Build vs. Buy WSATA Panel Discussion Brian Ridderbush, Senior Manager

Questions Assigned (Agenda)  Vendor Understanding of Agency Requirements  System Capacity and Expandability Some Research for Presentation Large Research and Consulting Organization (2) CIO’s from Largest Tax Agencies in the U.S. 30+ Years as Vendor, Project Manager, Director

Question #1 Vendor Understanding of Agency Requirements Starts with a good RFP; be detailed and ask for everything you need Work with a Partner that understands your business Demand Project Managers and Subject Matter Experts, BA’s, etc. that have Tax Experience Concept of a “Tax Binder” Every form, report, agency policy and statute Working set of business rules brought to engagement reflective of the requirements in RFP, Contract and Tax Binder Iterative Approach to Validating Requirements, Functionality and Testing

Questions Vendor Understanding of Agency Requirements Implementation Methodology

Question #2 System Capacity and Expandability Scalability is provide by fact vendor is developing for all size agencies “Scale up” is available today by hardware, N-Tier architecture Design, Code and Tools still need to be engineered to scale Performance Test and Benchmark

Question #2 System Capacity and Expandability Rule Management Systems Centralizes an agency’s business rules Flattens rule development process Enables collaboration between users, analysts and technical personnel Empowers changes not previously envisioned Does not carry forward undesired business logic Allows choices in rule construction – table, decision tree, … Speeds deployment Simplifies testing Provides for simulation

Large Research and Consulting Firm Perspectives Encourages Planning and Visioning as a Guiding Principle Submits that “Plan and Vision will Dictate the Approach” “Its about a trajectory and target goal. I want to be healthy and in shape. What does that mean? Exercise 4 times a week? Eat better? How am I going to check on my progress? It’s the same for any business. Vision Expected Outcomes Am I really ready to do it? Its’ pervasive How ready am I to do this? Can I manage it? Am I ready? Organization Readiness, for example, Do I Have a PMO? Where am I going and how do I know when I’m there? Custom Software = equals a lot more details, a lot of control, and staff may or may not be able Business of government is not often skilled to do software development

Large State Tax Department CIO’s Perspectives Best thing about COTS is it brings to an agency Best Practices; built around knowledge from vendors built and installed in multiple jurisdictions Problem with Custom is “paving the cow path” over and over; build up bad practices over time Vendor who has built the system (hopefully) is engaged on your project and advising you on the way to do things Custom – all you get is a suite of software, a lot of ‘crap’ and having to play system integrator and make it work! Quicker start up time with COTS, flexibility to change it, and iteritiveness (Agile-like) with some systems; changes up to last minute Usually get a partner that really knows your business; how its done in multiple jurisdictions Quicker implementation; COTS is more politically attractive; less risk; and less Tremendous amount of resources that an agency simply can’t get any more

Large State Tax Department CIO’s Perspectives (cont’d) Starts with requirements and functional application analysis What is the volume of what we’re looking at? Scope? Functionality? Is what I want to do unique? Can something existing be adapted, such as HR? Agency uses HR system from Cornerstone, benefits of large user base and features, functions of many and get what others do Tax systems very unique and limited vendors; this agency changes systems every year To build software is “very expensive” and often does not achieve full vision Fortunate to have large and talented staff; not the norm in most any other state revenue agencies Agency follows a very prescriptive requirements approach, industry methodologies, very much by the book, even with use of COTS Emphasis on performance evaluation