be relied upon. I understand that a new system is going to be put in place, but it's not just a system. There's already been a system. There need to be the appropriate controls, the appropriate quality assurance, and that type of thing to make sure the information is properly captured, or we end up just putting another system in place that ends up having the same problems.
There's been a lot of emphasis on the system. That's good, and that's important, and it will be a more modern and up-to-date system, but it's very much also a matter of making sure the data is captured and somebody's making sure the quality of the data exists.
The other thing I'm a bit confused about—and I understand these systems are complex, and it can take many years to put them in place—is that earlier on it was mentioned that underlying this is a move from PeopleSoft 7.5 to PeopleSoft 9.2, which I assume means that PeopleSoft version 9.2 already exists. When you have that type of a system, to have to go from a 7.5 to a 9.2 means there have been other releases of that software in the meantime that have not been put in place. Usually a strategy with IT systems is to make sure those upgrades are put in place on a regular basis, so you don't end up with a big project of going from a release that is older and maybe even not supported to the most recent release. That can be a big project when you are skipping over a number of other releases rather than having updated it along the way.
Maybe I am reading too much into that, but I think some explanation of that move from 7.5 to 9.2 would also be warranted.