Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Erp Workday topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State ERP (Workday) procurement and scope raise cost and integration concerns, JFO consultant says
Summary
Lisa Goggan told the committee that Vermont's enterprise resource planning (ERP) project using Workday and an implementation vendor carries unresolved gaps and the potential for substantially higher costs, because the state has not completed a gap analysis to confirm Workday can replace legacy systems STARS and FARS.
Lisa Goggan, JFO contracted IT consultant, told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee that the state's enterprise resource planning (ERP) initiative using Workday merits increased legislative oversight because the state has not yet completed a gap analysis between Workday and the legacy systems it must replace.
Goggan said the project currently identifies roughly $71,000,000 of cost so far, but she warned that the state has not analyzed whether Workday can fully replace legacy systems called STARS and FARS; those systems, she said, could each cost $25 million to $30 million to replace if tackled individually.
"So does that mean we're talking about a plus or minus another, you know, 50,000,000, 60 million? I don't know," Goggan said, explaining the lack of a gap analysis leaves significant unanswered cost questions.
The consultant also described contractual constraints. The state acquired Workday services through a NASPO cooperative contract and selected Guidehouse as the implementation vendor. Goggan said the contract is highly "boxed," with specific allocations for legacy-data loading attempts, staffing assumptions and other items; each overrun may trigger change orders that increase cost.
Goggan said the boxed contract protections favor the vendor in some areas and that the state's preparedness to implement an ERP at this scale is a core risk. She recommended stepped-up oversight, additional documentation of gaps and careful attention to legacy-data migration paths.
No formal action was taken; committee members discussed calling implementation stakeholders and independent reviewers to testify at future hearings.
