Management Consulting Quality Assurance for Assessment

Quality Assurance Assessment

for the

Office of Financial Management

One Washington

Program

June 30, 2019

Prepared by

Bluecrane, Inc.

®

bluecrane

Management Consulting

for

State and Local

Governments

Quality Assurance

Executive Advisement

Project Oversight

Project Management

Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V)

Risk Reduction

Corporate Headquarters 655 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 300 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 www.bluecranesolutions.com 310-793-0000

June 30, 2019 Ms. Patricia Lashway Project Sponsor, One Washington Program Deputy Director Office of Financial Management 302 Sid Snyder Ave. SW Olympia, WA 98504 Dear Ms. Lashway:

bluecrane has completed its Quality Assurance Assessment of the Office of Financial Management’s One Washington Program and the Finance and Procurement Project for June 2019. This document is structured as follows:

1. Executive Dashboard of risks.

2. A detailed report of our One Washington assessment as of June 30, 2019. Each assessed item in the detailed report begins with a summary table for the reader’s quick reference that provides an impact statement, recommendations, and status. The summary table is followed by a more detailed assessment across planning, execution, and achievement of expected results.

3. An explanation of our approach for those readers who have not seen one of our assessments previously.

Please contact me with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Allen Mills

http://www.bluecranesolutions.com/

®

One Washington Program Finance and Procurement Project

Quality Assurance Assessment Bluecrane, Inc.

June 2019 Assessment Page i

Table of Contents

Preface: One Washington Program Background ......................................................................... ii

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Executive Overview ..................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Executive “At-a-Glance” QA Dashboard ....................................................................... 3

1.3 Consolidated List of Questions..................................................................................... 7

2. Detailed Assessment Report ..............................................................................................13

3. Risk/Issue Tracking Log .....................................................................................................36

4. Overview of bluecrane Approach .......................................................................................53

®



Bluecrane, Inc. June 2019 Assessment

Page ii

Preface: One Washington Program Background

The purpose of the One Washington Program is to develop, implement, and support a new system that will transform how the State of Washington conducts its administrative operations and functions. Specifically, the business programs included in the project scope are the State’s financial, procurement, Human Resources/Payroll (HR/Payroll), and budget functions and activities. The Program’s high-level goals are to:

• Deliver incremental business functionality over the next eight years

• Provide accurate and timely information

• Minimize risks related to major system failures

• Decrease staff time spent on system maintenance

• Shift to the preservation of business knowledge and capabilities

• Increase process efficiencies

To date, the One Washington Program, which officially began in 2014, has:

• Completed a business case

• Completed its engagement with Accenture for the Program’s initial planning activities

• Implemented the first phase of refining the chart of accounts

• Begun assisting the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) in addressing its legacy system issues

• Developed a series of high-level plans or “Program Blueprints” for how the State would approach the transformation of its financial, procurement, HR/Payroll, and budget functions and activities, as well as the implementation of a statewide Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system

• Completed its first baseline schedule that was consistent with the Program Blueprints

• Obtained approval for both a project charter and plans for: (1) Governance, (2) Risk Management, (3) Issue Management, and (4) Schedule Management

• Received approval of its Investment Plan and Technical Budget, which were consistent with the Governor’s Budget as submitted to the Legislature in December 2018

®




Page 1

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Executive Overview

This report provides the June 2019 Quality Assurance (QA) assessment by Bluecrane, Inc. (“bluecrane”) for the Office of Financial Management’s (OFM) One Washington Program.

Even though much of the Program’s primary focus in June was developing some options for determining a “path forward” strategy, it was able to make some progress in other areas. For example, the Program continued filling its leadership positions by announcing the hiring of a Chief Technology Officer (CTO) and a Business Office Manager. (Last month, the Program also filled the manager position for Change Management.) Furthermore, the Program sponsored technical demonstrations of two leading ERP software solutions and continued its efforts to collect more information on how other states implemented statewide ERP systems. Additionally, progress continued on the active procurements for the engagement of firms to:

• Develop and provide a comprehensive Organizational Change Management (OCM) program

• Assist the Program with acquiring a provider of Software as a Service Plus (SaaS+) ERP

• Provide expert ERP advice to the Program

Overall, we are pleased that the Program was able to continue moving forward and make incremental progress in some areas—even though it is experiencing much uncertainty in how to proceed in the new biennium, which starts next month. As background, in April, the Program received notification that the Legislature did not support the Program’s funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget; in fact, the funding was only 30 percent of what was needed to maintain forward momentum with the same scope and time commitments. By the end of April, when the Legislature adjourned and sent the Budget Bill to the Governor, the Program became aware that its funding, starting in July, was going to be 60 percent less than what was expected. As a result, the Program’s risks became significantly elevated.

As we noted last month and continue to reiterate this month, without the full funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget, the Program will now be unable to meet most of its current and future commitments identified in its Investment Plan and Technical Budget. As a result, there will need to be significant changes in the Program’s scope and schedule since it will be practically impossible to achieve those commitments without adequate resources—whether those are contractors or state staff. Additionally, without adequate funding starting next month, the Program will experience significant risks in every area of its undertaking. The risks are going to be especially high in the Program’s activities related to OCM, the ERP procurement, business and technical readiness, requirements development, and scoping the extent of integrations and systems remediations since there simply will not be enough budget and staff to conduct all of the necessary work. Furthermore, the Program will not be able to meet its proposed timelines for all of its proposed activities in the upcoming biennium.

The Program Director, Executive Director, Sponsor, Executive Steering Committee (ESC), and the business owners are all quite aware of the significant risks that the Program and the State, as a whole, will now experience as a consequence of the reduced funding. As a result, last month, the Program began a series of facilitated discussions between the Executive Sponsor, the ESC members, and business owners to determine a path forward given the reduced funding at all levels of the State. Those discussions continued throughout this month with the Program putting forward some options that would possibly result in: (1) scope reductions, (2) shifting of business function implementations, and/or (3) altering of procurement methods. In general, the ESC and business owners appear to be supportive of

®




Page 2

these actions; however, the options lack clear definitions and much detail. In general, we are pleased that the Program is attempting to provide some thoughts to its governance bodies on how the State, overall, can continue to move forward given the severity of the One Washington budget situation. We also continue to support the Program’s Leadership Team and the Sponsor in their dedication and commitment to the Program in solving a very difficult and challenging situation.

Throughout this month’s report, we identify a number of unanswered questions that will need to be addressed in any option that the State pursues as it reduces the scope and elongates the timeframes of the One Washington Program as a result of the inadequate funding by the Legislature. The answers to these questions are not simply details that can be determined and added within arbitrary timelines. They also are not simply “planning” items that unnecessarily delay “action.” The answers to these questions are fundamental to defining credible scope and timelines and providing sensible and reasonable options for decision-makers. For example, any and all options must consider and provide answers to, with assumptions, the following six fundamental questions:

• How does the option reduce scope and/or change timelines, both in the new and future bienniums?

• What business functions does the option include?

• What are the short- and long-term costs?

• What are the impacts to cost savings and improved efficiencies?

• What are the expectations on the State’s agencies?

• How does the option incorporate industry best practices for implementing and supporting large-scale ERP systems?

Answering these questions will not be an easy task and will require strong leadership, not only from the Program itself but also from the ESC and the business owners. We strongly encourage the Program to consider any allowable “creative means” to bring external consultants with experience in large-scale ERP implementation on-board in early July, if not immediately. Such an experience base is sorely needed by the Program.

Answering the questions we raise in this report will require thoughtful consideration, strong commitment, and steadfastness as difficult decisions and choices are made and implemented. However, given the strength of commitment we have observed so far, we are confident that the Administration will develop some reasonable and actionable plans to continue its progress in planning and preparing for implementing an ERP solution for the State of Washington.

®




Page 3

1.2 Executive “At-a-Glance” QA Dashboard

Area of Assessment

Three-Month Rolling Risk Levels

At-a-Glance Assessment June 2019

May 2019

April 2019

Project Management and Sponsorship

Scope High Risk

Risk Risk

In June, the Program proposed an approach which is likely to have one or more dramatic impacts on its currently approved scope. At this point, the proposal does not include much detail on the: (1) business functions included in a reduced scope, (2) short- and long-term costs, (3) specific timeframes, and (4) activities that will or will not occur during those timeframes. Without that detail, it will be extremely difficult for key stakeholders such as the Executive Sponsor, Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO), and the Governor’s Office to hold the Program accountable for meeting its commitments.

Program/ Project

Schedule

High Risk

Risk Risk

Given that the Program’s funding in the new biennium is much less than anticipated and the Program’s scope will most likely need to be reduced or timelines become elongated, the current version of the Program’s revised schedule will require another extensive revision to accommodate the Program’s reduced scope and adjusted strategy.

Procurement/ Contract

Management/ Deliverables Management

High Risk

High Risk

Risk

Since the Legislature decided to not provide the Program with all of its necessary funding, it is not clear to what extent the Program will be able to continue its forward momentum on its current procurement activities. Additionally, since there are no details on the Program’s proposal to move forward, it is not clear how these three procurements will be impacted.

