1. Arizona Wyoming Idaho North Dakota

2. Vision:  Deliver excellent service to all our customers ‐ ensuring the best customer experience possible by replacing our legacy systems with a modern, integrated solution.

3. Goals:  Increase Efficiencies  Increase Customer Satisfaction  Achieve and Maintain Compliance with Performance Measures and Other Federal Requirements  Increase Trust Fund Integrity

4.  Unemployment insurance tax and benefit systems are complex ◦ 130 to 150 major processes ◦ Each requiring as many as 75 steps ◦ Large number of complex business rules

5.  The average overrun for a project with poorly defined requirements is 234 percent of budget and time while less than 70 percent of the required functionality is delivered to the business, according to the Business Analysis Benchmark, 2008. ◦ Seventy‐four percent of projects that fail, fail because of poorly specified requirements, according to Infotech Research. ◦ It is essential from a project management perspective to remove requirements risk from modernization efforts.

6.  Managing a large software development project demands substantial staff participation and expertise ◦ Some single states projects have struggled with this

7.  Money ◦ A new system is terribly expensive ◦ A consortium can share the costs

8.  Shared Leadership ◦ Success does not depend on one person  Greater Knowledge o AWIN harnesses the knowledge of over 100 experts o Pooling of Ideas in requirements process Better Product o It selects the best ideas or methods from the four states

9.  Flexible Architecture and Design ◦ AWIN's architecture and system design will be based on software best practices principles:  Open standards‐based  Flexible and extensible to include user re- configurability and promote ease of third‐party product substitution  Modular  Absent of any single points of dependency or single vendor lock‐in and portable to other states

10.  Significant amount of effort to detail a common system  Concurrent efforts in developing and reviewing Use Cases

11.  September 2009 and October 2009, ◦ SBR Monies Awarded  De-obligated contractor funds from three of four states to the lead state (Idaho). ◦ Steering Committee Meeting in Phoenix, AZ  UI Directors from each state  Lou Ansaldi from ITSC ◦ Who, What, When, Where, Why  Overview of states expectations  RFP processes and expectations

12.  November 2009 – April 2010 ◦ RFP Processes  Different state requirements ◦ RFP completed and issued ◦ Continue work on High Level functional area use cases ◦ Conduct Evaluation of Proposals  Vendor chosen – IAG  Staff from each state in Boise, ID for a week ◦ Steering Committee Meeting  Meet the vendor  Overview of next steps  Initial planning for future of project

13.  May 2010 – Mid-June ◦ Two weeks in Phoenix, AZ  SMEs  Vendor’s facilitator and documenter  Facilitated sessions  Use cases for tax and benefit processes  Benefits  Tax  Appeals  Accounting ◦ Establish 14-week Plan to develop Mid-Level Use Cases

14.  Mid-June – November ◦ Develop “Mid-Level” Use Cases through series of intense, in-person sessions held across the four states and Denver ◦ Concurrent Review and Approval Process ◦ Load into Rational IBM requirements tool ◦ Ensure relationships between Use Cases defined ◦ Add business rules  Then Detailed Use Cases

15.  The consortium is allowing four states to do what none could do alone  We expect a better product from it