Skip to Main Content

blogpost

The definition of success: J&PS IT departments must define services

By: Doug Rowe
04.26.19

Law enforcement, courts, prosecutors, and corrections personnel provide many complex, seemingly limitless services. Seemingly is the key word here, for in reality these personnel provide a set number of incredibly important services.

Therefore, it should surprise no one that justice and public safety (J&PS) IT departments should also provide a well-defined set of services. However, these departments are often viewed as parking lots for all technical problems. The disconnect between IT and other J&PS business units often stems from differences in organizational culture and structure, and differing department objectives and goals. As a result, J&PS organizations often experience misperception between business units and IT. The solution to this disconnect and misperception? Defining IT department services.

The benefits of defined IT services

  1. Increased business customer satisfaction. Once IT services align with customer needs, and expectations are established (e.g., service costs and service level agreements), customers can expect to receive the services they agreed to, and the IT department can align staff and skill levels to successfully meet those needs.
  2. Improved IT personnel morale. With clear definition of the services they provide to their customers, including clearly defined processes for customers to request those services, IT personnel will no longer be subject to “rogue” questions or requests, and customers won’t be inclined to circumvent the process. This decreases IT staff stress and enables them to focus on their roles in providing the defined services. 
  3. Better alignment of IT services to organizational needs. Through collaboration between the business and IT organizations, the business is able to clearly articulate the IT services that are, and aren’t, required. IT can help define realistic service levels and associated services costs, and can align IT staff and skills to the agreed-upon services. This results in increased IT effectiveness and reduced confusion regarding what services the business can expect from IT.
  4. More collaboration between IT and the organization. The collaboration between the IT and business units in defining services results in an enhanced relationship between these organizations, increasing trust and clarifying expectations. This collaborative model continues as the services required by the business evolve, and IT evolves to support them.
  5. Reduced costs. J&PS organizations that fail to strategically align IT and business strategy face increasing financial costs, as the organization is unable to invest IT dollars wisely. When a business doesn’t see IT as an enabler of business strategy, IT is no longer the provider of choice—and ultimately risks IT services being outsourced to a third-party vendor.

Next Steps

Once a J&PS IT department defines its services to support business needs, it then can align the IT staffing model (i.e., numbers of staff, skill sets, roles and responsibilities), and continue to collaborate with the business to identify evolving services, as well as remove services that are no longer relevant. Contact us for help with this next step and other J&PS IT strategies and tactics.

Related Industries

Your government agency just signed the contract to purchase and implement a shiny new commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software to replace your aging legacy software. The project plan and schedule are set; the vendor is ready to begin configuration and customization tasks; and your team is eager to start the implementation process.

You are, in a word, optimistic. But here comes the next phase of the project—the gap analysis, in which your project team and the vendor’s project team test the new software to see how well it fulfills your requirements. Spending sufficient time and energy on the gap analysis increases the likelihood the resulting software is configured to support the desired workflows and processes of the agency, while taking advantage of the software’s features and benefits. Yet this phase can be stressful because it will identify some gaps between what you want and what the software can provide.

While some of the gaps may be resolved by simple adjustments to software configuration, others may not—and can result in major issues impacting project scope, schedule, and/or cost. How do you resolve these major gaps?

Multiple Methods. Don’t let your optimism die on the vine. There are, in fact, multiple ways to address major gaps to keep you on schedule and on budget. They include:

Documenting a change request through a formal change control process. This will likely result in the vendor documenting the results of the new project scope. This, in turn, may impact the project’s schedule and cost. It promotes best practice by formally documenting approved changes to project scope, including any impact on schedule and cost. However, the change request process may take longer than you may originally anticipate, as it includes:

Documenting the proposed change
Scoping the change, including the impact on cost and schedule
Review of the proposed scope change with the project team and vendor
Final approval of the change before the vendor can begin work

Collaborating with the vendor on a solution that fits within the confines of the selected software. With no actual customization required, this may result in a functionality compromise, and may also involve compromise by the project team and the vendor. However, it does not require a formal process to document and approve a change in scope, schedule or cost, since there are no impacts on these triple constraints.

Collaborating with the vendor and internal project stakeholders to redefine business processes. This may or may not result in a change request. It also promotes best practice, as the business processes become more efficient, and are supported by the selected software product without customization. This will require a focus on organizational change management, since the resulting processes are not reflective of the “way things are done today.”

