The answer came from my previous experience at the California Department of Public Health. As chief deputy director, I helped lead the department through accreditation by the Public Health Accreditation Board. The process required us to look closely at how the department actually operated, identify gaps and make improvements. Accreditation wasn't just a determination that we met a standard; it gave the organization a framework for getting better.
I brought that experience to DGS and created an accreditation process for departments seeking higher levels of delegated purchasing authority. We looked at whether a department had the governance, people, processes and proven experience to manage that responsibility. Departments that demonstrated readiness received greater delegation. Those that were not kept their existing authority, with a clearer sense of what to improve.
The accreditation applied to the department's delegated purchasing authority, not to a single procurement. DGS's internal audit unit reviewed it roughly every three years to determine whether delegation should continue and where the department could improve.
That experience showed me the value of assessing an organization's ability to manage a type of work rather than restarting the approval process with every transaction. When a department repeatedly performs the same kind of work, it makes more sense to assess its ability to do that work well.
California should apply the same thinking to major IT modernization.
RETHINKING PROJECT APPROVAL
California created the Project Approval Lifecycle (PAL) to address a real problem. Major technology projects need clear objectives, realistic costs and schedules, and a credible plan before the state commits significant resources. Independent review remains important.
Over time, however, PAL became a lengthy process with projects spending years in planning and review while the systems they were meant to replace kept aging. The California State Payroll System is one example: According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, CDT approval took nearly nine years of planning and review.
California is now moving to the Project Delivery Lifecycle (PDL). I think that's the right direction. PDL recognizes that technology projects differ, and that an iterative approach helps when a department is building something new and needs to learn along the way. CDT's investment in PDL is a chance to improve how the state delivers technology, not just rebuild the old approval process under a new name.
One part of PDL deserves more attention. Business Readiness, the lifecycle's first phase, asks departments to establish the business need and prepare for the work ahead. That’s important, but California should take the concept further and make organizational readiness a more meaningful, durable part of the process.
MAKE READINESS AN ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITY
For a major modernization, a department needs more than a good project plan. It needs executives who understand their role as sponsors and project leaders with clear authority. It also needs a governance structure that can resolve issues before they become major problems. That's what I mean by organizational readiness: the ability to lead and sustain a complex modernization effort, from executive decision-making through implementation and continuous improvement.
PDL can provide the framework for assessing that readiness. The next step is recognizing that some of these capabilities belong to the department, not to any single project.
A department that has already shown it can govern and manage major IT projects shouldn't have to rebuild those same basic capabilities from scratch every time it proposes another modernization. Instead, California could create an accreditation process through which a department demonstrates its readiness for a defined class of IT projects.
Once accredited, that status could apply to similar projects for a set period, perhaps three years. Project-specific requirements and oversight would still apply; the state just wouldn't keep reassessing the same organizational fundamentals.
The accreditation should also give departments a reason to improve. A department not yet ready for greater responsibility keeps its existing authority, uses the assessment to identify weaknesses, and can seek accreditation again once it addresses them. A department that demonstrates readiness earns greater flexibility along with greater responsibility.
GIVE CDT MORE ROOM TO MANAGE RISK
This approach would also give CDT a stronger role, not a smaller one.
CDT would continue to set statewide standards and provide independent oversight of major projects. But its resources could shift from project approval to project oversight, focusing on implementation and engaging directly when a project starts to go off track.
The accreditation function would require CDT to understand how departments operate and maintain an ongoing view of their capabilities. That's a different kind of oversight than reviewing a project package, but it could ultimately show the state where its real risks lie.
It also marries responsibility with accountability. Departments that demonstrate they can handle greater authority get more latitude, and CDT measures them by the results they achieve.
That's the part of the DGS experience most relevant here. We spent less time reviewing individual procurements because we understood which departments were prepared to manage them, which let DGS concentrate its limited resources on the work that actually required statewide attention.
California has already taken an important step moving from PAL to PDL. The next step is to strengthen Business Readiness and make organizational readiness something departments can demonstrate, improve and ultimately earn, because the state's ability to modernize will depend on whether the departments doing the work are ready to lead it.
