Michigan Bridges

1. Michigan Bridges

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.

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.

5. Impact Financial $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 documentation Staffing / 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

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 Considered Enhance 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 stability Reduce 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

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

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

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 Partners Contract Management Hold the Line – Early Decisions have major impacts Quality of Deliverables - need to be detailed Code Reviews. QAT, System Documentation Technical Follow Industry Standards/Best Practices, not local standards Consider Legacy Integration Impacts Reduce Number of product suites used

16. Stay Tuned Questions: Pat Willett willettp@michigan.gov 517-335-3837 235 S. Grand Ave Suite 206 Lansing, Mi. 48909