Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

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 IT strategies and tactics for justice and public safety organizations.

Related Industries

Read this if you have a responsibility for acquiring and implementing victim notifications for your jurisdiction.

In the first article of this three-part series we explored the challenges and risks associated with utilizing multiple victim notification systems across your state, while the second focused on exploring what the choices are to address these challenges. In this final installment, we demystify the process of developing requirements for a victim notification system. Here are some things to address when developing requirements:

  • Considering all of your victim notification stakeholders and their specific needs
  • “Mining” requirements from your current victim notification system to ensure that your current needs are met in the future system 
  • Determining what the market can support (and what it can’t)
  • Utilizing standards to increase the likelihood that market solutions, designed based on these standards, will meet the needs of your jurisdiction 

Understanding the needs (and wants) of your stakeholder group is critical to defining a successful set of requirements that meets your specific needs. Representative stakeholders may include:

  • Victim advocacy groups (both government run and private sector)
  • Police and sheriff departments
  • Department of Corrections 
  • The courts
  • Probation department
  • Prosecutor offices
  • The victims themselves

Of course the stakeholder group in your jurisdiction may differ, and the needs of these groups will also differ. For example, victims and advocacy groups are concerned about ease of use, accuracy, and timeliness of notifications. Police and sheriff departments may be concerned about ensuring they are meeting their statutory and moral obligations to notify the victims when offenders are released from custody. 

Since these groups have varied needs, it’s important to engage them early and throughout the requirements development process. Talk to them, observe their practices, and review their current systems. It’s possible, for example, that it’s important that sheriff departments can integrate their jail management system to the replacement victim notification system and the integration creates a seamless and timeline notification process when an offender is processed out of jail and into the community. Because the Department of Corrections is designed to hold offenders for a longer period of time, the department may require that their offender management system triggers an alert to victims when pre-release planning activities begin.

Scaling victim notification systems

Utilization of victim notification systems can also include a broad spectrum; from a single jail engaging with a victim notification system vendor to provide specific notification services, to a statewide victim notification system that provides these services for the larger stakeholder group. Because of this, your requirements must reflect that “scale.” Consider the utilization of the system before developing your requirements so that you don’t over (or under) engineer the system for your jurisdiction.

As mentioned in the second article in this series, there are many victim notification system options to consider, from home-grown applications to turnkey software as a service (SaaS) services. Regardless of the path you choose, consider leveraging the victim notification system standards as defined by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA SAVIN Guidelines). These guidelines and standards are terrific sources for victim notification system requirements, and can be thought-provoking as you engage your stakeholder groups. 

Though these standards are extremely useful, be sure to identify and include any jurisdiction-specific needs in your set of requirements. They may be driven by state statutes or by local policy or process. In defining your unique requirements, just ask, “Why are they important? Were they defined based on processes put in place because you don’t have a strong victim notification system, or are they critical to satisfying statute or policy?”

Stakeholder communication and engagement

Once you develop a preliminary set of requirements, it’s important to meet with the stakeholder groups to refine and prioritize the requirements. This exercise will result in a clear and concise set of requirements that are understandable by victim notification system vendors that may be responding to the resulting solicitation. When defining the requirements themselves, we find it useful to follow the guidelines from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) called “IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications.” According to the IEEE standard, good software and hardware requirements should be: 

  1. Correct
  2. Unambiguous
  3. Complete
  4. Consistent
  5. Ranked for importance
  6. Verifiable
  7. Modifiable
  8. Traceable

Prioritization of the requirements also helps responding vendors understand which requirements are most important to your jurisdiction. This prioritization model can also be used when scoring the vendors’ responses to the requirements once proposals have been received. 

Conclusion

In summary, it is important your victim notification system requirements reflect the needs of your stakeholders, are realistic, and clear. Vendors will be asked to respond to how they can accommodate the requirements, so using the IEEE method described above can be useful. 

