Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The West Virginia ERP Story – Part 1
NASACTAugust 12, 2014
Daniel KeeneVice PresidentState and Local Government ERP SolutionsPhone: 703-267-8827Email: [email protected]
Introductions
Glen Gainer, IIIAuditorState of West VirginiaPhone: 304-558-2251
Greg SmithVice PresidentPhone: 978-244-6324Email: [email protected]
2
Topics• Project background• Initial challenges• How we addressed the challenge• wvOASIS ERP solution• Lessons learned• Questions
33
Project BackgroundBusiness Case
• West Virginia has disparate, redundant, unsupported systems supporting mission critical back office needs
• Business case justifies implementation of the largest IT system in the State’s history:
– $110 Million, 8 year project (3 implementation + 5 support)– Streamlines business processes eliminating redundant activity– Integrates key financial data across the State improving
business decisions and transparency– Replaces financial, human resource, time and attendance,
payroll, budgeting, purchasing, and linear asset management system across the State
– 50,000 employees, $23.4 billion annual budget
4
• Governance• Scope• Project Timeline• Staffing
Initial Challenges
66
Initial ChallengesGovernance
• Project sponsored by three independently elected officials– Governor– Auditor– Treasurer
• Transition to new Governor during ERP procurement• Consequently…
– Significant angst due to enormity and visibility of project– Compounded by lobbyists spreading fear, uncertainty, and
doubt– Legislation created new ERP Board of the 3 sponsors
whose organizations previously operated independently– Budget projections decreasing largely due to price of
natural resources
• As a result…– Project progress was affected due to delayed decisions– Approval of deliverables requires additional time
• Scope– Unprecedented scope and scale– 10% of RFP requirements were
not met– 375 additional requirements/new
business processes surfaced duringthe project
– RFP requirements did not always accurately capture state’s real need
• As a result…– Fit/Gap Analysis required more
time to complete – Anticipated significant change to
planned software enhancements (some removed, some added)
7
Initial ChallengesScope
7
• Initial project timeline mandated by RFP to level the playing field• Timeline was risky
8
Initial ChallengesTimeline
– No capacity for additional scope– Contract started two months
later than assumed– Deployments close together in
rapid succession – Inadequate time for stabilization– Financial go-live not at start of
fiscal year • As a result…
– A new project timeline was required
8
• Progress project hampered by– Decentralized current business processes require multiple SMEs to come together to define
new centralized business processes– Lack of State SMEs available– Slow ramp up of State and consulting resources at the start of project – Consultant turn-over– Resource conflict caused by concurrent phases
9
Initial ChallengesStaffing
• As a result…– More State agency SME participation was required– Initial progress in defining requirements took longer
than expected– Facilities for project proved inadequate
9
10
How WV Addressed the Challenge
Daniel Keene, CGI
10
• Governance• Scope• Project Timeline• Staffing
How We Addressed the Challenge
11
1212
How We Addressed the ChallengeGovernance
• Project sponsored by three independently elected officials– Sponsors’ offices took a more active role in governance process supporting the change to the
plan and sending strong message of commitment– More frequent board meetings
• All three sponsors were re-elected which provided stability and continuity for the project
• Developed a strong Enterprise Readiness team to
provide communication and coordinate
deployment activities with 171 agencies and
boards• Cost of scope increase and revised schedule less
than projected by the business case• As a result…
• Decisions and deliverable approval areaccomplished in a more timely manner
13
How We Addressed the ChallengeScope
• Scope was finalized• Scope of project increased• Incorporated high ROI functionality
– Federal Reciprocity (TOPS program)
– Capital Program Mgmt. System to manage federal STIP (Statewide Transp. Improvement Program)
• As a result…– Meets the objectives of the business
case– Defined a solution that will improve the
state’s ability to conduct state business– A new timeline was required to deliver
the functionality
13
• Timeline was revised– Plan allows for adequate time
for stabilization between deployments
– Advantage Budgeting brought up early to align with the 2015 budget cycle
– FM go live aligns with start of fiscal year
– HR/Payroll go live aligns with start of calendar year
– DOT given more time to prepare
• As a result…– More achievable with less risk
14
How We Addressed the ChallengeTimeline
14
• Staffing continues to be a challenge for both the state and its partners
• State is looking to add between 20-40 part-time and full-time employees to the project
• State is looking at improved facilities to accommodate this growth
• As a result…– Budgeting went live as scheduled
on August 5, 2013– Other phases are tracking to plan
15
How We Addressed the ChallengeStaffing
15
16
wvOasis ERP Solution
Greg Smith, Kronos
16
17
wvOASIS ERP Solution
17
18
Lessons Learned
Glen Gainer, IIIAuditor, West Virginia
18
1919
Lessons Learned (so far)
Active governance participation needed for success – a good structure is not enough
Change management is critical to success – not just system user population – organization and even project team
Push back hard on software changes – say no to changes to address “possible problems” or low risk “what if scenarios”
2020
Lessons Learned (so far)
Fit Gap results are the true measure of what’s needed – the RFP and vendor proposal are only leading indicators
Analysis paralysis will doom a project – “a bad decision is better than no decision”
Commit the right staff to the project and deliver the staff
Questions?