Budget High Risk

High Risk

High Risk

Without the full funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget, the Program will be unable to meet most of its current and future commitments identified in its Investment Plan and Technical Budget. As a result, there is a need to make significant changes in the Program’s scope, budget, and schedule.

®




Page 4

Area of Assessment



May 2019

April 2019

Project Management and Sponsorship (continued)

Program Staffing

Risk Risk Risk

Even though the Governor’s Budget proposed an additional 30 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) for the 2019-21 time period, the Budget Bill sent to the Governor did not provide increased positions for the Program in the biennium. Unfortunately, as a result, the Program will continue to be woefully under-staffed and will not have all of the skills and expertise that it will need to carry out its responsibilities and activities.

In addition, it is important that future resource estimates accurately reflect the true level of effort needed to complete the planned activities. In the past, the Program’s resource estimates were often made based on available resources instead of what was actually needed to conduct and complete activities as defined in any approved schedule used to manage the project’s body of work.

Program Management Office (PMO) Processes

Risk Being

Addressed

Risk Being

Addressed

Risk Being

Addressed

The Program has contracted resources to manage the program, develop a schedule, manage the budget detail, facilitate meetings, and assist in developing a readiness framework.

Governance Risk

Being Addressed

Risk Being

Addressed

Risk Being

Addressed

The ESC has an approved charter and is meeting on a monthly basis. Attendance at ESC meetings continues to be consistent, and the members are actively engaged and continue to express their enthusiasm for and commitment to the Program. In addition, some of the other governance entities, such as the Transformation Board and advisory committees, have begun to hold regularly scheduled meetings

Tools Risk

Being Addressed

Risk Being

Addressed

Risk Being

Addressed

Given the Program’s current resource constraints, the redesign of the Program’s SharePoint site is on-hold. In addition, the Program has defined activities in the schedule to evaluate and select a tool for capturing business requirements.

®




Page 5

Area of Assessment



May 2019

April 2019

People

Organizational Change

Management

High Risk

High Risk

Risk

Even though the Program has been making good progress since the beginning of this year in creating an OCM program and engaging stakeholders consistent with the proposals in the Governor’s Budget, the Legislature did not support its funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget. As a result, this month, the Program proposed, and the ESC appears to be supportive of, a different approach for moving forward with the One Washington Program. However, the Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific OCM activities that will occur as a result of that approach.

Business Readiness

High Risk

High Risk

High Risk

The Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific business readiness activities that would or would not occur as a result of the different approach for moving forward.

Business Processes/

System Functionality

High Risk

High Risk

High Risk

The Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific business processes and/or system functionality that will change or be impacted as a result of the new approach for moving forward.

Stakeholder Engagement

Risk Being

Addressed

Risk Being

Addressed

Risk Being

Addressed

The Program’s high-level OCM strategy includes an approach for stakeholder engagement. It is expected that this approach will form the basis for the Program’s formal stakeholder engagement plans. Last month, the Program shared its draft Communications Plan with a large number of stakeholders. Our review of the draft Communications Plan found it to be informative, written in a manner to be helpful and meaningful to the individual agencies’ approach to internal communications, and consistent overall with industry best practices.

®




Page 6

Area of Assessment



May 2019

April 2019

Solution

Requirements, Design,

Configuration, and Testing

High Risk

High Risk

Risk The Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific “solution lifecycle” activities (e.g., requirements gathering, design, configuration, and testing) that will change or be impacted as a result of the new approach for moving forward.

Integrations, Reports, and

Systems Remediation

Risk Risk Risk The Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific technology-related readiness activities that will change or not occur as a result of the new approach for moving forward.

Data

Data Conversion

Risk Risk Risk The Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific data conversion activities that will change or not occur as a result of the new approach for moving forward.

®




Page 7

1.3 Consolidated List of Questions

As noted in Section 1.1 above, throughout this month’s report, we identify a number of unanswered questions that will need to be addressed in any option that the State pursues as it reduces the scope and elongates the timeframes of the One Washington Program as a result of the inadequate funding by the Legislature. The answers to these questions are not simply details that can be determined and added within arbitrary timelines. They also are not simply “planning” items that unnecessarily delay “action.” The answers to these questions are fundamental to defining credible scope and timelines and providing sensible and reasonable options for decision-makers.

For the reader’s convenience and reference, we provide a consolidated list of the questions here. Note that we do not assume that our questions are fully comprehensive or are the only questions that need answering for the Program’s various key stakeholders (i.e., OCIO, Governor’s Office, Legislature).

Some of the questions that the One Washington Program will need to answer in developing options, an amended Investment Plan, and/or the Technology Budget

Scope

• What business functions would be considered within the scope of the “moving forward” approach and what business functions would be considered outside of that scope?

• How is the new scope different from the Program’s previous scope and what would the programmatic and fiscal impacts be to the State as a result of the reduced scope?

• What are the considerations for how the State could address its business needs for those items no longer within the Program’s reduced scope?

• What are the detailed activities that would support the reduced scope?

• What are the timeframes for completing those activities?

• What are the overall risks to the State resulting from the reduced scope?

• What specific actions does the State need to take to reduce those risks?

®




Page 8


Procurement/Contract Management/Deliverables Management

• What is the available funding for each contract?

• What are the activities that will be included in each contract and activities which were originally envisioned that can no longer be pursued due to reduced funding by the legislature?

• What are the timelines to complete each procurement and award contracts?

• What are the risks to each of the three separate procurements that are a result of the limited funding and reduced scope?

• What specific actions will the Program take to reduce those risks?

Budget

• What are the activities planned for completion in each fiscal year in the new biennium as a result of the available funding and the new approach?

• What are the detailed fiscal year budget estimates broken down by cost categories? In particular, the cost categories must include staffing (including number of positions), contractors, and operating expenses.

• What are the detailed budget estimates for the next biennium to continue the activities commenced in the new (i.e., upcoming) biennium?

• What are the risks associated with those budgets?


®




Page 9


Program Staffing

• What necessary organizational adjustments will need to occur in the new biennium to adequately support the Program’s revised activities? These adjustments should identify the specific positions and classification levels for each of the Program’s organizational entities.

• What necessary organizational adjustments will need to occur in future bienniums to adequately support the Program’s revised activities? These adjustments should identify the specific positions and classification levels for each organizational entity.

• What skill and knowledge deficiencies will result from the planned adjustments?

• What are the recruitment and/or training plans to address those deficiencies?

• What are the risks associated with those plans?


Organizational Change Management

• What will the Program’s OCM approach and strategy be as a result of a reduced scope and funding?

• What impacts will the Program’s “go forward” strategy have on the Program’s OCM approach and strategy?

• What risks are inherent in that approach and how will the Program, and the State overall, address those risks?

• What OCM activities, if any, can the Program reasonably accomplish with its limited resources (both staff and contractors) in the new and future bienniums?

• What are the timeframes for accomplishing those activities in the new and future bienniums?

• What resource commitments will the agencies need to provide to the One Washington Program and to their own internal OCM activities to support their staff as they adopt new business processes and practices that will result from an ERP system?

®




Page 10


Business Readiness

• What will the Program’s business readiness approach and strategy be as a result of a reduced scope and funding?

• What are the impacts that the Program’s “go forward” strategy will have on the Program’s business readiness approach and strategy?


• What business readiness activities, if any, can the Program reasonably accomplish with its limited resources (both staff and contractors) in the new and future bienniums?


• What resource commitments will the agencies need to provide to the One Washington Program and to their own internal business readiness activities to support their staff as they adopt new business processes and practices that will result from an ERP system?

Business Processes/System Functionality

• What will the Program’s approach and strategy to business process transformation be as a result of reduced scope and funding?

• How will the approach and strategy impact the functionality of the system? In particular, it would be important to understand the underlying assumptions that the Program is making with regard to any changes to the functions of the system that could affect the architectures (i.e., business, technical, enterprise).

• What impacts will the Program’s “go forward” strategy have on the State’s business processes and system functionality?


• What activities, if any, can the Program reasonably accomplish with its limited resources (both staff and contractors) in the new and future bienniums?


• What resource commitments will the agencies need to provide to the One Washington Program to support those activities?

®




Page 11


Requirements, Design, Development, and Configuration

• How will the proposed approach to the development activities accommodate best practices for implementing ERP systems?

• How does the approach comply with OCIO policies for system development?

• What best practices, if any, does the proposed approach not include and what are the reasons for not including those best practices?

• What are the consequences and risks to the ERP configuration that the State will experience as a result of the modified approach?

• What actions will need to be taken at the Program and State levels to address those consequences and mitigate those risks?




®




Page 12


Integrations, Reports, and Systems Remediation

• How will the proposed approach be consistent with best practices for solving the State’s business needs for integrations and reporting?

• How will the proposed approach accommodate remediating the remaining legacy systems?

• How will the proposed approach address the agencies’ technical readiness activities? In particular, it would be important to understand what activities agencies would be expected to do and when the modified approach would have them doing those activities.

• Does the proposal contain assumptions that the State, on its own, will develop and “build” particular components of the solution; and, if so, how does the proposal assume that would occur?

• What are the consequences and risks of that modified approach to future procurements, establishing architectures and operating models, and completing agency technical readiness activities?