Though this article doesn’t dive deeply into the development of the request for proposals (RFP) for the victim notification system, below are some actions to take to improve your chances for a successful system selection project:

  1. Define a meaningful project scope to scale the vendor market
  2. Assign a balanced evaluation committee with impartial scoring criteria
  3. Craft a structured procurement package that attracts multiple vendors
  4. Design a reasonable and achievable RFP schedule of events
  5. Reduce ambiguity and increasing clarity of RFP terms

If you have questions about your specific situation, please contact our Justice & Public Safety consulting team. We’re here to help. The BerryDunn team has developed a mature methodology for determining victim notification system requirements, and has a rich repository of requirements to start with so that you don’t need to start from scratch.
 

Article
Victim notification system requirements: It's easier (and harder) than you think

Read this if you have a responsibility for acquiring and implementing victim notifications for your jurisdiction.

In the first article of this three-part series we explored the challenges and risks associated with utilizing multiple victim notification systems across your state. In this article we will explore what the choices are to address these challenges. 

System elements to consider

Many jurisdictions are under the impression that there are only one or two choices for victim notification systems. Though there are certainly market leaders in this space, you should select a system model that best meets your jurisdiction’s profile. The profile may include some of these elements:

  • Risk aversion (i.e., How risk averse is your organization regarding system implementations?)
  • Budget (i.e., How will the initial project be funded? Does your jurisdiction prefer an annual subscription model, or a traditional perpetual license with annual maintenance and support fees?)
  • Staff (Who do you need to implement and maintain the operational system?)
  • Time (i.e., Are you already out of compliance with state statutes?)
  • Hosting environment (i.e., Do you want to host in the cloud or on premise?)
  • Victim notification reach (i.e., state-wide, single jurisdiction, multiple justice partners)
  • Victim notification policy and statute complexity
  • Data ownership (i.e., To what degree does your jurisdiction enable the selling of victim notification data outside of the jurisdiction?)

Victim notification solutions range from hosted commercial off the shelf (COTS) solutions, which are typically least expensive; to custom solutions developed to address jurisdiction-specific needs. The latter tend to be more expensive, riskier than turnkey solutions, and take longer to operationalize. However, if your jurisdiction has unique requirements for victim notification, this may be a viable option. Unless you plan to engage the development vendor in a long-term contract for maintenance of this type of system, you must consider the impact on your existing IT staff. “Platform” solutions are a hybrid of COTS and custom development. With these solutions, there is typically a platform (i.e., Customer Relationship Management or CRM) on which the victim notification system is developed. Using a platform de-risks the development of the application’s architecture, may be a slightly less costly approach, and may simplify the maintenance of a system that is addressing unique requirements.

You may also already have licenses for victim notification capabilities, and not even realize it. Some offender management systems (OMS), jail management systems (JMS), and even prosecution systems (that support victim advocacy functions) may have built-in victim notification functionality included for the licensing price you are currently paying, or may include the option to purchase an add-on module. 

Advantages of using victim notification capabilities packaged with an existing system may include:

  • Lower acquisition and maintenance costs
  • Tighter integration with the OMS, JMS, or prosecution system may result in more seamless utilization of offender and victim data
  • You have a single contract, with a single vendor, reducing contract management overhead

A likely disadvantage, however, is the victim notification functionality may not be a robust as a point solution, or custom-built system. Additionally, if the “reach” of the JMS is a single county, then victim notification capabilities built into your JMS may not suffice for statewide use. However, if the built-in functionality meets your needs, then this is certainly a viable path to consider.

As mentioned in the first article, regardless of your approach the integration between your victim notification system and the JMS, OMS, prosecution system, and court system is critical to reducing redundancy and increasing the timeliness with which both offender and victim data is entered into the victim notification system―and used to trigger the notifications themselves.

Determining the best option for your victim notification system

So how do you determine which choice is best for your jurisdiction? The first step is to determine your jurisdiction’s risk profile versus the need to for jurisdiction-specific functionality. 

Mature market-based solutions are typically less risky to implement, since multiple jurisdictions are likely successfully using them to support their victim notification operations. However, these solutions may not be customizable or flexible enough to address your specific needs. 

