Once we had the strategic positioning settled we moved to the second phase of program design and development.
The following were key features of this phase:
-
Ongoing engagement with stakeholders. We had completed the initial listening to the community, but the fact is you have to keep at it: reviewing directions and co-design of products, as well as monitoring perceptions and feedback. We found that even as we designed the various products, some of the things we thought we understood out of the listening to the community phase, had to be modified.
-
Formal blueprint and transition plan developed throughout 2004. The Solution Blueprint covered the people, process and technology aspects of the future design. An integrated Transition Plan set out the sequence and timing of packages of change (or releases) through to 2008.
-
A whole-of-program business case. In previous change initiatives we had attempted a separate business case for each component of the change and it never quite stacked up, it never quite justified the investment. It wasn’t until we lifted the business case up to the level of the integrated outcomes and benefits that it became viable.
-
Selecting off the shelf and transfer technology. Although this particular change initiative is not a technology program, the technology component is critical. Through a number of market tenders we selected a small number of suppliers – one for Client Relationship Management; one for Case and Correspondence Management; one for Content, Document and Records Management; and one for our core processing systems.
-
Obtaining the required program management and integration expertise. We are a revenue agency not a program management agency. For a program like this we decided to buy in the expertise of people who do this as their daily living. We also decided we wanted a single program partner with clear overall accountability for delivery across the program. Through an open market exercise we selected Accenture as the Program Implementation Partner. They can and do sub-contract others in, but we deal only with them.
-
An outcomes-based fixed-price contract.
Outcomes-based means that the contract deliverables are specified as higher level business outcomes within eight categories.
Something we had found out through experience was that if you try to contract to detailed specifications of what you think you need for the next three or four years, your imagination fails you, and sure enough down the track you have countless scope variations and increases. However if you pitch expectations at the outcomes level, they are much more likely to remain valid over the period.
Fixed-price in this case means not only for the partner’s consulting fees, but also for our own costs which are about half of the total program costs. If there is a greater use of Tax Office staff than anticipated in the fixed price, the extra cost is underwritten by the program partner. This is possible because they manage the project, and they manage the Tax Office staff who work with them on the project. For us this was fairly innovative.
-
Expert independent advice. We selected Capgemini as Independent Assurer to look over both our and Accenture’s shoulders. Whilst we may get enmeshed in the daily run of things they are able to step back and point out if we are overlooking key issues. They have been involved in design, planning and implementation phases.
-
Procurement practices. We followed Australian National Audit Office best practices, particularly around probity and risk management aspects of the procurement.
-
Leadership. There has been a Change Program Steering Committee throughout, comprised of the four Commissioners. We report twice a month as to how we are going and to seek guidance or direction on any major strategic or design issues. This has been going for two and a half years and will continue through the life of the program.