• What actions will need to be taken to address those consequences and mitigate those risks?




Data

• How will the proposed approach address converting legacy data into the new ERP system? (For example, it would be important to know how many “trial” conversions the modified approach would accommodate. It is a well-known best practice to have several cycles of data conversion prior to the actual Go-Live to correct or “cleanse,” to the extent possible, legacy data. The higher the quality and accuracy of the data at Go-Live, the better the stabilization period will be and the easier the long-term maintenance will become.)

®




Page 13

2. Detailed Assessment Report

Program/Project Management & Sponsorship

Assessment Area Change Since Prior Report June 2019

Risk Status

Scope Increase High Risk

June Findings: As a result of the Legislature’s decision to not fully fund the Program as proposed in the Governor’s Budget, the Program is now required to either reduce its scope or adopt a longer timeline.

This month, the Program proposed an approach which is likely to have one or more dramatic impacts on its current approved scope. For example, the approach appears to either: (1) include some type of Program involvement in a proposed change to the technical platform of the State’s current Human Resources (HR) system or (2) completely exclude the HR/payroll functions from the One Washington Program’s scope. The proposal did not clearly specify which of these two very distinct alternatives were included. In our opinion, there may be merit in changing the HR system’s platform; however, it does not necessarily have relevance in solving the One Washington Program’s current fiscal situation. Alternatively, excluding the HR/payroll functions from the scope of the new One Washington Program would provide some relief and offer one possible method to solving the Program’s fiscal situation. For instance, eliminating HR/Payroll functions could have some positive short-term impacts by reducing the Program’s scope; but, there would also be some negative long-term impacts by lowing ongoing savings and increasing support costs as a result of supporting two ERP software systems.

Regardless of which of these the proposal includes, the revised scope is simply not clear. At this point, in fact, the proposal does not include much detail on the: (1) business functions included in a reduced scope, (2) short- and long-term costs, (3) specific timeframes, and (4) activities that will or will not occur during those timeframes. Without that detail, it will be extremely difficult for key stakeholders such as the Executive Sponsor, Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO), and the Governor’s Office to hold the Program accountable for meeting its commitments.

June Recommendations, Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: Given the Program’s new proposed “moving forward” approach, we recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to develop a clear scope statement consistent with the proposal. In particular, we recommend that the Program identify:

• What business functions would be considered within the scope of the “moving forward” approach and what business functions would be considered outside of that scope

• How that new scope is different from the Program’s previous scope and what would the programmatic and fiscal impacts be to the State as a result of the reduced scope

• Considerations for how the State could address its business needs for those items no longer within the Program’s reduced scope

®




Page 14


Risk Status

Scope Increase High Risk

• Detailed activities that would support the reduced scope

• Timeframes for completing those activities

• The overall risks to the State resulting from the reduced scope

• Specific actions that the State will need to take to reduce those risks

Additionally, we recommend that this information be shared with the Program’s governance structure, OCIO, and other key stakeholders, as appropriate.

Background and Status: The purpose of the One Washington Program is to develop, implement, and support a new solution that will transform how the State of Washington conducts its administrative operations and functions. Specifically, the business areas included in the Program’s scope are the State’s financial, procurement, HR/payroll, and budget functions and activities. This high-level Program scope has been agreed to by the Governor’s Office, the State Legislature, and the ESC. In addition, the Program Blueprint identifies the high-level business functions that will be included in the finance and procurement components of the new One Washington solution.

In October, the ESC provided direction to the Program to pursue a procurement that would result in the selection of an ERP service provider that would be responsible for providing and supporting a cloud-based ERP software system. In addition, the provider would be responsible for providing a number of additional, as of yet undefined, “services” that would support the One Washington system. Furthermore, the provider may be asked to provide additional integrated software services and solutions that the State may wish to subscribe to at some future date for meeting future, as of yet undefined, business needs. The ESC believed that, by shifting and expanding the scope of the acquisition approach, the State would receive more comprehensive and encompassing support, shorter implementation time periods, and adoption of additional improved and more efficient business practices. However, this change in acquisition approach also required a significant change in the Program’s scope, timelines, and budget.

In December, it was announced, through the Governor’s Budget, that the Program would be shifting its approach and extending its timeframe for its Readiness Phase. As a result, the Program, over the past several months, has been steadily making changes in what it is doing for the remainder of this fiscal year and well into future years. As we noted in December, we are supportive of the Program’s extension of its Readiness Phase and the need for additional planning and preparation.

®




Page 15



Risk Status

Program/Project Schedule Increase High Risk

June Findings: Now, that the Program’s funding in the new biennium is much less than anticipated and the Program’s scope will most likely need to be reduced or timelines become elongated, the current version of the Program’s revised schedule will require another extensive revision to accommodate the Program’s reduced scope and adjusted strategy.

June Recommendations, Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to develop a revised schedule that would: (1) accommodate the proposed approach, (2) include adjustments needed to resolve the Program’s many high-risk areas, and (3) account for the funding reductions and strategy adjustments. The revised schedule should be presented to the ESC for discussion and approval. Additionally, as we have noted in our previous assessments, we continue to recommend that the Program adopt formal processes and practices for schedule maintenance; otherwise, the soon-to-be-revised schedule will become out-of-date and of limited value very quickly. Furthermore, the revised schedule should accurately reflect the Program’s true resource needs as opposed to its existing staffing constraints. In addition, the PMO should begin providing reports to the Program Director, Executive Director, and Sponsor on progress related to the approved schedule, resource utilization, and risks to the critical path.

Background and Status: The Program’s original schedule, which was consistent with the Program Blueprint, was baselined this past fall. However, that baselined schedule was approved prior to the decisions that have affected the Program’s procurement approach and scope. In December, the Program’s Executive Director instructed staff to revise the schedule to be consistent with the proposals included in the Governor’s Budget and to reflect the shift in the Readiness Phase. Since then, the Program has been working toward a revised schedule with the goal to re-baseline the schedule once contracts are signed with the OCM and procurement assistance vendors.

®




Page 16



Risk Status

Procurement/ Contract Management/

Deliverables Management None

High Risk

June Finding: Since January, the Program has been pursuing procurement activities consistent with the Governor’s Budget proposals. The Program has issued three separate Request for Proposals (RFPs) for the engagement of:

• A firm to develop and support an Organizational Change Management program

• A firm to develop an RFP and support the procurement of an ERP solution

• An ERP procurement expert

To date, all three procurements have been making steady progress and have been proceeding on schedule. However, since the Legislature decided to not provide the Program with all of its necessary funding, it is not clear to what extent the Program will be able to continue its forward momentum on its current procurement activities. Additionally, since there are no details on the Program’s proposal to move forward, it is not clear how these three procurements will be impacted.

June Recommendations, Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: Now that the Program has developed some “course forward” options and the ESC appears to be supportive of that new direction, we recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to develop more detail on how each of the three active procurements will be impacted. In particular, we recommend that the Program identify:

• Available funding for each contract

• Activities that will be included in each contract and activities which were originally envisioned that can no longer be pursued due to reduced funding by the Legislature

• The timelines to complete each procurement and award contracts

• The risks to each of the three separate procurements that are a result of the limited funding and reduced scope

• Specific actions that the Program will take to reduce those risks


Background and Status: The Program’s largest contract, to date, was with Accenture who completed a series of Program Blueprints, a Program cost model, high-level plans or strategies for integrations and OCM, and led the Program in the development of functional business and technical requirements for the finance and procurement components of a new ERP system. In January,

®




Page 17


Risk Status

Procurement/ Contract Management/

Deliverables Management None

High Risk

Accenture completed its responsibilities and is now no longer involved with the Program.

Since the ESC’s decision in October to pursue a procurement that would select an ERP service provider (as opposed to just ERP software), the Program modified its procurement strategy and approach. Specifically, in December, it was announced, through the Governor’s Budget, that the Program would be shifting its approach to its Readiness Phase. In particular, the Governor’s Budget included proposals aimed at decreasing the risks related to its ERP procurement. Specifically, the Budget was proposing to engage:

• An ERP procurement expert to advise and assist in the competitive procurement process

• An ERP/SaaS expert to: (1) expand requirements to address Budget and HR/Payroll; (2) develop roles and responsibilities for the ERP solution provider, the Program, and agency personnel during and post-implementation; (3) consult on procurement; (4) assist in finalizing procurement documents, including service level agreements for managing ERP vendor performance during and post-implementation; and (5) assist with procurement management, including the bidder’s conference, bidder questions, evaluations, bidder demonstrations, site visits, and customer reference checks

• An Assistant Attorney General with ERP/Software as a Service (SaaS) contract model expertise to participate in contract development and negotiations with the selected ERP vendor to include terms that would be favorable for the state

®




Page 18



Risk Status

Budget None High Risk

June Finding: Even though the Program had been making steady progress since December, it received notification in April that the Legislature did not support its funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget. When the Legislature adjourned and sent the Budget Bill to the Governor, the Program became aware that the funding for the State’s overall One Washington’s activities was significantly less than proposed in the Governor’s Budget. As a result, the Program’s budget risks became significantly elevated.

