Encouraging Adoption of Enterprise Applications

1. Virginia Executive Institute Encouraging Adoptionof Enterprise Applications Leadership Challenge Presentation December 3, 2010

2. Team Members • Martin Brown, DSS • Ashley Colvin, JLARC • Helivi Holland, DJJ • Ida McPherson, DMBE • Nan Pemberton, VBPD

3. Our Team’s Challenge • “How can government leaders move agencies (across Secretariats) to identify and act upon opportunities for the adoption of enterprise applications (human resources, payroll, accounting, CRM) across agencies that currently have limited IT budgets, single-use (and often disparate) programs, and siloed management and reporting chains.” • Restatement: What can the State do to encourage individual agencies to find and adopt enterprise solutions (applications & data) that will benefit all agencies?

4. Almost All Agencies ManageBack Office Functions Internally 14 12 10 8 6 4 “How does your agencycurrently manage thefollowing back officefunctions?” 2 0 Procurement H.R. I.T. PublicRelations Finance

5. But Few Agencies Say it’s “Plausible & Beneficial” to Merge Back Office Functions “As a senior agency official, do you think it plausible &beneficial to merge youragency’s back officefunctions?”

6. Potential Challenges to Adoptionof Enterprise Applications • Survey of VEI participants indicates concern about several areas • Lack of understanding of the individual agencies • Requirements of multiple funding streams • Data protection & confidentiality • Unclear return on investment

7. In This Presentation • Background on Enterprise Applications • New Approaches May Encourage Adoption by Addressing Key Risks

8. Status of Current Enterprise Applications • Designed, developed, & paid for by one agency • 20+ years old & must be replaced • ongoing costs are low, but ongoing updates are rare • Agencies develop other applications to meet unique needs • use of enterprise applications is rarely mandated • exception is eVA procurement application • Results in duplicate spending & inefficiencies

9. Improved Long-Term Planning Needed to Ensure Success of Multiple Long-Term Efforts 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 NG Contract Accounting Application Budgeting App. Human Resources Application Payroll App. New Administration New Administration

10. State’s Historical Ability to Develop Enterprise Applications Is Mixed • 2009 JLARC report noted “risks to current enterprise applications need to be addressed” • same risks led to 4 failed attempts since 1967 • 1990s effort (IHRIS) failed in part because of inadequate funding & inability to coordinate secretariats • 2003 JLARC report found $103 M wasted on failed or delayed IT projects (1991 - 2002) • APA has reached similar conclusions

11. Risks to Successful Implementation Can Be Addressed • Data can be shared & standardized • Duplication can be reduced without using “one-size-fits-all” application • End user councils can increase involvement • ISF rates can provide dedicated, multi-year funding • New process can better resolve conflicts between Secretariats

12. In This Presentation • Background on Enterprise Applications • New Approaches May Encourage Adoption by Addressing Key Risks

13. Share & Standardize Data • Old approach – each agency maintains all data, resulting in duplication & errors • New approach – “agency-of-record” defines data standards & maintains all key data • Allows uniform updates all agencies can use • Interfaces allow sharing if standards exist • Examples • DMV is agency-of-record for all “citizen” information • DGS defines & maintains all vendor information

14. Avoid One-Size-Fits-All Applications • Old approach – enterprise system is adopted without fully reviewing feasibility, costs, or goals • New approach – before mandating use, determine • can all agencies realistically use one application? • is one application actually the least-cost solution? • does increased efficiency require just one application? • Examples • study whether all agencies can or should use new VDOT financial management system before mandating its use • alternative is standardization around 2 or 3 options

15. Involve Customer Agencies in Decision-making • Old approach – one agency designs & develops application • New approach – Communities of Interest jointly design application & guide updates • Example: large, medium, small agency councils oversee new financial management system(s) • Still requires lead agency (shared services bureau) within each Community of interest to manage application • VEI survey indicates agencies appear equally split regarding use of “communities of interest”

16. Provide Consistent Funding for Development & Updates • Old approach – one agency pays for new application & all updates • New approach – use internal service fund rate to supplement other funds • Example: per user monthly fee ensures funding for development & updates (no more 30 year old systems) • However, VEI survey indicates clear majority of agencies do not favor new internal service fund rates

17. Address Current Limitations in Oversight • Old approach – enterprise projects fail because IT agency cannot manage other Secretariats • New approach – GAO notes federal agencies use Chief Operating Officer (COO) to • Elevate attention on transformational change • Integrate management & transformation efforts • Ensure accountability for leading transformational change • Could apply to IT or other government-wide initiatives • Example: Create & empower new Deputy Chief of Staff by amending statute (§2.2-100 and 104)

18. Agency Support for New Chief Operating Officer Position Is More Clear “To resolve potential disputesbetween agencies & Secretariatsover the design & maintenanceof E.A., would you like to assignoversight responsibility & accountability to: ”