Accepting the gap—and doing nothing. If the gap has little or no impact on business process efficiency or effectiveness, this method is likely the least impactful on the project, as there are no changes to scope, schedule, or cost. However, the concept of “doing nothing” to address the gap may have the same organizational change ramifications as the previous point.

Of course, there are other methods for addressing major software gaps. If you are interested in learning more, email me. The BerryDunn team brings experience in facilitating discussions with agencies and their vendors to discuss gaps, their root causes, and possible solutions. We leverage a combination of project management discipline, organizational change management qualifications, and deep expertise to help clients increase the success likelihood for COTS software implementations—while maintaining their vital relationships with vendors.

Blog
Grappling with software gaps

People are naturally resistant to change. Employees facing organizational change that will impact day-to-day operations are no exception, and they can feel threatened or fearful of what that change will bring. Even more challenging are multiyear initiatives where the project’s completion is years away.

How can your agency or organization help employees prepare for change—and stay motivated for an outcome—many years in the making?


Start With the Individual

Organizational change requires individual change. For the change to be successful and lasting, an agency should apply organizational change management strategies that help lead people to your desired outcome.

With any new project or initiative, people need to understand why the project is happening before they support it. Communicate the reasons for the change—and the benefit to the employee (what’s in it for them)—so each individual is more inclined to actively support the project. Clearly communicating the why at the onset of the project can help employees feel vested in, and part of, the change. As Socrates said, “The secret of change is to focus all your energy, not on fighting the old, but building the new.” A clear vision can inspire each employee’s desire for the “new” to succeed.

Shift to Individual Goals

It’s a challenge to maintain your employees’ motivation for an organizational change occurring over the long haul. Below are some suggestions on how to sustain interest and enthusiasm for multi-year projects:

  1. Break the project down into smaller, specific milestones. Short-term goals highlight important deadlines and create tangible progress points to reach and celebrate. The master project schedule should be an integration of the organizational change management plan and the project management plan so any resource constraints you identify in the project management plan also become an input when identifying change management resources and activity levels. This integration also highlights the importance of key organizational change management milestones and activities in an effort to ensure they are on a parallel tack as traditional project tasks.
  2. Effectively communicate status updates and successes. In large, agency-wide projects, there are often a variety of stakeholders, each with different communication expectations and needs. The methods, content, and frequency of communication will vary accordingly. Develop a communications strategy as part of your organizational change management plan, to identify who will be responsible to send communications, when and how they will be sent, key messages of the communications, and what feedback mechanisms are in place to continue the conversation after initial delivery. For example, the project team needs a different level of detail than the legislature, or the public. Making the content relevant to each stakeholder group is important because it gives each group what they need to know so they don’t drown in a flood of unneeded information.
  3. Create buy-in by involving employees. A feeling of ownership naturally results from participation in a project, which helps increase enthusiasm. Often the time to do this is when discussing changes to business processes. Once you determine the mandatory features of the future state, (e.g., financial controls, legal requirements, legislative mandates) consider including stakeholder feedback on decisions more focused on preference. It is important for stakeholders to see their suggestions accepted and implemented, or if not implemented, that there was at least a structured process for thoughtfully considering their feedback, and a business case for why their suggestions didn’t make it into the project.
  4. Conduct lessons learned assessments after each major milestone. The purpose of conducting lessons learned activities is to capture what worked and what didn’t. Using surveys or other feedback systems, such as debrief meetings, allows stakeholders to voice their thoughts or concerns. By soliciting feedback after each milestone, leadership can quickly adapt to challenges, address any misunderstandings or concerns, and capitalize on successes.
  5. Reinforce how the project meets the goals of the agency or organization. Maintaining enthusiasm and support for a long-term goal takes a constant reminder of the overall organizational goals. It is important for senior leadership to communicate the impact of the project on the agency or organization and to stakeholders and keep the project at the forefront of people’s minds. Project goals may change during the duration of the project, but the project sponsor should continue to be active and visible in communicating the goals and leading the project.

Change is difficult—change that is years in the making is even more challenging. Applying a structured organizational change management process and using these tips can help keep employees energized and help ensure you reach the desired project goals.

Blog
Change management: Keeping employees motivated during multiyear projects

As more state and local government workers enter retirement, state and local agencies are becoming more dependent on millennial workers — the largest and most educated generation of workers in American history. But there is a serious gap between supply and demand.

