bridges integrated service delivery system

Click to add textMichigan BridgesBridge to the future with improved delivery of services

State of Michigan • Department of Information Technology2

From Vision to Action

2

Agenda

Business Drivers Technology Drivers Impact Project Goals Alternatives Considered Overall Strategy Bridges Project Phases Previous Lessons Learned Bridges Project Approach Bridges Project Organization Timelines – Planning & Implementation Bridges Lessons Learned



3

Business Drivers The DHS workforce had been significantly impacted by early retirement programs in

1997 and 2002 resulting in a loss of over 3,000 jobs, which have not been replaced, it also produced an even greater loss of institutional knowledge. Additionally, client demands for all services had increased due to the state of the Michigan economy.

DHS worker productivity could not keep pace with caseload increases making workers unable to meet the needs of the state’s neediest citizens. Caseworkers had decreased 18% while their workload had more than doubled.

Workload42% increase in total cases (’00-’04)18% decrease in allocated field worker staff (27% decrease in total staff) (’00-’04)68% increase in applications/worker - 44% increase in ongoing cases/worker (’02-’04)48% of staff time spent on intake/re-determination activities (’02-’04)3% of staff time spent on employment and prevention services (’02-’04)

Penalties / Error RatesMedicaid error rate increase 2.57% (’02) to 4.23% (’03)Unable to lower current FAP error rate below acceptable levelsSignificant audit exceptions due to lack of documentation

3000+ additional workers required to meet optimal workload levels



4

Technology Drivers

The technology had become a barrier to worker productivity and customer service. Workers had to use 3 separate systems to do eligibility determination and to assign benefits. Updates between systems were sometimes delayed by as much as 20 minutes causing disruption and forcing the worker to switch to other tasks before proceeding with a case. Workers had to manually access as many as 10 systems to verify information from other Michigan agencies.

Because of the age and complexity of the systems, MDIT was not able to provide adequate support to the business for program changes or enhancements.

Systems•Diverse systems – (25+ platforms, 30+ applications)•Old technology - Critical applications designed with 1970’s technology•Unstable - 89% increase in break/fix requests (2000-2004)•Difficult and costly to maintain

Technical Staff•42% of MDIT staff (experience) could be lost within 4 years (retirements)•Skill sets (70’s and 80’s technologies) virtually impossible to replace•Limited experience on large integrated systems

Technology was a barrier to worker productivity / client satisfaction



5

ImpactFinancial

$24M+ in penalties already assessed (through FY03)• Up to $6M in potential new penalties each Fiscal Year

$1,794,124 - 2002 audit exceptions due to lack of documentationStaffing / Productivity

Unable to keep pace with workload increase Workers’ focus NOT on delivery of service to client

Michigan Clients Inability to meet the needs of Michigan’s neediest citizens Delays in benefit and payment issuance

Technical Inability to provide productivity improvements Unstable systems causing delays in benefit and payment issuance

Programs operating inefficiently, ineffectively, wasting critical $$$



6

Project Goals

Business Goals Standardized / simplified business processes statewide Simplified policy (fed / state law requirements – baseline) Solid improvements in worker efficiency / accuracy of eligibility determinations Improved program accuracy (eligibility and determination) Eliminate / reduce FAP error rate (6% or less)

Technology Goals Integrated service delivery system

Single updated and standardized platform Updated and integrated database Single sign on / data entry / user interface

Automated eligibility and benefits determination Rapid response to changing business needs Well designed, open and scaleable



7

Alternatives ConsideredEnhance Existing Technology Current 1970’s technology could not be modified or enhanced to support DHS business

operations that had evolved from entitlement to client self sufficiency through welfare reform. Existing technology was transactional based and automated manual tasks performed by field

workers in the 80’s and 90’s - it did not support the integration of assistance programs with services.

Limited ability to provide automated workflows that would allow field staff to focus on the integrated delivery of assistance programs or preventative services to clients.

MDIT technical support staff skill sets would be lost over the next 3- 5 years while the technology itself continues to decrease in stability.

Add Staff – no real impact for 2-3 years Staff augmentation would take several years to reach optimum levels (3000+). 2 year period for staff to become proficient with current technology No impact on current technology stabilityReduce Benefit Programs Administered A large number of programs would need to be reduced or modified and legislative changes

made to have a significant impact on the field staff workload No impact on current technology stability

New technology was the only viable alternative .