“Build” models (using platform solutions or other application development models) tend to be a bit more risky (as many “from scratch” development projects can be); however these are more likely to address your specific needs. Here are a few questions that you should ask before making a determination between a COTS solution and a custom-build:

  1. Do we really have jurisdiction-specific victim notification needs?
  2. Can a COTS solution meet the statutes and policies in our jurisdiction?
  3. How risk-averse is our jurisdiction?
  4. Do we have time to develop a customized solution?
  5. Do we have the talent and capacity to maintain a custom solution?

Budget considerations

The next step is to determine your budget. We recommend you assess a budget over a 10-year total cost of ownership. The cost of a traditional, perpetual license-based COTS solution, including initial acquisition and implementation, will be higher in the first few years of use, but the ongoing annual fees will be lower. The cost of a custom-build solution will be even higher in the first few years, but annual maintenance should drop off dramatically. The cost of a subscription-based COTS solution will be relative even year over year. However, if you model these costs over 10 years, you will have a reasonable sense for how these costs trend (i.e., the cost of a subscription-based model will likely be higher over 10 years than the perpetual license model). 

The other consideration is how you plan to fund the system. If there are capital funds in the budget for initial acquisition and implementation, this may benefit the perpetual license model more than the subscription-based model. Regardless of the funding approach, you will likely be using the selected victim notification method for a significant period of time, so don’t settle.

Finally, determine how to acquire the system (or systems integration vendor that will help you develop the system), which is the subject of the third article in our series.

If you have questions about your specific situation, please contact our Justice & Public Safety team. We’re here to help. To learn more about other choices in victim notification procedures and systems, stay tuned for our third article in this series where we explore the process (and pitfalls) of procuring a statewide victim notification system.

Article
Victim notification systems: What choice do you have?

Read this if you have a responsibility for victim notification.

Is your state complying with state and federal victim notification system statutes? How do you know if you are (or aren’t)? The federal government passed the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act in 1990. This act requires all federal law enforcement officers and employees to make their best efforts to accord victims of crime with the right to be notified of offender status changes (i.e., movement from incarceration to the community). All states have similar statutes; many are more prescriptive and specific to each state.

You may be thinking “we have implemented a victim notification system, we’re all set.” To be sure, it’s best practice to ask yourself these questions:

  • Does my state use multiple victim notification systems, possibly one for the Department of Corrections, and others in use for jails, courts, or by the prosecutor’s office?
  • Do victims understand how to register and use the system(s)?
  • If you have multiple systems in use across your state, do victims know they must register in each (assuming that the offender is nomadic)?
  • Are the systems interfacing with the victim notification system to provide real-time updates regarding offender status changes and movements, or is the data reliant on human entry alone?
  • Is there redundancy in your victim notification approach? Are you relying solely on the victim notification system for statutory compliance, or are there other measures in place?
  • Have you defined the term “victim” in your state? How do you distinguish “known victims” from “interested parties”? Are these two groups treated equally in your victim notification systems and processes?

As we have explored these questions with various corrections clients, we’ve found that states address them in unique ways. In many cases, initial information regarding victims is captured on a pad of paper; in some, that information is never transposed into electronic form. Smaller, rural jails are more inclined to manually reach out to victims in their tight-knit communities, while jails in larger jurisdictions may not have the capacity to do so, and rely much more heavily on automation to comply with victim notification requirements. 

Many states use multiple victim notification systems (jails may use one system, while prisons use another), without integrating them to share data about offender movements and victim registrations. This results in a gap of service to victims likely unaware of the ramifications of having multiple, disparate victim notification systems. Many mature victim notification systems have the ability to interface with systems such as offender management systems (typically managed by the state’s department of corrections), jail management systems (typically managed by each county sheriff’s office), prosecution systems, and others. 

These system integrations are critical to reducing redundancy and increasing the timeliness with which both offender and victim data is entered into the victim notification system and used to trigger the notifications themselves.

So how can you assess your processes? The first step is to determine if your state has a problem with, or compliance gap between current practices and victim notification statutes. Here are some steps you can take to assess your situation:

  1. Review the victim notification statutes in your state
  2. Inventory the victim notification systems in use across your state, including any interfaces that may exist with the systems described earlier
  3. Talk to victim advocates to learn more about how they use the systems to augment their efforts
  4. Connect with representatives within your state department of corrections, sheriff’s offices, prosecutors, courts, probation, and other groups that may be providing some level of victim advocacy and learn more about their concerns

If this is all overwhelming, try and take it one step at a time. You can also engage a professional consulting firm that can help you organize and systematically assess the problem, then collaborate with you to develop a plan to close the gaps. 