As noted in a 2016 report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics titled 
Household Data Annual Averages 15, only 25.6% of current
government workers are between the ages of 18 and 35.

This trend isn’t necessarily shocking; many millennials choose higher-paying jobs in the private sector over lower-paying jobs in the public sector, especially when the days of a lifelong government career, and generous pensions, are dwindling. But it is a serious labor problem for government agencies — one that requires creative solutions. To entice these new workers, state and local governments need to adopt new recruiting and retaining methods.

Recruiting Methods

While money matters to millennials, they also want to live a life of adventure, try new things, embrace trailblazing technology, pursue meaningful goals, and gain a sense of both personal and civic accomplishment. In short, these new workers have values that differ from previous generations. You can help entice them by:

  • Highlighting your state and local agency’s mission and greater purpose. Many millennials want to affect change and find careers consistent with their values. Include information in your job descriptions about the positive environmental and social impact your agency makes.

  • Updating your technology. Millennials have grown up with technology (literally at their fingertips), can adapt to change as no other generation before them, and often strive to remain on the “cutting edge.” By updating your agency’s technology, you will not only improve your organization and benefit the public you serve, but also have a better chance of recruiting the best and brightest millennials.

  • Providing them with a work-life balance. Life outside of work is just as important to millennials as their careers. They don’t plan to wait for retirement to finally pursue their interests, so providing them with a level of flexibility is key to recruitment. Consider offering flexible workdays, remote working capabilities, extended parental leave, sabbatical opportunities, and “mental health days.” The more flexibility state and local agencies provide, the more incentive there is for millennials.

Retaining Methods

Recruiting millennials for government jobs is challenging enough, and retaining them can prove even harder, as job hopping is standard practice for many members of this generation. Nevertheless, there are certain methods your agency can adopt to prevent millennial turnover. We suggest:

  • Investing in employee development and training. Training and creating opportunities for promotion and career advancement are motivating incentives to millennials. Professional development excites millennials and investing in them will pay off for the agency — and the employees will be more engaged and likely to stay.

  • Showing employees they are valued. Recognition is the biggest motivator besides money — millennials want acknowledgement for the good work that they do. Communicate achievements and provide awards to recipients in front of their peers. This not only gives them credit, but also motivates others. Continuing to communicate to your employees how their work supports their values reminds them they made the right decision in joining the public sector in the first place.

Make Your Move

Millennials are worthy of your attention! To compete with the private sector — to recruit and retain them — your government agency has to take an innovative approach to capitalize on this ever-growing demographic. If your state or local agency needs help refreshing your technology, reviewing current policies and procedures, or taking a fresh look at your processes, contact BerryDunn. We would love to talk about your commitment to your future!

You may also be interested in: CFOs for Hire; How to Attract and Retain Workers in a Seller's Market

Blog
Getting millennial with it: How state and local governments can recruit and retain a new generation of workers

Electronic accessibility in every aspect of modern life has increased ten-fold, but government — and courts in particular — has been slow to follow.

History Lesson
The idea that criminal court proceedings are accessible by the public is a pillar of our justice system, rooted in the First Amendment. This public right to unrestricted access in criminal and civil court proceedings has been interpreted by many states to extend to court documents and court records (as long as not otherwise protected).

Traditionally, public access to court proceedings and records has been limited to those taking place in the courthouse, between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:00 pm. In most every other aspect of our lives, we have 24/7 access to everything from live streaming of our home security systems, to ordering our groceries or dinner from our mobile devices — while traveling at 30,000 feet! Government — and courts in particular — has been slow to follow in the rush to 24/7 electronic accessibility.

Part of the rationale behind the hesitation to jump on the electronic bandwagon, are the ethical issues surrounding unlimited electronic public access. So while the First Amendment provides for public access to information, conversely the Fourteenth Amendment interprets the definition of “liberty” to include a right to privacy. Deciding between these two semmingly contradictory rights becomes a challenge for courts when determining what form of electronic access is appropriate for court documents.

The Pros
Unlimited electronic access to publicly available documents:

  • Serve a variety of public interests while eliminating the need to travel to the courthouse to research and copy documents.
  • Acts both as a deterrent to violating laws and as protection to those whose rights have been violated.
  • Tends to instill fairness, transparency, and equality of court proceedings.
  • Protects the community and allows the media to report on matters of public interest in a more convenient, timely, and streamlined manner.

