California has long used the traditional “waterfall” method for IT projects: a project is completed in sequences before teams can move on to the next phase. But that has left California with a legacy of projects that have busted their budgets and taken years to complete, with technology and needs changing before anyone can use the end product.
In this new agile approach, projects are completed in smaller “sprints.” Teams are regularly turning out usable products, so those early iterations can be continually assessed and adjusted as needed. Endorsers of the approach promise projects that are completed much more rapidly, at a lower cost and with a final product that’s actually viable.
California is now in the procurement phase of its first effort to use the agile method with the Department of Social Services’ new child welfare system. Techwire spoke with John Boule, director of the Office of Systems Integration, about that high-profile project and his larger vision for how agile might help transform the way California does business. Read part one of this Q&A here.
Q: Are there any aspects of implementation where you’ve already started to see agile development make a difference?
We’re definitely still in the procurement phase. The first timeline we scheduled was the Dec. 21 release of our first two modules — one for intakes and one for an API module. We met that time frame, and we are now coming up on deadlines for vendors to submit their intent to bid. Our vendor forums were very well attended, and people are very interested. But we want to see how many people are really going to attempt a bid. We’re moving toward a May contract award. When we look at procurements, that’s a very rapid procurement cycle.
I think one key difference is that people know that there will probably be some mistakes coming; there will be a bumpy road. It’s a key premise of agile that you’re going in and you have a limited scope and you’re going deep through the process. And as you find issues, it allows you to iterate, to make improvements and to do adjustments
very quickly so that you apply lessons learned and you get better over time.
[Read part one of this Q&A with John Boule here.]
Q: Does it take some of the pressure off because agile is pitched as being able to make corrections, as opposed to, “We work on something for years and then we have this one project that better deliver in that moment?
I think there is a lot of pressure. This is new. There are knowledge gaps that we have to fill, and we will have requests for offers that are out on the street for agile development coaches, designers, research and design support. Our staff is excited about it, and they feel very empowered. They want to do these things, but it’s new. They’re learning. So by no means do I think the pressure is off. There’s accountability, there’s excitement, and we know that we need to step up to our role to work with multiple vendors to bring this system to fruition.
Q: What is the bigger picture of what this move to agile means for the vendors who work with the state?
We expect our vendors to be agile-proficient and provide a user-centric design that looks at the end users. For our vendors who have always done business with the state, they have to look at this as a substantially different model. We’re also asking vendors who haven’t done business with the state to take a second look at us. Maybe this is an environment that they’re well suited for now. So hopefully there will be a broader vendor community looking at these RFPs, especially with them being smaller modules. We think the risk profiles of those modules are something that will attract multiple vendors and bring an environment of competition as we go forward.
Q: Have you started to see that type of reaction so far in the meetings and things that you’ve had on this topic?
Absolutely. I’ve been involved in vendor forums across my career and I’ve never seen as many people show up to one as we had for the new child welfare system. We had over 100 people in the room, over 100 on the phone and over 200 participants on a WebEx call. That tells me that the vendors who have done business with the state for a long time are very interested in seeing what we want to achieve so they can be agile themselves. And I think we’ve also drummed up the interest of some people who have never done business with the state before.
Q: Through those forums or interactions, whether it’s with vendors or staff, are there any common questions, misperceptions or concerns about this transformation?
Anytime an entity tries something new, there are the more cautious comments to balance the excitement. We’re getting feedback from various perspectives, and we see those as very constructive and healthy. We welcome them. Historically, sometimes it’s been very requirements-focused. We want to make sure we meet requirements, but also that technology meets the needs of those end users who work to protect very vulnerable kids.
We’re going to make mistakes, and we’re going to go forward and make adjustments. We’re establishing an environment to do that. So when you have an environment that acknowledges that there’s going to be bumps in the road and that we’re going to make adjustments, it also leads to innovation and creativity to meet your goals and objectives.
This Q&A appears in the spring 2016 issue of Techwire magazine. Read part one of this article here.