8

Overall Strategy

3 -5 year multiple phased project Phased location, phased functionality deployments (no “big

bang”) Initial implementation focus:

Worker relief Improved accuracy in eligibility and benefits determination

Goals of subsequent phases: Reduce MDIT operational expenses – eliminate / consolidate platforms Integrate / incorporate service delivery and payment systems Incorporate additional programs (WIC, CSHC, MOMS …….)

Multiple RFP’s One RFP for design, development and implementation One RFP for Program Management / QA



9

Project Phases

Phase I – Program Initiation and Planning Planning APD (PAPD) Feasibility Study Funding

Phase 2 – Implementation APD / RFP Development RFP for Project Management / QA / IV&V (i.e., PCO) Implementation APD (IAPD) RFP for design, development and implementation

Phase 3 – Development & Implementation Design, development, testing and implementation



10

Previous Lessons Learned Leadership and Executive Commitment

Political decision making Scope Creep

Trying to do everything and please everyone Change (Transition) Management

Limited value and understanding of change management Technology / Implementation

Delivering technology before it is ready Purchasing Process

Lowest price more important than successful delivery

Incorporate “lessons learned” into project plans.



11

Project Approach

Create a Program Office Individuals with large IT project experience and/or industry knowledge Base processes - management reporting, issue resolution, change management,

etc. Create Governance Model

Obtain appropriate sponsorship Involve all stakeholder groups

Identify Manageable Pieces Build momentum - implementation of key beneficial functions Minimize risk – pilot implementation Release 1.0 ==> focus on worker relief

Robust Change (Transition) Management Comprehensive training for all staff County office site support before and after conversion Identify, document, and train business process change

Drive Ownership, Accountability, Focus



12

DHS DCH MDITProjectControl Support

Program Office

• Business Strategy

• Business Requirements

• Policy

• Priorities

• Org Communications

• Business Strategy

• Business Requirements

• Policy

• Priorities

• Org Communications

• System Strategy

• Current system assessment

• Future system strategy

• Future system development

• Legacy system plans

• Project strategy

• Project plans

• Project metrics

• Tools & methodology

• Change request & issue resolution

• Customer Relations Mgt processes

• Budget

• Administration

• APD’s

• RFP’s

• Communication

Field CouncilPolicy Team

Standardization & Simplification, Finance, Communications…

Other work groups…

Bri

dges

Pro

ject

Tea

m

Executive Steering Committee

Supp

ort

Tea

ms

Roles & Responsibilities

Bridges Project Organization

DIT Agency, Technical, Desktop and Field Services

Program Manager



13

Bridges Timeline for Planning

Q3Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Identify Program Leadership

Development and executive approval of project charter

Establish Program Structure

Project Organization, Governance Model

Planning APD Federal approval in January 2005

RFIRFI released in 11/04; demos in 2/05 and follow-up in 3/05

Feasibility StudyIncludes initial requirements, alternatives analysis & CBA

Procure & Establish PCO

Includes development, fed review, release, evaluation and award; RFP sent for federal review 2/3/05.

Implementation APD

Includes development and fed review/approval

Implementation RFP

Includes development, fed review/approval, release, evaluation & award

Focus GroupsCross-functional teams refine policies, processes & system requirements prior to vendor start

Program Management/Oversight

FY 2004 FY 2005

Implementation Planning

FY 2006

Program Initiation & Planning

Q3 Q4 Q1Tasks Q4 Q1 Q2Notes



14

Bridges Timeline for Implementation FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

Q2 Q3

Q4

Release 1

Vendor Startup

Gap Analysis

Design & Build

Change Controls

User Acceptance Test

Pilot

Statewide Rollout

Release 2

Detailed Requirements

Design & Build

User Acceptance Test

Implement

Maintenance & Operations (Ongoing Production Support)

Imp Vendor responsibility

State responsibility



15

Bridges Lessons Learned

Staffing/Schedule Business – Tremendous effort

Requirement, Design, Review, Approval & Testing Technical

Clarification of Roles, Skills, Training, Transition Stakeholder/Ownership Top Down Ownership Communication Leadership Across PartnersContract Management Hold the Line – Early Decisions have major impacts Quality of Deliverables - need to be detailed Code Reviews. QAT, System DocumentationTechnical Follow Industry Standards/Best Practices, not local standards Consider Legacy Integration Impacts Reduce Number of product suites used

Previous Lessons Learned Validated



16

Stay Tuned

Questions:

Pat Willett

[email protected]

517-335-3837

235 S. Grand Ave

Suite 206

Lansing, Mi. 48909