The Cons

While there are compelling reasons to provide electronic public access, they don’t take into account the potential for it to be used inappropriately. Risks include:

  • Increased chance of identity theft, leading to loss of property, finances, and credit
  • Exposure to sensitive information that may be harmful to all those involved
  • Negative impact on privacy
  • Deter public interest lawsuits for fear of overexposure
  • Mistakes or abuse of legal process can have far-reaching implications on individuals

What can states do?
Allowing unlimited remote electronic access to court documents could compromise the privacy rights and concerns of individuals and increase the risk of harm to those participating in court proceedings. This issue demands the full attention of the courts nationwide, but not with an “all-or-nothing” approach.

Many states struggle with striking this balance. To mitigate some of the potentially damning effects, states have taken different approaches. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has brought attention to the issues on several occasions. In 2002, the NCSC and the State Justice Institute funded the project, “Developing a Model Written Policy Governing Access to Court Records” and more recently the NCSC has published the “Privacy/Public Access to Court Records Resource Guide”.

Some states have redacted confidential information from electronic documents and some have limited what information or categories are available on the internet, only posting some combination of the following:

  • Appellate decisions
  • Final judgments, orders, and decrees
  • Basic information of the litigant or party to the case
  • Calendars and case docket lists

Our recommendation
States must agree upon the amount of access they will provide electronically. To tackle this, each state should:

  • Consider forming an access committee(s) to determine what guidelines are needed to balance the free access rights of the public with the privacy rights of individuals
  • Policy decisions should be publicly posted to the judiciary, legislators, and the public at large; and
  • Should be regularly revisited to ensure an appropriate balance is continually achieved

Interested in learning how your state can address this or similar issues? Reach out to BerryDunn's Justice and Public Safety experts and we can discuss the particular issue facing your state and the best practices for approaching it.

Blog
Striking a balance: Public right of access to court records vs. the privacy rights of individuals

If you’ve been tasked with leading a high-impact project for your organization, you may find managing the scope, budget and schedule is not enough to ensure project success—especially when you encounter resistance to change. When embarking on large-scale change projects spanning people, processes and technology, appointing staff as “coaches” to help support stakeholders through the change—and to manage resistance to the change—can help increase adoption and buy-in for a new way of doing things.

The first step is to identify candidates for the coaching role. These candidates are often supervisory staff who have credibility in the organization—whether as a subject matter expert, through internal leadership, or from having a history of client satisfaction. Next, you need a work plan to orient them to this role. One critical component is making sure the coaches themselves understand what the change means for their role, and have fully committed before asking them to coach others. They may exhibit initial resistance to the change you will need to manage before they can be effective coaches. According to research done by Prosci®, a leading change management research organization, some of the most common reasons for supervisor resistance in large-scale change projects are:

  • Lack of awareness about and involvement in the change
  • Loss of control or negative impact on job role
  • Increased work load (i.e., lack of time)
  • Culture of change resistance and past failures
  • Impact to their team

You should anticipate encountering these and other types of resistance from staff while preparing them to be coaches. Once coaches buy into the change, they will need ongoing support and guidance to fulfill their role. This support will vary by individual, but may be correlated to what managerial skills they already possess, or don’t. How can you focus on developing coaching skills among your staff for purposes of the project? Prosci® recommends a successful change coach take on the following roles:

  • Communicator—communicate with direct reports about the change
  • Liaison—engage and liaise with the project team
  • Advocate—advocate and champion the change
  • Resistance manager—identify and manage resistance
  • Coach—coach employees through the change

One of the initial tasks for your coaches will be to assess the existing level of change resistance and evaluate what resistance you may encounter. Prosci® identifies three types of resistance management work for your coaches to begin engaging in as they meet with their employees about the change:

  • Resistance prevention―by providing engagement opportunities for stakeholders throughout the project, building awareness about the change early on, and reinforcing executive-level support, coaches can often head off expected resistance.
  • Proactive resistance management―this approach requires coaches to anticipate the needs and understand the characteristics of their staff, and assess how they might react to change in light of these attributes. Coaches can then plan for likely forms of resistance in advance, with a structured mitigation approach.
  • Reactive resistance management―this focuses on resistance that has not been mitigated with the previous two types of resistance management, but instead persists or endures for an extended amount of time. This type of management may require more analysis and planning, particularly as the project nears its completion date.

