Differences between the
Accountable Business Transformation Program (ABT Program) and the
Financial System Replacement Project (FSRP)

King County’s elected leadership has taken the lessons learned from an earlier project known as the Financial System Replacement Project (FSRP) and has structured the Accountable Business Transformation Program (ABT Program) to successfully meet the county’s need for best business practices.

The differences between these two programs are substantial with the ABT Program having three key focus areas that were not adequately addressed by the previous effort:

1. ABT Program focuses on business model transformation, not only a technology system change; 
2. ABT Program focuses on understanding and managing high risk factors through a phased approach; and
3. ABT Program focuses on program metrics: costs, benefits, return on investment (ROI), and key performance indicators.

1. The bigger picture — business process transformation

While FSRP was about replacing a financial system, the ABT Program is about adopting best industry business operating practices which will change many current county business practices. These best practices will be enabled and supported by modern applications through an integrated finance, payroll and human resource solution and a new countywide budget system.

The Dye Management Group/IBM Global Services Critical Assessment Report dated June 4, 2001 diagnosed the state of FSRP and recommend alternatives. The report points out that an enterprise-wide project “cannot be approached as simply system replacement efforts; they are long-term business transformation processes supported by a software package that begins with the initial implementation.”

At its core, projects that impact the way an organization has done business for many years require considering the larger picture including establishing common vision/goals across an organization and a governance structure to overcome roadblocks down to the level of the individual employees.

The Dye Management Group/IBM Global Services Implementation Plan dated July 16, 2001 states: “Clearly, the biggest risk in King County is lack of a common vision and workable governance structure. These are some of the biggest reasons that large systems projects fail.”

The County has responded to these risks with the following actions:

Governance:

In July 2001, the Council created a workable technology governance structure (Ordinance 14155).

An ABT Program Charter, based on the recommendations for governance laid out in the Dye Management Group/IBM Global Services Critical Assessment Report, was approved by the Council on October 9, 2006. The ABT Program Charter has clear policy, oversight, advisory and executive responsibilities and was accepted by the Leadership Committee on January 22, 2007.

In June 2003, Council approved a vision and goals statement for the ABT Program (Motion 11729). This vision and goals statement has been endorsed by all separately elected county agencies.

In October 2004, the County Council approved Motion 12024 adopting four guiding policies for transforming business processes. These guiding policies have been endorsed by the entire elected leadership of King County and provide direction to the ABT Program.

Significant progress also has been made to mitigate other high risk factors:

• The ABT Program has a strong emphasis on change management that is embedded within the governance and project management structure.
• A Roadblocks Identification and Action Plan was adopted in December 2003 and updated in January 2005. This Roadblocks Plan will be continually reviewed and updated as part of the program governance process.

2. Phased implementation to manage high risk factors

The FSRP was a project to replace legacy financial and payroll systems with new technology systems. Both systems were to “go live” at the same time countywide. In 2001, Dye Management Group performed a critical assessment of FSRP and recommended that a sequentially phased program be implemented that allows the county to focus its attention and resources on a single project at a time, with each project building upon the accomplishments of the previous as the program progresses.

Based upon this recommendation, the ABT Program is a phased program which is planned and implemented in five stages: 1) Quantifiable Business Case (QBC), 2) High Level Business Plan (HLBP), 3) High Level Business Design (HLBD), 4) Detailed Implementation Plan and 5) Implementation and Migration.

The program is to be phased over a five year period rather than the four years as recommended in the Dye Management Group Quantifiable Business Case (QBC) Model Report dated July 16, 2004 under the Transition Strategy and Plan. The objective of extending the work program by one year is to allow additional pre-implementation activities to re-confirm sponsorship of the program vision among key stakeholders, re-validate and confirm the program vision and its alignment with the county’s short and long-term goals, and establish a strong project governance structure.

This approach has been developed to position the county to move forward more successfully and with less risk in the future. The action plan for this approach calls for:

• Spending significantly more time up front in obtaining high-level countywide policy endorsements for key decisions and in managing change. The ABT Program will continue to assess how well the government has internalized the adopted vision and goals and the readiness and ability to accept change.
• Undertaking a comprehensive planning process that included developing a High Level Business Plan, High Level Business Design and a Detailed Implement Plan with the ABT Program governance committees’ review and approval of each plan before the ABT Program moves to the next phase.
• Using a phased countywide implementation and migration approach to lower risks and minimize disruption.

3. Determining value of return on investments (ROI) with program metrics

The ABT Executive Recommendation and Business Case report dated April 7, 2005 states that the FSRP did not include adequate metrics to measure progress, performance and outcomes. In contrast, the report points out that the ABT Program Charter dated April 7, 2005, requires the ABT Program to measure results, estimate benefits and then measure benefits realization over the life of the program. The Program Charter vests ownership of benefits realization and program monitoring in the ABT Leadership Committee comprised of the elected leadership of the county.

Summary

The differences between the ABT Program versus FSRP are strikingly different — from the focus on business transformation, the phased approach to manage high risk factor to the requirements of program metrics. Additionally, the ABT Program has in place a governance and program management structure to ensure successful completion.

The ABT Program’s incorporation of change management and awareness communications at the onset of the program compared to late involvement from department and staff during FSRP is significant. Outreach campaigns on awareness and education to county employees will assist in the adoption of new business process changes. Meanwhile the ABT Program will continually seek involvement and input from all departments and on-going support from the elected leadership of King County.