Schedule IV-B Feasibility Study - Florida Department of ... · PDF fileSchedule IV-B...

State of Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation Unemployment Compensation Services Schedule IV-B Feasibility Study Unemployment Compensation Modernization

Author: The North Highland Team Vendor: The North Highland Company Version: 2.2 Creation Date: 10/21/2008 Last Accessed: 2/3/2009 12:13 PM File Name: 20090121 - AWI - Schedule IVB Feasibility Study

for the Unemployment Compensation System v2.2.doc

Agency for Workforce Innovation

Schedule IV-B Feasibility Study

2/3/2009 of 266 Version: Final UC Modernization Project

DOCUMENT CONTROL Change Record Date Author Version Change Reference 10/19/2008 Cara North 0.01 Shell Created 10/20/2008 Cara North 0.02 Project Management section updated 10/21/2008 Cara North 0.03 Risk Assessment section restructured 10/24/2008 Cara North 0.04 Risk Management section restructured 10/28/2008 Cara North 0.05 Baseline Analysis section modified 11/07/2008 Cara North 0.06 Executive Summary section modified 11/12/2008 Cara North 0.07 Completed review and update of Risk

Management, OCM, Project Communication, Project Oversight, and Quality Control sections

11/14/2008 Cara North 0.08 Added project schedule and WBS 11/17/2008 Cara North 0.08 Populated Baseline Analysis section 11/18/2008 Cara North 0.09 Business requirements section updated 11/19/2008 Cara North 0.10 Business requirements section updated 11/20/2008 Cara North 0.11 Business requirements section updated 12/01/2008 Cara North 0.13 Baseline analysis completed 12/04/2008 Cara North 0.14 Project Budget language added and required

TRW worksheet imbedded 12/08/2008 Andy Loveland 0.15 Added Executive Summary, Cost Benefit, and

Tech Planning Sections 12/16/2008 Cara North 0.16 Incorporated client comments as received as

of 12/16/2008. 12/22/2008 Andy Loveland 0.20 Incorporated client comments. 12/30/2008 Andy Loveland 1.0 Finalized updates and submitted document. 01/14/2009 Andy Loveland 2.1 Final 01/21/2009 Andy Loveland 2.2 Formatting - Final




Contributors List Name Affiliation Tom Clendenning UC Program Director Janice Connell UC Subject Matter Expert Jon Corder UC Subject Matter Expert Sandy Durant UC Subject Matter Expert Gail Griffin-Hall UC Subject Matter Expert David Hagen UC Subject Matter Expert Denise Haney UC Subject Matter Expert Daniel P. Johnson AWI Information Technology Planning Dorothy Johnson UC Subject Matter Expert Mary Johnson UC Subject Matter Expert Geir Kjellevold North Highland Ron McCranie UC Subject Matter Expert Andy Loveland North Highland Cara North North Highland Nancy Osborn UC Subject Matter Expert Dianne Parcell UC Subject Matter Expert Brian Peacock North Highland Pat Pitts UC Subject Matter Expert Jerry Reeves UC Subject Matter Expert Altemese Smith UC Subject Matter Expert Scott Stewart AWI CIO Audra Wiggins UC Subject Matter Expert Approval Sign-off Name Role Signature Date Scott Stewart Chief Information Officer Tom Clendenning Program Director




TABLE OF CONTENTS DOCUMENT CONTROL ........................................................................................................................... 2

1 COVERSHEET & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................10

1.1 COVERSHEET ................................................................................................................................10

1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................11

1.2.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................11 1.2.2 Cost and Benefits of new UC system ....................................................................................12 1.2.3 Risk of Failure ......................................................................................................................13 1.2.4 Getting Floridians Back to Work ..........................................................................................13 1.2.5 Additional Challenges ..........................................................................................................14 1.2.6 Recommendation ..................................................................................................................16 1.2.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................22

2 SCHEDULE IV-B BUSINESS CASE ...................................................................................................23

2.1 BACKGROUND AND STRATEGIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT ...................................................................23

2.1.1 Agency Programs and Services Environment .......................................................................23 2.1.2 Stakeholders and Users of UC Programs, Services and Business Processes .......................28 2.1.3 Statement of Need .................................................................................................................30 2.1.4 Mission Critical Application at End of Life ..........................................................................31 2.1.5 Business Process Issues and Opportunities ..........................................................................33 2.1.6 UC Program Business Objectives ........................................................................................36

2.2 BASELINE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................40

2.2.1 Guide to the Business Process Descriptions in this Section .................................................40 2.2.2 Current Business Process Requirements ..............................................................................40 2.2.3 Claims Intake Process – Interactive Voice Response (IVR) .................................................41 2.2.4 Claims Intake – Florida Unemployment Internet Direct (FLUID).......................................52 2.2.5 Adjudication .........................................................................................................................56 2.2.6 Customer Information Center ...............................................................................................63 2.2.7 Reengineering .......................................................................................................................68 2.2.8 Wage Determination .............................................................................................................74 2.2.9 Special Payments ..................................................................................................................79 2.2.10 Employer Charges Unit ........................................................................................................84 2.2.11 Benefit Payment Control (BPC) ...........................................................................................89 2.2.12 Appeals ...............................................................................................................................101 2.2.13 Quality Improvement and Federal Reporting .....................................................................112 2.2.14 Assumptions and Constraints .............................................................................................117