Do you have candidates in your organization who may need support transitioning into coaching roles? Do you anticipate change resistance among your stakeholders? Contact us and we can help you develop a plan to address your specific challenges.

Blog
How to identify and prepare change management coaches

Writing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a new software system can be complex, time-consuming, and—let’s face it—frustrating, especially if you don’t often write RFPs. The process seems dogged by endless questions, such as:

  • How specific should the problem statement and system requirements be?
  • How can the RFP solicit a response that proves the vendor is qualified?
  • Should the RFP include legal terms and conditions? If so, which ones? 
  • Is there another strategy that can help cut down on size without forfeiting a quality response?

The public RFP process can be onerous for both the issuer and the respondents, as they can reach lengths upwards of 100 pages. And, while your procurement department would probably never let you get away with developing an RFP that is only one page, we know a smaller document requires less labor and time devoted to writing and reading. What if you could create a lean, mean, and focused RFP? Here are some tips for creating such a document: 

Describe the problem as simply as possible. At its core, an RFP is a problem statement—your organization has a particular problem, and it needs the right solution. To get the right solution, keep your RFP laser-focused: adequately but briefly convey your problem and desired outcomes, provide simple rules and guidelines for respondents to submit their proposed solutions, and clarify how you will evaluate responses to make a selection. Additional information can be white noise, making it harder for respondents to give you what you want: easy-to-read and evaluate proposals. Use bullet points and keep the narrative to a minimum.

Be creative and open about how vendors must respond. RFPs often have pages of directions on how vendors need to write responses or describe their products. The most important component is to emphasize vendor qualifications. Do you want to know if the vendor can deliver a quality product? Request sample deliverables from past projects. Also ask for the number of successful past projects, with statistics on the percent deviation to client schedule, budget, including explanations for large variances. Does your new system need to keep audit trails and product billing reports? Rely on a list of pass/fail requirements and then a separate table for nice-to-have or desired functionalities.

Save the legal stuff until the end. Consider including legal terms and conditions as an attachment instead of in the body of an RFP. If you’re worried about compliance, you can require respondents to attest in writing that they found, read, and understand your terms and conditions, or state that by responding to the RFP they have read and agreed to them. State that any requested deviations can be negotiated later to save space in the RFP. You can also decrease length by attaching a glossary of terms. What’s more, if you find yourself including language from your state’s procurement manual, provide a link to the manual itself instead.

Create a quality template to save time later. Chances are your organization has at least one RFP template you use to save time, but are you using that template because it gets you the best responses, or because you’re in the habit of using it? If your answer is the latter, it may be to time review and revise those old templates to reflect your current business needs. Maybe the writing style can be clearer and more concise, or sections combined or reordered to make the RFP more intuitive.

Qualify providers in advance and reduce the scope. Another time-saver is a pre-qualification, where solution providers propose on an RFP focused primarily on their experience and qualifications. Smaller statements of work are then issued to the qualified providers, allowing for shorter drafting, response, and award timelines. If procurement rules allow, break the procurement up into a requests for information (RFI) and then a smaller RFP.

Need Additional RFP Assistance?

A simplified RFP can reduce long hours needed to develop and evaluate responses to RFPs, while vendors have more flexibility to propose the solutions you need. To learn more about how BerryDunn’s extensive procurement experience can help your organization develop effective RFPs, email me.
 

Blog
The one-page RFP: How to create lean, mean, and focused RFPs

When an organization wants to select and implement a new software solution, the following process typically occurs:

  1. The organization compiles a list of requirements for essential and non-essential (but helpful) functions.
  2. The organization incorporates the requirements into an RFP to solicit solutions from vendors.
  3. The organization selects finalist vendors to provide presentations and demonstrations.
  4. The organization selects one preferred vendor based on various qualifications, including how well the vendor’s solution meets the requirements listed in the RFP. A contract between the organization and vendor is executed for delivery of the solution.
  5. The preferred vendor conducts a gap analysis to see if there are gaps between the requirements and its solution—and discloses those gaps.
  6. The preferred vendor resolves the gaps, which often results in change orders, cost adjustments, and delays.

Sound painful? It can be. Step #5—the gap analysis, and its post-contract timing—is the main culprit. However, without it, an organization will be unaware of solution shortcomings, which can lead to countless problems down the road. So what’s an organization to do?