Without the full funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget, the Program will be unable to meet most of its current and future commitments identified in its Investment Plan and Technical Budget. As a result, there is a need to make significant changes in the Program’s scope, budget, and schedule. Without adequate funding and the biennium starting next month, the Program is experiencing significant risks in almost every area of its undertaking. The risks are especially high in the Program’s activities related to OCM, the ERP procurement, business and technical readiness, requirements development, and scoping the extent of integrations and systems remediations since there will not be enough budget and staff to conduct all of the necessary work. Furthermore, the Program will not be able to meet its draft timelines for all of its proposed activities in the biennium.

This month, the Program proposed, and the ESC appears to be supportive of, a different approach for moving forward with the One Washington. However, the Program has not yet developed the budget details or identified the specific activities that will occur as a result of that approach.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to develop the budget detail which would support its proposed “moving forward” approach. In particular, we recommend that the Program identify:

• Activities planned for completion in each fiscal year in the new biennium as a result of the available funding and the new approach

• Detailed fiscal year budget estimates broken down by cost categories. In particular, the cost categories must include staffing (including number of positions), contractors, and operating expenses

• Detailed budget estimates for the next biennium to continue the activities commenced in the new biennium

• The risks associated with those budgets


Additionally, we recommend that this information be shared with the Program’s governance structure,

®




Page 19


Risk Status

Budget None High Risk

OCIO, and other key stakeholders, as appropriate.

Background and Status: The Program has an approved budget for the remainder of this month and continues to report that it is operating within its current budget authority. In December, it was announced, through the Governor’s Budget, that the Program would be shifting its approach to its Readiness Phase. Since then, the Program participated in budget hearings and worked on finalizing and gaining approval of its Investment Plan and Technical Budget. In April, the Program received formal approval of its Investment Plan, which was consistent with the proposals in the Governor’s Budget.

®




Page 20



Risk Status

Program Staffing None Risk

June Finding: Even though the Governor’s Budget proposed an additional 30 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) for the 2019-21 time period, the Budget Bill sent to the Governor did not provide increased positions for the Program in the biennium. Unfortunately, as a result, the Program will continue to be woefully under-staffed and will not have all of the skills and expertise that it will need to carry out its responsibilities and activities.

The Program Director, Executive Director, Sponsor, ESC, and the business owners are all quite aware of the significant risks that the Program and the State, as a whole, will experience as a result of the lower than expected staffing levels. Now that the Program has proposed an approach which might have dramatic impacts on its current approved scope and activities, it is not clear what level of staffing it will need to implement the revised scope or what positions will be needed. Additionally, the Program has not yet developed details regarding what skills, expertise, and knowledge it will need for staff to conduct the adjusted scope and corresponding activities.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to provide additional information about its “going forward” proposal that would identify:

• The necessary organizational adjustments that would need to occur in the new biennium to adequately support the Program’s revised activities. These adjustments should identify the specific positions and classification levels for each of the Program’s organizational entities

• The necessary organizational adjustments that would need to occur in future bienniums to adequately support the Program’s revised activities. These adjustments should identify the specific positions and classification levels for each organizational entity

• Skill and knowledge deficiencies that will result from the planned adjustments

• Recruitment or training plans to address those deficiencies

• The risks associated with those plans


Additionally, it is especially important that those current and future resource estimates accurately reflect the true level of effort needed to complete the planned activities. In the past, the Program’s resource estimates were often made based on available resources instead of what was actually needed to conduct and complete activities as defined in any approved schedule used to manage the project’s body of work.

Furthermore, as the Program builds up its own capacity and further defines the work ahead, it will be important that the Program also share its Subject Matter Expert (SME) needs over the next 12 to 24

®




Page 21


Risk Status

Program Staffing None Risk

months with the agencies. In particular, it is important that the Program communicate what its SME expectations are, when those SMEs will be needed and for how long, and what skills and expertise those SMEs should possess to add value to the Program’s activities. This should greatly help agencies develop and adjust their own organizational plans and schedules, which would allow them to continue to meet their own mandates and simultaneously contribute to the success of the One Washington Program and its work streams.

We continue to support the Executive Director and Program Director in their current actions to: (1) maximize existing resources by clarifying roles and responsibilities and deferring some activities, (2) seek loaned agency resources, and (3) engage more consultant expertise and reduce or prioritize workloads.

Background and Status: The Program has an approved budget for the current fiscal year which includes several authorized positions based on estimates developed by Accenture over a year ago. In addition to its authorized positions, the Program has authority to engage consulting expertise for several purposes such as PMO support, developing requirements, etc. Over the last two months, the Program has filled a number of its key management positions, including the OCM Manager, the CTO, and Business Manager.

As noted in prior QA reports, early position estimates for the Program were based on conducting a minimal amount of planning activities prior to the selection of the ERP software solution. However, now that more is known and more is being expected of the Program than originally anticipated, over the last several months, it has become evident that those early resource estimates did not consider all the planning activities that need to occur to prepare the State for transforming its administrative operations. For example, we (and many others) have recommended that OCM activities begin now, instead of waiting a year, and that stronger project management practices be put in place now to help the Program achieve its goals and objectives in a consistent and thoughtful manner. These considerations are resulting in significant constraints on the Program’s current resources.

®




Page 22



Risk Status

PMO Processes None Risk Being Addressed

Background and Status: In September 2018, ISG, a consulting company, was contracted to manage the One Washington PMO. Currently, ISG is providing the Program with resources to manage the program, develop a schedule, manage the budget detail, facilitate some meetings, and assist in developing a readiness framework. To date, the Program has approved plans for: (1) Governance, (2) Risk Management, (3) Issue Management, and (4) Schedule Management.

In February, the Program redesigned its status report so that it contains more relevant information in a “user friendly” format. Also, the Program is now sharing and discussing its status report during its routine governance meetings. Additionally, the Program has restructured its risk management process so that it too is being shared on a more consistent and detailed basis.

Governance None Risk Being Addressed

Background and Status: In October 2018, the ESC approved the Program’s Governance Plan. As a result, the Program’s current governance structure consists of the following:

• An Executive Sponsor

• An ESC

• Transformation Board

• Seven advisory committees

To-date, the ESC has an approved charter, is regularly meeting on a monthly basis, its attendance continues to be consistent, and the members are actively engaged and continue to express their enthusiasm for and commitment to the Program. In addition, some of the other governance entities, such as the Transformation Board and advisory committees, have begun to hold regularly scheduled meetings.

Once more is known about the Program’s reduced scope and adjusted strategy, it will be important that the advisory committees be consulted about how to address a number of the Program’s open issues such as: (1) the methodologies and timing for expanding the system impact data, (2) development of remaining components for the ERP procurement, and (3) OCM approaches and activities.

®




Page 23



Risk Status

Tools None Risk Being Addressed

Background and Status: The Program is continuing to use SharePoint for storing its documents and spreadsheets for tracking purposes. However, the Program does recognize that its SharePoint site will require some reorganization to more adequately address its current activities; however, given the Program’s current resource constraints, the redesign of the SharePoint site is on hold. In addition, the Program has defined activities in the schedule to evaluate and select a tool for capturing business requirements.

®




Page 24

People


Risk Status


None High Risk

June Finding: Even though the Program has been making good progress since the beginning of this year in creating an OCM program and engaging stakeholders consistent with the proposals in the Governor’s Budget, the Legislature did not support its funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget. As a result, this month, the Program proposed, and the ESC appears to be supportive of, a different approach for moving forward with the One Washington Program. However, the Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific OCM activities that will occur as a result of that approach.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to more fully describe how its approach to OCM will be impacted by the “going forward” strategy. For example, it will be important for the Executive Sponsor to more fully understand:

• What the Program’s OCM approach and strategy will be as a result of a reduced scope and funding

• The impacts that the Program’s “go forward” strategy will have on the Program’s OCM approach and strategy

• The risks that will be inherent in that approach and how the Program, and the State overall, would address those risks

• What OCM activities, if any, can the Program reasonably accomplish with its limited resources (both staff and contractors) in the new and future bienniums

• The timeframes for accomplishing those activities in the new and future bienniums

• The resource commitments that the agencies will need to provide to the One Washington Program and to their own internal OCM activities to support their staff as they adopt new business processes and practices that will result from an ERP system

Additionally, we recommend that this information be shared with the Program’s governance structure, OCIO, and other key stakeholders, as appropriate. Background and Status: As part of the Program Blueprint effort, Accenture developed the Program’s high-level OCM strategy. The OCM strategy, which was published in 2018, provided an overview of how change occurs and the typical experience of organizations during times of change. In addition, the strategy identified the four major components of the One Washington’s OCM Program. These four functions are:

• Stakeholder identification and engagement

®




Page 25


Risk Status


None High Risk

• Communications

• Training

• Business user engagement and business readiness

Furthermore, the strategy contained high-level timelines for the OCM functions which were expected to occur simultaneously during the design, configure, test, and deployment periods for each of the Program’s four projects.

For a year now, we have reported that the Program’s OCM activities lack a detailed OCM plan for the One Washington Program. In addition, we have reported that the Program’s OCM activities need to begin much sooner than proposed in the Program Blueprint.

