Selecting an Implementation Team

BUDGET

Evaluation and comparison of the impact on existing work and/or other district initiatives.

• Internal Team – If no additional staff are added, existing personnel may be challenged in performing this work in addition to their current work.
• External Team (Support) – May have limited or no impact on other work done by internal staff, as the vendor represents a staff augmentation.

Reflection: 

Are there existing priorities in the district that might suffer due to increased responsibilities for internal staff? How might those priorities be affected even with the addition of external staff?

OPPORTUNITY COST

Evaluation and comparison of the impact on existing work and/or other district initiatives.

• Internal Team – If no additional staff are added, existing personnel may be challenged in performing this work in addition to their current work.
• External Team (Support) – May have limited or no impact on other work done by internal staff, as the vendor represents a staff augmentation.

Reflection: 

Are there existing priorities in the district that might suffer due to increased responsibilities for internal staff? How might those priorities be affected even with the addition of external staff?

TIMELINE

Evaluation and comparison of the projected impact on timing for implementation of each option provided.

• Internal Team – Generally, internal teams will take longer to complete the project, due to competing priorities as well as some amount of first-time discovery time required for each step of the process.
• External Team (Support) – May quicken implementation timeline due to dedicated project team resources and proven methods, supporting utilities, and fewer unknowns.

Reflection: 

Does the project timeline allow for internal personnel to be trained or hired, or does an accelerated timeline require an implementation vendor? 

EXPERIENCE

Evaluation and comparison of the experience each option’s teams bring to the table.

• Internal Team – Unlikely to have done a project like this before, but despite a potential steep learning curve, the experience and knowledge will remain in-house.
• External Team (Support) – Vendor can bring lessons learned and best practices from many similar projects and can provide knowledge transfer to pass on lessons to internal staff.

Reflection: 

Compare the experience deficits that each option may provide. For instance, which of these might present a larger deficit in experience:

• an internal team that has not executed on a project like this but has a wealth of experience in your district’s business rules and data; or
• an experienced vendor team that has many implementations of this kind under their belt but will need ramp up time to learn the nuances of your district data and systems?

CAPABILITY

Evaluation and comparison of the necessary skill sets for each option’s teams.

• Internal Team – May not have the skill mix required for a successful implementation.
• External Team (Support) – Able to select a vendor with the skill mix required.

Reflection: 

Do internal skill sets cover all facets of the project? If not:

• Are there only some areas that might need support?
• Is there a need across the board for outside help? 

TEAM DYNAMICS

 Evaluation and comparison of the potential risk and/or reward team dynamics might introduce in this type of project.

• Internal Team – Existing internal team dynamics are unlikely to change for this project, so any interpersonal friction becomes a risk to success, but existing trust will be valuable.
• External Team (Support) – Vendor is contractually obligated to deliver successfully, and generally you do not need to concern yourself with the team dynamics of the vendor’s project team. However, there is the potential for some pre-existing distrust of vendors in some agencies.

Reflection: 

Do past experiences with vendors contribute to a climate of distrust or difficulty co-existing with an external team, which might complicate the smooth execution of an interoperability project? Do past positive experiences and/or current internal dynamics make external staffing or support an attractive option?

IMPLEMENTATION EFFORT LEVEL

Evaluation and comparison of the level of effort during the implementation phase of the project. The implementation phase is all the work required to take the project through to launch. 

• Internal Team – A sharp increase in team capacity is required for implementation, after which capacity required drops significantly. This can be difficult to manage with a static internal team size.
• External Team (Support) – Vendor can provide additional capacity during the implementation phase.

Reflection: 

Is your district able to dedicate the ramped-up staffing necessary during the implementation phase? Might the fact that necessary staffing levels typically reduce after deploying your solution create a complication if you’ve staffed full-time employees to this project? 

ONGOING OPERATIONS EFFORT LEVEL

Evaluation and comparison of the level of effort required to maintain ongoing operations and/or systems after the implementation.

• Internal Team – A lower level of capacity (perhaps 10% of implementation capacity) is required for ongoing operations. This can be achieved by adding responsibilities to existing staff’s workloads or minimal hiring.
• External Team (Support) – Vendor can provide ongoing support as needed or with a defined, annual support contract.

Reflection: 

Consider your district’s post-implementation staffing needs. Do you have staff that worked on the project closely enough to continue maintaining operations, or will you need to secure some training or additional staffing to support the work?

VENDOR LOCK-IN

Evaluation and comparison of the potential levels of vendor lock-in for each option. Vendor lock-in is the extent to which the district is either contractually obligated or left with no other practical option than to use a vendor’s tools, support, or processes.

• Internal Team – Using an internal team for implementation and ongoing operation avoids vendor lock-in.
• External Team (Support) – Using a vendor for implementation does not necessarily create vendor lock-in, as the implementation activities are one-time. However, without effective knowledge transfer, only the vendor will know how to operate the solution post-implementation.

Reflection: 

If you contract with a vendor, have you made sure to include discussions with them on data and resource access and ownership, knowledge transfer, and training to help avoid vendor lock-in? If you staff internally, do you have a plan to create and maintain adequate documentation to avoid knowledge loss through staff attrition?

RECOURSE

Evaluation and comparison of the recourse each option provides should the implementation fail.

• Internal Team – If the team fails, there is limited recourse.
• External Team (Support) – If the vendor fails, recourse options are available in the contract, including options such as: termination of contract, refunding for unsatisfactory work, or triggering of a performance bond.

Reflection: 

Have you considered alternative solutions that might be created or leveraged from the project should it not be completed successfully?