A Possible Solution

One suggestion: Don’t wait until you choose the preferred vendor for a gap analysis. Have finalist vendors conduct pre-contract gap analyses for you.

You read that right. Pay each finalist vendor to visit your organization for a week to learn about your current and desired software needs. Then pay them to develop and present a report, based on both the RFP and on-site discussions, which outlines how their solution will meet your current and desired software needs—as well as how they will meet any gaps. Among other things, a pre-contract gap analysis will help finalist vendors determine:

  • Whether programming changes are necessary to meet requirements
  • Whether functions can be provided through configuration setup, changes in database tables, or some other non-customized solution
  • What workarounds will be necessary
  • What functionalities they can't, or won't, provide

Select a preferred vendor based on both their initial proposal and solution report.

Of course, to save time and money, you could select only one finalist vendor for the pre-contract gap analysis. But having multiple finalist vendors creates a competitive environment that can benefit your organization, and can prevent your organization from having to go back to other vendors if you’re dissatisfied with the single finalist vendor’s proposal and solution report, or if contract negotiations prove unsuccessful.

Pros

You can set realistic expectations. By having finalist vendors conduct gap analyses during the selection process, they will gain a better understanding of your organization, and both your essential and nonessential software needs. In turn, your organization gets a better understanding of the functionality and limitations of the proposed solutions. This allows your organization to pinpoint costs for system essentials, including costs to address identified gaps. Your organization can also explore the benefits and costs of optional functions. Knowing the price breakdowns ahead of time will allow your organization to adjust its system requirements list.

You can reduce the need for, or pressure to accept, scope changes and change orders. Adding to, or deleting from, the scope of work after solution implementation is underway can create project delays and frustration. Nailing down gaps—and the preferred vendor’s solutions to meet those gaps—on the front end increases efficiency, helps to ensure best use of project resources, and minimizes unnecessary work or rework. It may also save you expense later on in the process.

Cons

You will incur additional up-front costs. Obviously, your organization will have to pay to bring finalist vendors on-site so they can learn the intricacies of your business and technical environment, and demonstrate their proposed solutions. Expenses will include vendors’ time, costs for transportation, lodging, and meals. These costs will need to be less than those typically incurred in the usual approach, or else any advantage to the modified gap analysis is minimized.

You might encounter resistance. Some finalist vendors might not be willing to invest the time and effort required to travel and conduct gap analyses for a system they may not be selected to implement. They will be more interested in the larger paycheck. Likewise, stakeholders in your own organization might feel that the required costs and time investments are impractical or unrealistic. Remind staff of the upfront investment and take note of which vendors are willing to do the same. 

What Do You Think?

Are the pros of conducting pre-contract gap analyses worth it? Or is the process too expensive and time consuming? Let me know what your experience has been or what your thoughts are on this topic by leaving a comment below or reaching out to me.

Blog
The pros and cons of pre-contract gap analyses

While new software applications help you speed up processes and operations, deciding which ones will work best for your organization can quickly evolve into analysis paralysis, as there are so many considerations.

Case in point: Software as a Service (SaaS) model
The benefits of the SaaS model, in which a vendor remotely hosts an organization’s applications, are fairly well known: your organization doesn’t have to shell out for costly hardware, the vendor tackles upgrades, backups, data recovery, and security, and you have more time and money to focus on your business goals.

There are multiple factors to look at when determining whether a SaaS solution is right for you. We’ve compiled a list of the top three SaaS considerations:

1. Infrastructure and capacity
Your organization should consider your own people, processes, and tools when determining whether SaaS makes sense. While an on-site solution may require purchasing new technologies, hiring new staff, and realigning current roles and responsibilities to maintain the system, maintaining a SaaS solution may also require infrastructure updates, such as increased bandwidth to sufficiently connect to the vendor's hosting site.

Needless to say, it’s one thing to maintain a solution; it’s an entirely different thing to keep it secure. An on-site hosting solution requires constant security upgrades, internal audits, and a backup system—all of which takes time and money. A SaaS model requires trust in your vendor to provide security. Make sure your potential vendor uses the latest security measures and standards to keep your critical business data safe and secure.

2. Expense
When you purchase major assets—for example, hardware to host its applications—it incurs capital expenses. Conversely, when you spend money on day-to-day operations (SaaS subscriptions), it incurs operating expenses.