In December, it was announced, through the Governor’s Budget, that the Program would be taking a different approach to its OCM needs than previously envisioned in the Program Blueprint. Specifically, the Governor’s Budget proposed to engage an outside OCM firm with ERP implementation experience to accomplish the following:

• Develop a comprehensive OCM plan based on proven methods, practices, and approaches from other successful ERP and large-scale programs

• Assist the One Washington Program in defining roles and responsibilities needed at the State and agency levels to implement and support appropriate levels of change management

• Collaborate with the state, partner agencies, and the ERP solution provider during implementation to achieve successful and sustained adoption of the ERP

In February, the Program, with input from its OCM advisory committee, developed and issued an RFP to engage a firm to develop and provide a comprehensive OCM program. Our review of the RFP found it to be consistent with the recommendations in our November assessment in which we advocated that the Program engage an OCM firm to:

• Develop and implement a comprehensive OCM program that includes the methods, practices, and processes that will encompass the Program’s change management effort

• Develop an OCM Plan that identifies: (1) the specific OCM functions and activities that the Program will conduct, (2) the Program and Agency-level resources needed to support those OCM functions and activities, (3) the specific OCM activities’ timeframes, and (4) the roles and responsibilities for both the Program and the State agencies

• Seek input from the agencies when developing the Program’s OCM practices to ensure that it will adequately address their change management needs

• Maintain the Program’s OCM practices throughout the life of the finance and procurement project

Based on the current RFP schedule, it was anticipated that the OCM expertise would be on-board this summer. In addition, last month, the Program announced the selection of an OCM Manager.

®




Page 26

People


Risk Status

Business Readiness None High Risk

June Finding: Even though the Program has been making good progress since the beginning of this year in addressing business readiness activities and engaging stakeholders consistent with the proposals in the Governor’s Budget, the Legislature did not support its funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget. As a result, this month, the Program proposed, and the ESC appears to be supportive of, a different approach for moving forward with the One Washington Program. However, the Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific business readiness activities that would or would not occur as a result of that approach.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to more fully describe how its approach to business readiness will be impacted by the “going forward” strategy. For example, it will be important for the Executive Sponsor to more fully understand:

• What the Program’s business readiness approach and strategy will be as a result of a reduced scope and funding

• The impacts that the Program’s “go forward” strategy will have on the Program’s business readiness approach and strategy


• What business readiness activities, if any, can the Program reasonably accomplish with its limited resources (both staff and contractors) in the new and future bienniums


• The resource commitments that the agencies will need to provide to the One Washington Program and to their own internal business readiness activities to support their staff as they adopt new business processes and practices that will result from an ERP system


While reviews of the above information by the Executive Sponsor and others are underway, we continue to support the Program’s Leadership Team in exercising caution in making future commitments and limiting demands on agency resources until more is known and approved on the adjusted strategy.

Background and Status: In the Program Blueprint, two readiness efforts were identified for the integrated finance and procurement project which were not dependent on selection of the ERP software but would, in some ways, prepare the State of Washington for the forthcoming new ERP system. These

®




Page 27


Risk Status

Business Readiness None High Risk

two efforts were titled “non-technology dependent initiatives,” and each is focused on a set of activities that were either already underway or should get underway before the new system is implemented. Each project has an assigned One Washington project manager and staff contributed from other State agencies. Project charters for these two efforts provide very basic information about each project’s objectives, composition, timelines, roles and responsibilities, and team membership. The tasks and activities that these two readiness efforts are planning to conduct are included in the Program’s schedule and are discussed on a routine basis in the weekly team meeting. Both projects are reported as on time and within budget.

Additionally, in the Governor’s Budget, the Program indicated that it would be shifting its approach to its Readiness Phase—acknowledging that there would need to be more done and that more time was needed to complete readiness activities. Specifically, the Governor’s Budget included proposals to:

• Engage a firm that specializes in conducting comprehensive benchmarking

• Develop a business operating model to define the ERP vendor responsibilities and the program and agency roles and responsibilities for conducting future business processes, including the possibility of a centralized Support Center for supporting ERP users following implementation

• Build out the facility to support a model office. (According to the Decision Package, the model office would be a working prototype of the ERP that would allow key personnel to engage in the transition at an early stage.)

• Develop and provide tools, templates, and guidance to agencies for developing an inventory of state and agency current business processes that could be used to support future change management activities

Additionally, starting in February, the Program had been working toward creating a readiness framework which was expected to identify the high-level activities that the State will need to accomplish during the Program’s Readiness Phase. It was anticipated that the completed framework would correspond with and support the Program’s schedule for Readiness and was expected to help agencies better understand what will need to be completed over the next two years.

Furthermore, the Program has gathered information on how other states of similar size and complexity approached their own ERP implementation for finance, HR/payroll, budget, and procurement operations. In summary, the Program found that those states:

• Began their ERP implementation with the financial business operations

• Avoided customizing the software

• Utilized a phased implementation approach

• Invested in OCM

• Adopted strong governance practices

• Assigned highly qualified staff to the effort

• Were able to implement some functionality within two years of contract award

®




Page 28

People


Risk Status

Business Processes/ System Functionality

None High Risk

June Finding: Even though the Program has been making good progress since the beginning of this year in identifying business processes and functionality consistent with the proposals in the Governor’s Budget, the Legislature did not support its funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget. As a result, this month, the Program proposed, and the ESC appears to be supportive of, a different approach for moving forward with the One Washington Program. However, the Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific business processes and/or system functionality that will change or be impacted as a result of that approach.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to more fully describe how its approach to business processes and system functionality would be impacted by the “going forward” strategy. For example, it will be important for the Executive Sponsor to more fully understand:

• What the Program’s approach and strategy to business process transformation will be as a result of reduced scope and funding

• How the approach and strategy will impact the functionality of the system. In particular, it would be important to understand the underlying assumptions that the Program is making with regard to any changes to the functions of the system that could affect the architectures

• The impacts that the Program’s “go forward” strategy will have on the State’s business processes and system functionality


• What activities, if any, the Program can reasonably accomplish with its limited resources (both staff and contractors) in the new and future bienniums


• The resource commitments that the agencies will need to provide to the One Washington Program to support those activities


Background and Status: As we have noted for the past several months, the Program Blueprint identifies the high-level business functions that will be included in the new One Washington system. In addition, the Program’s goals and guiding principles provide a high-level framework for the functionality of the new One Washington system.

®




Page 29


Risk Status

Business Processes/ System Functionality

None High Risk

Since the issuance of the Program Blueprint in June, the Program made very limited progress toward articulating what its future “operating model” would be and how the State would conduct its administrative operations using its new ERP system. The Governor’s Budget acknowledged this deficiency and identified a number of steps the Program proposed to take in the biennium. Specifically, the Budget included funding to:

• Develop a business operating model to define ERP vendor responsibilities and program and agency roles and responsibilities for conducting future business processes, including the possibility of a centralized Support Center for supporting ERP users following implementation

• Build out the facility to support a model office. (According to the Decision Package, the model office would be a working prototype of the ERP that would allow key personnel to engage in the transition at an early stage.)

• Develop and provide tools, templates, and guidance to agencies in developing an inventory of state and agency current business processes that could be used to support future change management activities

Additionally, starting in February and continuing throughout last month, the Program had been working toward creating a readiness framework which was expected to identify the high-level activities that the State will need to accomplish during the Program’s Readiness Phase. It was anticipated that the completed framework would correspond with and support the Program’s schedule for Readiness and was expected to help agencies better understand what will need to be completed over the next two years.

Furthermore, last month, the Program gathered information on how other states of similar size and complexity approached their own ERP implementation for finance, HR/payroll, budget, and procurement operations. In summary, the Program found that those states:

• Began their ERP implementation with the financial business operations

• Avoided customizing the software

• Utilized a phased implementation approach

• Invested in OCM

• Adopted strong governance practices

• Assigned highly qualified staff to the effort

• Were able to implement some functionality within two years of contract award

®




Page 30

People


Risk Status

Stakeholder Engagement None Risk Being Addressed

Background and Status: The Program’s high-level OCM strategy includes an approach for stakeholder engagement. It is expected that this approach will form the basis for both the Program’s and the project’s formal stakeholder engagement plans. Currently, the Program has been attending and conducting routine meetings with key stakeholders, business program leaders, and the State Legislature. Additionally, the Program has been routinely conducting and actively utilizing its OCM Advisory Committee to seek guidance in addressing stakeholder needs.

Beginning in January, the Program started putting more emphasis on its communications strategy and formalizing its stakeholder engagement efforts. In particular, the Executive Director assigned staff to be specifically responsible for communications and stakeholder engagement. Furthermore, he directed staff to prepare formal stakeholder and communications plans. Last month, the Program shared its draft Communications Plan with a large number of stakeholders. Our review of the draft Communications Plan found it to be informative, written in a manner to be helpful and meaningful to the individual agencies’ approach to internal communications, and consistent overall with industry best practices. Furthermore, the draft Communications Plan also requires each agency to designate a “Central Point of Contact” between the agency and the Program. The draft plan provides the agencies with different Central Point of Contact models such as a Steering Committee or a designated individual, either of which should be especially helpful in ensuring good communication is occurring on a regular basis. Overall, we are particularly pleased that the Program has addressed its ongoing communication shortcomings with the agencies, and we are hopeful that providing the agencies with different models for approaching communications will allow the agencies to begin addressing how, individually, they wish to begin planning for the upcoming readiness activities in which they will all need to engage.