If you have questions about your specific situation, please contact our Justice & Public Safety team. We're here to help. To learn more about other choices in victim notification procedures and systems, stay tuned for our second article in this series, where we explore options for acquiring and implementing a statewide victim notification system.

Article
Risky business: Multiple jurisdictional Victim Notification Systems

Read this if you use, manage, or procure public safety and corrections technology.

Recently we discussed the benefits of developing a strong, succinct Request for Proposal (RFP) that attracts Offender Management Systems (OMS) vendors through a competitive solicitation. Conversely, we explored the advantages and disadvantages of leading a non-competitive solicitation. Industry standards and best practices serve as the common thread between competitive and non-competitive solicitations for standard implementations. So, how does an agency prepare to navigate the nuances and avoid the “gotchas” of a non-standard implementation in the corrections realm?

Functional areas in the corrections industry exist in an ever-evolving state. The ongoing functional area refinements serve to overcome potential gaps between standardizing organizations (e.g., CTA, APPA) and your agency’s operations. For example, CTA does not distinguish incidents from disciplines as distinct functional areas. While merging workflows for incidents and disciplines may align with one agency’s practice, your agency may not always correlate the two functions (e.g., disciplinary action might not always result from an incident). Moreover, your agency may not have a need for every functional area, such as community corrections, depending on the scale of your operation.

Your agency should view the industry standards as a guide rather than the source of truth, which helps you cultivate a less parochial approach driven solely by standards and follow instead a more pragmatic plan, comprised of your unique operations and best practices. CTA and APPA specifications alone will result in comprehensive solicitation. For that reason, agencies can enhance an OMS modernization initiative by enhancing solicitation requirements to include jurisdictional specifications resulting from interviews with end-users and policy research. 

Upcoming OMS webinar

On Thursday, November 5, our consulting team will host a webinar on navigating a solicitation for a new OMS. During the webinar, our team will revisit the benefits of an independent third-party on your solicitation and review industry standards, and will discuss:

  1. Crafting requirements that address common OMS functions, as well as jurisdiction-specific functions (i.e., those that address the unique statutes of the state). Crafting requirements helps your agency to ensure a replacement system addresses core business functions, provides a modern technical infrastructure, and complies with local, state, and federal regulations.
  2. Thriving with a collaborative approach when acquiring and implementing an OMS system, helping to ensure all stakeholders not only participate in the project but also buy into the critical success factors.

If you have questions about your specific situation with OMS implementations, or would like to receive more information about the webinar, please contact one of our public safety consultants.
 

Article
Managing non-standard Offender Management System (OMS) implementations

Read this if you use, manage, or procure public safety and corrections technology. 

In our previous post, we discussed the link between developing a technology RFP with meaning, structure, and clarity to enhance the competitive nature of the solicitation. In this article, we ask: How can your agency synthesize and unify existing business processes with industry standards to attract modern OMS providers? The answer? Your agency crosswalks. 

Industry standards, such as those set by the Corrections Technology Association (CTA) and American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), establish the benchmark for modern operations. However, legacy correction software limitations often blur the one-to-one relationship with industry standards. For that reason, crosswalk tools help agencies map current process into industry-wide standards.

CTA Functional Areas

Corrections Technology Association Functional Areas

Agencies crosswalk in preparation for a corrections technology procurement to help align system requirements with commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) corrections management systems. In revisiting the topics of clarity, meaning, and structure, the crosswalk helps technology vendors understand your current operations, the tools your currently use to support the operations, and the way in which those operations relate to industry functional areas.

In an iterative fashion, the CTA crosswalk first helps you understand your agency’s technology and operational structure, and then communicates system requirements to correction technology providers in an industry-led framework. The approach helps you transition from your legacy processes to your new operational environment.