You should weigh the pros and cons of each type of expense when considering a SaaS model. On-site upfront capital expenses for hosting hardware are generally high, and expenses can spike overtime when you update the technology, which can be difficult to predict. And don’t forget about ongoing costs for maintenance, software upgrades, and security patches.

In the SaaS model, you spread out operating costs over time and can predict costs because you are paying via subscription—which generally includes costs for maintenance, software upgrades, and security patches. However, remember you can depreciate capital expenses over time, whereas the deductibility of operating expenses are generally for the year you use them.

3. Vendor viability
Finally, you need to conduct due diligence and vet SaaS vendors before closing the deal. Because SaaS vendors assume the responsibility for vital processes, such as data recovery and security, you need to make sure the potential vendor is financially stable and has a sustainable business model. To help ensure you receive the best possible service, select a vendor considered a leader in its market sector. Prepare a viable exit strategy beforehand so you can migrate your business processes and data easily in case you have any issues with the SaaS provider.

You must read—and understand—the fine print. This is especially important when it comes to the vendor’s policies toward data ownership and future migrations to other service providers, should that become necessary. In other words: Make sure you have final say and control over your data.

Every organization has different aspects of their situation to consider when making a SaaS determination. Want to learn more? It’s a snap! Contact the authors: Clark Lathrum and Matthew Tremblay

Blog
SaaS: Is it right for you? Making SaaS determinations a snap.

A year ago, CMS released the Medicaid Enterprise Certification Toolkit (MECT) 2.1: a new Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS) Certification approach that aligns milestone reviews with the systems development life cycle (SDLC) to provide feedback at key points throughout design, development, and implementation (DDI).

The MECT (recently updated to version 2.2) incorporates lessons learned from pilot certifications in several states, including the successful West Virginia pilot that BerryDunn supported. MECT updates have a direct impact on E&E systems—an impact that may increase in the near future. Here is what you need to know:         

Then: Initial Release

In February 2017, CMS introduced six Eligibility & Enrollment (E&E) checklists. Five were leveraged from the MECT, while the sixth checklist contained unique E&E system functionality criteria and provided a new E&E SDLC that—like the MECT—depicted three milestone reviews and increased the Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) vendor’s involvement in the checklists completion process.

Now: Getting Started

Completing the E&E checklists will help states ensure the integrity of their E&E systems and help CMS guide future funding. This exercise is no easy task, particularly when a project is already in progress. Completion of the E&E checklists involves many stakeholders, including:

  • The state (likely more than one agency)
  • CMS
  • IV&V
  • Project Management Office (PMO)
  • System vendor(s)

As with any new processes, there are challenges with E&E checklists completion. Some early challenges include:

  • Completing the E&E checklists with limited state project resources
  • Determining applicable criteria for E&E systems, especially for checklists shared with the MMIS
  • Identifying and collecting evidence for iterative projects where criteria may not fall cleanly into one milestone review phase
  • Completing the E&E checklists with limited state project resources
  • Working with the system vendor(s) to produce evidence

What’s Next?

Additionally, working with system vendors may prove tricky for projects that already have contracts with E&E vendors, as E&E systems are not currently subject to certification (unlike the MMIS). This may lead to instances where E&E vendors are not contractually obligated to provide the evidence that would best satisfy CMS criteria. To handle this and other challenges, states should communicate risks and issues to CMS and work together to resolve or mitigate them.

As CMS partners with states to implement the E&E checklists, some questions are expected to be asked. For example, how much information can be leveraged from the MECT, and how much of the checklists completion process must be E&E-specific? Might certification be required in the near future for E&E systems?

While there will be more to learn and challenges to overcome, the first states completing the E&E checklists have an opportunity to lead the way on working with CMS to successfully build and implement E&E systems that benefit all stakeholders.

On July 31, 2017, CMS released the MECT 2.2 as an update to the MECT 2.1.1. As the recent changes continue to be analyzed, what will the impact be to current and future MMIS and E&E projects?

Check back here at BerryDunn Briefings in the coming weeks and we will help you sort it out.

Blog
Check this: CMS checklists aren't just for MMIS anymore.

This site uses cookies to provide you with an improved user experience. By using this site you consent to the use of cookies. Please read our Privacy Policy for more information on the cookies we use and how you can manage them.