Since April, the Program has been exhibiting its commitment and dedication to stakeholder activities and increased communications. Specifically, the OCM Advisory Committee continues to be actively involved in advising the Program; similarly, an OCM manager is now on-board and fully engaged in the Program’s activities. The Program is continuing to receive positive feedback on its draft communications plan. Both the Program’s Executive Director and Program Director are continuing to actively communicate about the Program and its extended Readiness Phase and activities. Overall, we are pleased with the Program’s direction for pursuing stakeholder engagement efforts and applaud the Executive Director and his Communications Lead in all of the accomplishments they have achieved since the beginning of this year.

®




Page 31

Solution


Risk Status

Requirements, Design, Configuration, and Testing

None High Risk

June Finding: Even though the Program has been making good progress since the beginning of this year in moving forward in identifying requirements consistent with the proposals in the Governor’s Budget, the Legislature did not support its funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget. As a result, this month, the Program proposed, and the ESC appears to be supportive of, a different approach for moving forward with the One Washington Program. However, the Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific “solution lifecycle” activities (e.g., requirements gathering, design, configuration, and testing) that will change or be impacted as a result of that approach.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to more fully describe how its approach to development activities will be impacted by the “going forward” strategy. For example, it will be important for the Executive Sponsor to more fully understand:

• How the proposed approach to the development activities will accommodate best practices for implementing ERP systems

• How the approach is in compliance with the OCIO’s policies for system development

• What best practices, if any, does the proposed approach not include and the reasons for not including those best practices

• What consequences and risks to the ERP configuration will the State experience as a result of the modified approach

• Actions that will need to be taken at the Program and State levels to address those consequences and mitigate those risks

• What activities, if any, can the Program reasonably accomplish with its limited resources (both staff and contractors) in the new and future bienniums




®




Page 32


Risk Status

Requirements, Design, Configuration, and Testing

None High Risk

Background and Status: From July to December 2018, the Program’s major focus was collecting functional business requirements for the finance procurement system. This effort was led and coordinated by Accenture with support from the Program staff. The requirements gathering effort involved:

• Developing business function process flows

• Creating glossaries of terminology

• Scheduling and leading business process flow review sessions or “workshops” with representatives from many agencies

• Modifying the business process flows based on agencies’ input

• Gathering “unique” requirements which may be different from or not included in the business process flows

• Developing technical specifications

In our November assessment, we noted a number of shortcomings with the Program’s approach to requirements development. Specifically, up to that point, the scope of the requirements gathering, as described in the Program Blueprint, had been focused exclusively on gathering the business functional requirements for the finance and procurement project. Yet, the ESC provided direction to the Program to pursue a more comprehensive ERP solution which would likely include additional services and functional capabilities (as of yet undefined) for the Program’s future projects such as HR/Payroll and budgeting.

Since December, the Program had taken a number of actions to reduce risks related to requirements gathering. Specifically, these actions include:

• Proposals in the Governor’s Budget which include engaging: (1) ERP procurement expertise to advise and assist in the competitive procurement process and (2) an ERP/SaaS expert to expand requirements to address Budget and HR/Payroll capabilities

• Suspension of requirements gathering activities until the ERP procurement expertise is on-board

• Issuance of the ERP procurement assistance RFP, with the expectation of contract award later this year

®




Page 33

Solution


Risk Status


None Risk

June Finding: Even though the Program has been making good progress since the beginning of this year in moving forward in addressing the technical needs of the state consistent with the proposals in the Governor’s Budget, the Legislature did not support its funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget. As a result, this month, the Program proposed, and the ESC appears to be supportive of, a different approach for moving forward with the One Washington Program. However, the Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific technology-related readiness activities that will change or not occur as a result of that approach.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to more fully describe how its approach to addressing the technical needs of the State will be impacted by the “going forward” strategy. For example, it will be important for the Executive Sponsor to more fully understand:

• How the proposed approach would be consistent with best practices for solving the State’s business needs for integrations and reporting

• How the proposed approach would accommodate remediating the remaining legacy systems

• Whether the proposal contains assumptions that the State, on its own, will develop and “build” particular components of the solution; and, if so, how does the proposal assume that would occur?

• How the proposed approach would address the agencies’ technical readiness activities. In particular, it would be important to understand what activities agencies would be expected to do and when the modified approach would have them doing those activities.

• The consequences and risks of that modified approach to future procurements, establishing architectures and operating models, and completing agency technical readiness activities

• Actions that will need to be taken to address those consequences and mitigate those risks




Additionally, we recommend that this information be shared with the Program’s governance structure,

®




Page 34


Risk Status


None Risk

OCIO, and other key stakeholders, as appropriate.

Furthermore, once the adjusted strategy is approved, it would be extremely useful if the Program would engage the appropriate advisory committees as it adopts methodologies and tools to ensure that the adopted approaches not only meet the Program’s needs but also those of the agencies’ technology organizations. Ultimately, it will be agency CIOs and their organizations who will be accountable for ensuring that integrations are operating properly, remaining legacy systems are appropriately remediated, systems are retired, and data conversions result in high quality and accurate data.

Background and Status: The Program’s high-level description and approach to integrations is included in the Program Blueprint’s Integration Strategy. At a very high-level, this strategy describes: (1) the approach and guiding principles for the Program’s integrations, (2) the methodologies that would most likely be used, and (3) an approach to data conversion. In addition, the Program gathered some State and Agency integration information that was used to develop cost estimates for the Program Blueprint.

In December, it was announced, through the Governor’s Budget, that the Program would be shifting its approach to its Readiness Phase. In particular, the Governor’s Budget proposed extending the Program’s timeline for Readiness and conducting the following additional activities:

• Complete a comprehensive data gathering initiative that would provide more detailed and quantifiable information on: (1) agency system impacts, (2) integrations to support operations, and (3) enterprise reporting

• Prioritize state and agency tasks based on the updated agency systems impact inventory for systems that will be integrated, modified, or decommissioned

• Develop an Information Technology (IT) operating model

• Define the integration architecture for supporting enterprise analytics and reporting

• Continue technical readiness activities to gain additional understanding of technology impacts throughout the state

Furthermore, the Governor’s Budget requested a number of additional positions within the Program that will be specifically focused on addressing the technology activities necessary to implement an ERP system and enhancing the overall IT knowledge and expertise within the Program.

Over the past few months, the Program has been working diligently to develop a “readiness framework” to identify the various activities and tasks that need to be completed prior to exiting the Readiness Phase. The framework acknowledges the need to expand the “system impact” data that was collected during the Program’s Blueprint effort. In particular, the framework identifies the specific sets of activities to create comprehensive integrations and report inventories. Additionally, the Program has developed a data collection tool that should help agencies collect the information for the expanded system impact data.

®




Page 35


Risk Status


None Risk

Starting this month and continuing through next month, the Program has sponsored a number of demonstrations between State staff and the leading ERP software companies. The purpose of these demonstrations is to showcase the technical capabilities of the different ERP software suites.

Data


Risk Status

Data Conversion None Risk

June Finding: Even though the Program has been making good progress since the beginning of this year in moving forward in addressing the technical needs of the State consistent with the proposals in the Governor’s Budget, the Legislature did not support its funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget. As a result, this month, the Program proposed, and the ESC appears to be supportive of, a different approach for moving forward with the One Washington Program. However, the Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific data conversion activities that will change or not occur as a result of that approach.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to more fully describe how its approach to addressing the data conversion needs of the State will be impacted by the “going forward” strategy. For example, it will be important for the Executive Sponsor to more fully understand:

• How the proposed approach will address converting the legacy data into the new ERP system. (For example, it would be important to know how many “trial” conversions the modified approach would accommodate. It is a well-known best practice to have several cycles of data conversion prior to the actual Go-Live to correct or “cleanse” legacy data to the extent practical. The higher the quality and accuracy of the data at Go-Live, the better the stabilization period will be and the easier the long-term maintenance will become.)

®




Page 36

3. Risk/Issue Tracking Log

Assessment Area June 2019

Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

OPEN

Scope High Risk

Increase

June Findings: As a result of the Legislature’s decision to not fully fund the Program as proposed in the Governor’s Budget, the Program is now required to either reduce its scope or adopt a longer timeline.

This month, the Program proposed an approach which might have one or more dramatic impacts on its current approved scope. For example, the approach appears to either: (1) include some type of Program involvement in a proposed change to the technical platform of the State’s current Human Resources (HR) system or (2) completely exclude the HR/payroll functions from the One Washington Program’s scope. The proposal did not clearly specify which of these two very distinct alternatives were included. In our opinion, there may be merit in changing the HR system’s platform; however, it does not necessarily have relevance in solving the One Washington Program’s current fiscal situation. Alternatively, excluding the HR/payroll functions from the scope of the new One Washington Program would provide some relief and offer one possible method to solving the Program’s fiscal situation. For instance, eliminating HR/Payroll functions could have some positive short-term impacts by reducing the Program’s scope; but, there would also be some negative long-term impacts by reducing ongoing savings and increasing support costs as a result of supporting two ERP software systems.