Although your agency can engage the market with a meaningful, structured, and clear RFP, prequalification and contract vehicles provide a viable alternative of enhancement to procuring a new offender management system. The following advantages and disadvantages can inform your agency’s decision to use a prequalification vehicle.

Advantages:

  1. Non-competitive procurement can often be accomplished more quickly given the absence of the timeframe usually dedicated to the development of the RFP, posting to potential vendors, and evaluation of proposals.
  2. Reduced uncertainties in terms of what a vendor is able to provide since an open dialog starts immediately.
  3. Competitive procurement (secondary competition) under a contract vehicle is limited to the vendors who proposed and were awarded. Only higher performing vendors are likely to be able to respond, particularly if only certain vendors are selected from the list.
  4. Potentially better pricing as a vendor can eliminate unknowns through open communication, so less risk is priced into the proposal.
  5. A better environment around requested changes, as a vendor that has maintained a certain margin in their pricing may be more amenable to no-cost change orders.

Disadvantages:

  1. The agency loses some negotiating advantage when a vendor knows they are the only ones in the procurement conversation. 
  2. A vendor may have less incentive to “put their best foot forward” and offer higher levels of service and functionality.
  3. Competitive cost may not be obtained because the vendor doesn’t have to worry about beating a competitor.
  4. Secondary competition may take a somewhat similar timeframe because the solicitation, evaluation, and award processes take a similar amount of time to an RFP for larger projects.

The trajectory to develop an RFP for new corrections management software spans assessing existing operations and technology to including mapping current operations into industry standards clarity. At the same time your agency should consider the driving and constraining factors for using a prequalification or contract vehicle.

BerryDunn has experience with cross-walking agencies into industry-leading practices, and we also understand the need for non-standard RFPs that extend beyond CTA and APPA guidelines. Reach out to our public safety consultants if you have questions, or look out for our next blog providing insight on adapting to and overlapping challenges in non-standard corrections technology procurements.

Article
Leveraging industry standards to optimize Offender Management Systems (OMS)

Read this if you use, manage, or procure public safety and corrections technology. 

When initiating the selection of a new technology platform to replace legacy software, how does an agency ensure the new system addresses functional and technical requirements while also complying with procurement standards? Request for Proposals (RFP) serve as an effective purchasing vehicle, particularly when agencies seek to identify modern technology with professional services to implement the software. While correctional agencies may use an RFP to engage a new Offender Management System (OMS) provider, the complexities of the industry and vast range of best practices complicate the planning, scoping, issuance, and evaluation process. 

With the long-term vision set to complete projects on time, under budget, and within scope, independent third-parties write technology RFPs to enhance traceability and accountability during implementation.

An independent third-party can help your agency:

  1. Define a meaningful project scope to scale the vendor market and guide quality proposals
  2. Develop effective forms, worksheets, and attachments to supplement RFP requirements to support compliance and meet proposal standards
  3. Build a balanced evaluation committee with impartial scoring criteria to represent agency-wide needs and fairly rank vendors
  4. Craft a structured procurement package that attracts multiple vendors to find the solution that best fits your needs
  5. Design a reasonable and achievable RFP schedule of events to finish the project in a timely manner
  6. Reduce ambiguity and increase clarity of RFP terms to streamline the process

If your agency incorporates a sound strategy to craft a meaningful RFP, then a lengthy, meandering procurement journey will become a well-defined, objective, and seamless process to identify new software. Furthermore, you can enhance competitive responses with an RFP free from ambiguity―and full of clarity.

If your corrections agency does engage outside help to facilitate development of an RFP for new OMS software, you should ensure that the third party you engage has experience supporting a meaningful, balanced, and structured purchasing process. BerryDunn injects best practices from the Corrections Technology Association (CTA) and American Probation and Parole Association (APPA). Pairing CTA and APPA standards with an RFP tailored to the technology markets will help an agency boost vendor responses to ultimately improve critical operations.

Reach out to our public safety consultants directly for questions, or look out for our next blog providing insight on leveraging industry standards (e.g., CTA, APPA) when crafting an RFP for corrections technology.
 

Article
Sourcing new IT systems: Third-party advantages

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. 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.

Article
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.

Article
Change management: Keeping employees motivated during multiyear projects