Which of these the proposal includes is just simply not clear. At this point, in fact, the proposal does not include much detail on the: (1) business functions included in a reduced scope, (2) short- and long-term costs, (3) specific timeframes, and (4)

®




Page 37


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

activities that will or will not occur during those timeframes. Without that detail, it will be extremely difficult for key stakeholders such as the Executive Sponsor, OCIO, and the Governor’s Office to hold the Program accountable for meeting its commitments.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: Given the Program’s new proposed “moving forward” approach, we recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to develop a clear scope statement consistent with the proposal. In particular, we recommend that the Program identify:

• What business functions would be considered within the scope of the “moving forward” approach and what business functions would be considered outside of that scope

• How that new scope is different from the Program’s previous scope and what would the programmatic and fiscal impacts be to the State as a result of the reduced scope

• Considerations for how the State could address its business needs for those items no longer within the Program’s reduced scope

• Detailed activities that would support the reduced scope

• Timeframes for completing those activities

• The overall risks to the State resulting from the reduced scope

• Specific actions that the State will need to take to reduce those risks


®




Page 38


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

Program/Project Schedule

High Risk

Increase

June Findings: Now, that the Program’s funding in the new biennium is much less than anticipated and the Program’s scope will most likely need to be reduced or timelines become elongated, the current version of the Program’s revised schedule will require another extensive revision to accommodate the Program’s reduced scope and adjusted strategy.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to develop a revised schedule that would: (1) accommodate the proposed approach, (2) include adjustments needed to resolve the Program’s many high-risk areas, and (3) account for the funding reductions and strategy adjustments. The revised schedule should be presented to the ESC for discussion and approval. Additionally, as we have noted in our previous assessments, we continue to recommend that the Program adopt formal processes and practices for schedule maintenance; otherwise, the soon-to-be-revised schedule will become out-of-date and of limited value very quickly. Furthermore, the revised schedule should accurately reflect the Program’s true resource needs as opposed to its existing staffing constraints. In addition, the PMO should begin providing reports to the Program Director, Executive Director, and Sponsor on progress related to the approved schedule, resource utilization, and risks to the critical path.

Procurement/

Contract Management/ Deliverables Management

High Risk

None

June Finding: Since January, the Program has been pursuing procurement activities consistent with those in the Governor’s Budget proposals. Since then, the Program has issued three separate RFP for the engagement of:

• A firm to develop and support an Organizational Change Management program

• A firm to develop an RFP and support the procurement for an ERP solution

®




Page 39


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

• An ERP procurement expert

To date, all three procurements have been making steady progress and have been proceeding on schedule. However, since the Legislature decided to not provide the Program with all of its necessary funding, it is not clear to what extent the Program will be able to continue its forward momentum on its current procurement activities. Additionally, since there are no details on the Program’s proposal to move forward, it is not clear how these three procurements will be impacted. June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: Now that the Program has developed some “course forward” options and the ESC appears to be supportive of that new direction, we recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to develop more detail on how each of the three active procurements will be impacted. In particular, we recommend the Program identify:

• Available funding for each contract

• Activities that will be included in each contract and activities which were originally envisioned that can no longer be pursued due to reduced funding by the Legislature

• The timelines to complete each procurement and award contracts

• The risks to each of the three separate procurements that are a result of the limited funding and reduced scope



®




Page 40


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

Budget High Risk

None

June Finding Even though the Program had been making steady progress since December, it received notification in April that the Legislature did not support its funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget. When the Legislature adjourned and sent the Budget Bill to the Governor, the Program became aware that the funding for the State’s overall One Washington’s activities was significantly less than proposed in the Governor’s Budget. As a result, the Program’s budget risks became significantly elevated.

Without the full funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget, the Program will be unable to meet most of its current and future commitments identified in its Investment Plan and Technical Budget. As a result, there is a need to make significant changes in the Program’s scope, budget, and schedule. Without that adequate funding and the biennium starting next month, the Program is experiencing significant risks in almost every area of its undertaking. The risks are especially high in the Program’s activities related to OCM, the ERP procurement, business and technical readiness, requirements development, and scoping the extent of integrations and systems remediations since there will not be enough budget and staff to conduct all of the necessary work. Furthermore, the Program will not be able to meet its draft timelines for all of its proposed activities in the biennium.

This month, the Program proposed, and the ESC appears to be supportive, of a different approach for moving forward with the One Washington. However, the Program has not yet developed the budget details or identified the specific activities that will occur as a result of that approach.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to develop the budget detail which would support its proposed “moving forward” approach. In particular, we recommend that the Program identify:

®




Page 41


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

• Activities planned for completion in each fiscal year in the new biennium as a result of the available funding and the new approach

• Detailed fiscal year budget estimates broken down by cost categories. In particular, the cost categories must include staffing (including number of positions), contractors, and operating expenses

• Detailed budget estimates for the next biennium to continue the activities commenced in the new biennium

• The risks associated with those budgets



Organizational Change

Management

High Risk

None

June Finding: Even though the Program has been making good progress since the beginning of this year in creating an OCM program and engaging stakeholders consistent with the proposals in the Governor’s Budget, the Legislature did not support its funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget. As a result, this month, the Program proposed, and the ESC appears to be supportive of, a different approach for moving forward with the One Washington Program. However, the Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific OCM activities that will occur as a result of that approach.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to more fully describe how its approach to OCM will be impacted by the “going forward” strategy. For example, it will be important for the Executive Sponsor to more fully understand:

®




Page 42


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

• What the Program’s OCM approach and strategy will be as a result of a reduced scope and funding

• The impacts that the Program’s “go forward” strategy will have on the Program’s OCM approach and strategy


• What OCM activities, if any, can the Program reasonably accomplish with its limited resources (both staff and contractors) in the new and future bienniums


• The resource commitments that the agencies will need to provide to the One Washington Program and to their own internal OCM activities to support their staff as they adopt new business processes and practices that will result from an ERP system


Business Readiness

High Risk

None

June Finding: Even though the Program has been making good progress since the beginning of this year in addressing business readiness activities and engaging stakeholders consistent with the proposals in the Governor’s Budget, the Legislature did not support its funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget. As a result, this month, the Program proposed, and the ESC appears to be supportive of, a different approach for moving forward with the One Washington Program. However, the

®




Page 43


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific business readiness activities that would or would not occur as a result of that approach.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to more fully describe how its approach to business readiness will be impacted by the “going forward” strategy. For example, it will be important for the Executive Sponsor to more fully understand:

• What the Program’s business readiness approach and strategy will be as a result of a reduced scope and funding

• The impacts that the Program’s “go forward” strategy will have on the Program’s business readiness approach and strategy


• What business readiness activities, if any, can the Program reasonably accomplish with its limited resources (both staff and contractors) in the new and future bienniums


• The resource commitments that the agencies will need to provide to the One Washington Program and to their own internal business readiness activities to support their staff as they adopt new business processes and practices that will result from an ERP system


®




Page 44


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

While reviews of the above information by the Executive Sponsor and others are underway, we continue to support the Program’s Leadership Team in exercising caution in making future commitments and limiting demands on agency resources until more is known and approved on the adjusted strategy.

Business Processes/System

Functionality

High Risk

None

June Finding: Even though the Program has been making good progress since the beginning of this year in identifying business processes and functionality consistent with the proposals in the Governor’s Budget, the Legislature did not support its funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget. As a result, this month, the Program proposed, and the ESC appears to be supportive of, a different approach for moving forward with the One Washington Program. However, the Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific business processes and/or system functionality that will change or be impacted as a result of that approach.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to more fully describe how its approach to business processes and system functionality would be impacted by the “going forward” strategy. For example, it will be important for the Executive Sponsor to more fully understand:

• What the Program’s approach and strategy to business process transformation will be as a result of reduced scope and funding

• How the approach and strategy will impact the functionality of the system. In particular, it would be important to understand the underlying assumptions that the Program is making with regard to any changes to the functions of the system that could affect the architectures

• The impacts that the Program’s “go forward” strategy will have on the State’s

®




Page 45


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

business processes and system functionality






Requirements, Design,

Configuration, and Testing

High Risk

None

June Finding: Even though the Program has been making good progress since the beginning of this year in moving forward in identifying requirements consistent with the proposals in the Governor’s Budget, the Legislature did not support its funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget. As a result, this month, the Program proposed, and the ESC appears to be supportive of, a different approach for moving forward with the One Washington Program. However, the Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific development activities (i.e., requirements gathering, design, configuration, and testing) that will change or be impacted as a result of that approach.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to more fully describe how its approach to development activities will be impacted by the “going forward” strategy. For example, it will be important for the Executive Sponsor to more fully

®




Page 46


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

understand:

• How the proposed approach to the development activities will accommodate best practices for implementing ERP systems

• How the approach is in compliance with the OCIO’s policies for system development

• What best practices, if any, does the proposed approach not include and the reasons for not including those best practices

• What consequences and risks to the ERP configuration will the State experience as a result of the modified approach

• Actions that will need to be taken at the Program and State levels to address those consequences and mitigate those risks

• What activities, if any, can the Program reasonably accomplish with its limited resources (both staff and contractors) in the new and future bienniums




Program Staffing Risk None June Finding: Even though the Governor’s Budget proposed an additional 30 FTEs for the 2019-21 time period, the Budget Bill sent to the Governor did not provide increased positions for the Program in the biennium. Unfortunately, as a result, the

®




Page 47


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

Program will continue to be woefully under-staffed and will not have all of the skills and expertise that it will need to carry out its responsibilities and activities.

The Program Director, Executive Director, Sponsor, ESC, and the business owners are all quite aware of the significant risks that the Program and the State, as a whole, will experience as a result of the lower than expected staffing levels. Now that the Program has proposed an approach which might have dramatic impacts on its current approved scope and activities, it is not clear what level of staffing it will need to implement the revised scope or what positions will be needed. Additionally, the Program has not yet developed details regarding what skills, expertise, and knowledge it will need for staff to conduct the adjusted scope and corresponding activities.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to provide additional information about its “going forward” proposal that would identify:

• The necessary organizational adjustments that would need to occur in the new biennium to adequately support the Program’s revised activities. These adjustments should identify the specific positions and classification levels for each of the Program’s organizational entities

• The necessary organizational adjustments that would need to occur in future bienniums to adequately support the Program’s revised activities. These adjustments should identify the specific positions and classification levels for each organizational entity

• Skill and knowledge deficiencies that will result from the planned adjustments

• Recruitment or training plans to address those deficiencies

• The risks associated with those plans

®




Page 48


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments


Additionally, it is especially important that those current and future resource estimates accurately reflect the true level of effort needed to complete the planned activities. In the past, the Program’s resource estimates were often made based on available resources instead of what was actually needed to conduct and complete activities as defined in any approved schedule used to manage the project’s body of work.

Furthermore, as the Program builds up its own capacity and further defines the work ahead, it will be important that the Program also share its Subject Matter Expert (SME) needs over the next 12 to 24 months with the agencies. In particular, it is important that the Program communicate what its SME expectations are, when those SMEs will be needed and for how long, and what skills and expertise those SMEs should possess to add value to the Program’s activities. This should greatly help agencies develop and adjust their own organizational plans and schedules, which would allow them to continue to meet their own mandates and simultaneously contribute to the success of the One Washington Program and its work streams.

We continue to support the Executive Director and Program Director in their current actions to: (1) maximize existing resources by clarifying roles and responsibilities and deferring some activities, (2) seek loaned agency resources, and (3) engage more consultant expertise and reduce or prioritize workloads.

Integrations, Reports, and

Systems Remediation

Risk None

June Finding: Even though the Program has been making good progress since the beginning of this year in moving forward in addressing the technical needs of the state consistent with the proposals in the Governor’s Budget, the Legislature did not support its funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget. As a result, this month, the Program proposed, and the ESC appears to be supportive of, a different approach for moving forward with the One Washington Program. However, the Program has not yet

®




Page 49


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

developed the details or identified the specific technology-related readiness activities that will change or not occur as a result of that approach.

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to more fully describe how its approach to addressing the technical needs of the state will be impacted by the “going forward” strategy. For example, it will be important for the Executive Sponsor to more fully understand:

• How the proposed approach would be consistent with best practices for solving the State’s business needs for integrations and reporting

• How the proposed approach would accommodate remediating the remaining legacy systems

• Whether the proposal contains assumptions that the State, on its own, will develop and “build” particular components of the solution; and, if so, how does the proposal assume that would occur?

• How the proposed approach would address the agencies’ technical readiness activities. In particular, it would be important to understand what activities agencies would be expected to do and when the modified approach would have them doing those activities

• The consequences and risks of that modified approach to future procurements, establishing architectures and operating models, and completing agency technical readiness activities

• Actions that will need to be taken to address those consequences and mitigate those risks

• What activities, if any, the Program can reasonably accomplish with its limited

®




Page 50


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

resources (both staff and contractors) in the new and future bienniums




Furthermore, once the adjusted strategy is approved, it would be extremely useful if the Program would engage the appropriate advisory committees as it adopts methodologies and tools to ensure that the adopted approaches not only meet the Program’s needs but also those of the agencies’ technology organizations. Ultimately, it will be agency CIOs and their organizations who will be accountable for ensuring that integrations are operating properly, remaining legacy systems are appropriately remediated, systems are retired, and data conversions result in high quality and accurate data.

Data Conversion Risk None

June Finding: Even though the Program has been making good progress since the beginning of this year in moving forward in addressing the technical needs of the state consistent with the proposals in the Governor’s Budget, the Legislature did not support its funding as proposed in the Governor’s Budget. As a result, this month, the Program proposed, and the ESC appears to be supportive of, a different approach for moving forward with the One Washington Program. However, the Program has not yet developed the details or identified the specific data conversion activities that will change or not occur as a result of that approach.

®




Page 51


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

June Recommendations Based on Program’s Proposed New Approach: We recommend that the Executive Sponsor direct the Program to more fully describe how its approach to data conversion will be impacted by the “going forward” strategy. For example, it will be important for the Executive Sponsor to more fully understand:

• How the proposed approach would address converting the legacy data into the new ERP system. (For example, it would be important to know, in particular, how many “trial” conversions the modified approach would accommodate. For instance, it is a well-known best practice to have several cycles of data conversion prior to the actual Go-Live to correct or “cleanse,” to the extent possible, the legacy data. The higher the quality and accuracy of the data at Go-Live the better the stabilization period will be and the easier the long-term maintenance will become.)

PMO Processes Risk Being Addressed

None

Finding: In our Readiness Assessment we noted that the Program had not yet developed and implemented the standard project management plans, processes, and practices that are typically found in projects of similar size and complexity. At the time of the Readiness Assessment, it was not considered a high risk since most of the Program’s work to-date consisted of developing the Blueprints and strategies.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Program complete: (1) the development of the remaining project management plans such as scope and budget and (2) the development and implementation of the supporting processes. In addition, we expect the PMO to report on a consistent and routine basis the status of its current risks and issues, decisions, and change requests in the Program’s monthly status reports and during governance and team meetings.

®




Page 52


Change Since Prior

Report

bluecrane Comments

Closed

Since September 2018, the Program has closed three findings.

®




Page 53

4. Overview of bluecrane Approach

We began our QA engagement for the One Washington Program and the first project of the integrated finance procurement project by developing an understanding of the program at a macro level. We started by analyzing the following four “Program Areas”:

• Program/Project Management & Sponsorship

• People

• Solution

• Data

It is not our practice to duplicate Project Management activities by following and analyzing each task and each deliverable that our clients are tracking in their project management software (such as Microsoft Project). Rather, we identify those groups of tasks and deliverables that are key “signposts” in the program. While there are numerous tasks that may slip a few days or even weeks, get rescheduled, and not have a major impact on the program, there are always a number of significant “task groups” and deliverables that should be tracked over time because any risk to those items—in terms of schedule, scope, or cost—have a potentially significant impact on the program’s overall success.

We de-compose the four categories listed above into the next lower level of our assessment taxonomy. We refer to this next lower level as the “area of assessment” level. The list of areas of assessment grows over the life of the project. The following list is provided as an example of typical areas of assessment:

• Program/Project Management & Sponsorship

o Governance

o Program/Project Schedule

o Program Staffing

o Scope

o PMO Processes: Change, Risk, Issue, Quality Management

o Budget

o Contract Management/Deliverables Management

o Tools

• People

o Organization Preparation and Readiness

o Business Processes/System Functionality

o Training and Training Facilities

o Stakeholder Engagement

• Solution

o Requirements, Design, and Configuration

o Integrations

o Testing

®




Page 54

• Data

o Data Preparation

o Data Conversion/Cutover

o Data Center(s) Operations

For each assessment area within a Program Area, we document our assessment results and any issues and/or risks that we have assessed over the last month, as well as our high-level recommendations for addressing the risks. For each area, we perform the following assessment:

• Planning – is the program doing an acceptable level of planning?

• Executing – assuming adequate planning has been done, is the program performing tasks in alignment with the plans the program has established?

• Results – are the expected results being realized? A program that does a good job of planning and executing those plans but does not realize the results expected by participating partners and other stakeholders, is a less than successful program. Ultimately, results are what the program is all about!

Assessed status is rated at a macro-level using the scale shown in the table below.

Assessed Status

Meaning

High Risk

Risk that project management must address, or the entire project is at risk of failure; these risks are “show-stoppers”

Risk Risk that is significant enough to merit management attention but not one that is deemed a “show-stopper”

Risk Being Addressed

Risk that is being adequately mitigated. The risk may be ongoing with the expectation it will remain blue for an extended period of time, or it may be sufficiently addressed so that it becomes green as the results of the corrective actions are realized

No Risk Identified

“All Systems Go” for this item

Not Started

Item has not yet started or is not yet assessed

Complete or Not

Applicable

This item has been completed or has been deemed “not applicable” but remains a part of the assessment for traceability purposes

Documents

Management Consulting Quality Assurance for Assessment