2.3 PROPOSED BUSINESS PROCESS REQUIREMENTS .........................................................................119

2.3.1 Process Specific Business Requirements ............................................................................119 2.3.2 Proposed Business Process Improvements .........................................................................131 2.3.3 Business Process Participants ............................................................................................135 2.3.4 Performance Measures .......................................................................................................135 2.3.5 Business Solution Alternatives............................................................................................136 2.3.6 Rationale for Selection .......................................................................................................137 2.3.7 Recommended Business Solution ........................................................................................139




3 SCHEDULE IV-B COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS .............................................................................144

3.1 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................144

3.2 SUMMARY OF THE UC OPERATING ENVIRONMENT .....................................................144

3.2.1 Conditions That Have Created the Need for the Proposed UC Modernization Project .....145

3.3 UC MODERNIZATION PROJECT TIMELINE .......................................................................146

3.4 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS DETAILS ..................................................................................146

3.4.1 UC Modernization Project Benefits Summary....................................................................146 3.4.2 UC Modernization Project Feasibility Study .....................................................................147 3.4.3 UC Modernization Benefits Realization Strategy ...............................................................150 3.4.4 Benefits Realization Table ..................................................................................................152 3.4.5 Nature of the Tangible Benefits ..........................................................................................162 3.4.6 Tangible Changes in Operating Cost .................................................................................162 3.4.7 Expanded Return on Investment Analysis ...........................................................................169

3.5 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS RESULTS .................................................................................170

4 RISK ASSESSMENT ...........................................................................................................................173

4.1 RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL ............................................................................................................173

4.2 RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ....................................................................................................174

5 TECHNOLOGY PLANNING COMPONENT .................................................................................176

5.1 CURRENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENT .............................................................176

5.1.1 Current System Description Overview ...............................................................................177 5.1.2 Strategic Information Technology Direction ......................................................................184 5.1.3 Information Technology Standards ....................................................................................185

5.2 PROPOSED SOLUTION DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................186

5.3 CAPACITY PLANNING .................................................................................................................186

5.4 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES .....................................................................................................187

5.4.1 Assessment Process ............................................................................................................189 5.4.2 Scoring Results for the Three Alternatives (General) ........................................................196 5.4.3 Scoring Results Explained ..................................................................................................197 5.4.4 Technology Recommendation .............................................................................................201

6 PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLANNING COMPONENT .............................................................202

6.1 PROJECT CHARTER .....................................................................................................................202

6.2 WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE ...............................................................................................218

6.3 RESOURCE LOADED PROJECT SCHEDULE ...................................................................................220

6.4 PROJECT BUDGET .......................................................................................................................220

6.5 PROJECT ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................221

6.6 PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL ......................................................................................................228

6.7 EXTERNAL PROJECT OVERSIGHT ................................................................................................229

6.8 RISK MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................229

6.8.1 Mitigation Strategies ..........................................................................................................230 6.8.2 Risk Management Plan .......................................................................................................230 6.8.3 Project Risk and Mitigation Table ......................................................................................232

6.9 ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT ...............................................................................240




6.10 PROJECT COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................................240

6.11 SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................242

7 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................243

7.1 APPENDIX A - HIGH-LEVEL BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS ..............................................................243

7.2 APPENDIX B - HIGH-LEVEL TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................255

7.3 APPENDIX C – CBA FORMS ........................................................................................................257

7.4 APPENDIX D – COST EXPERT ESTIMATION SUMMARY REPORT ..................................................266




LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Schedule IV-B Cover Sheet and Agency Project Approval .................................................10 Table 1-2 UC system benefits ....................................................................................................................12 Table 1-3 Phase 2 Activities .......................................................................................................................19 Table 1-4 Phase 3 Activities .......................................................................................................................19 Table 1-5 UC Modernization Project Cost by Fiscal Year .....................................................................20 Table 2-1 UC Modernization Project Stakeholders ................................................................................28 Table 2-2 Claim Intake Process – IVR – Activity Detail.........................................................................51 Table 2-3 Claim Intake Process - FLUID Application – Activity Detail ..............................................55 Table 2-4 Adjudication Process – Activity Detail ...................................................................................62 Table 2-5 Customer Information Center Process - Activity Detail ......................................................67 Table 2-6 Reengineering Process Activity Detail ...................................................................................73 Table 2-7 Wage Determination - Activity Detail ....................................................................................78 Table 2-8 Special Payments - Activity Detail ..........................................................................................83 Table 2-9 Employer Charges Unit - Activity Detail ...............................................................................88 Table 2-10 Benefit Payment Control - Activity Detail .........................................................................100 Table 2-11 Appeals Process .....................................................................................................................111 Table 2-12 Quality Improvement and Federal Reporting ...................................................................116 Table 2-13 Claims Intake Process Improvements .................................................................................132 Table 2-14 Adjudication and Appeals Process Improvements ...........................................................132 Table 2-15 Control and Reporting Process Improvements .................................................................133 Table 2-16 Infrastructure Improvements ...............................................................................................134 Table 2-17 Business Process Participants ...............................................................................................135 Table 2-18 Proposed Improvements with Supporting Alternative(s) ...............................................139 Table 3-1 Current System Deficiencies and Associated Business Impacts .......................................146 Table 3-2 Benefit Drivers for the UC Modernization Project ..............................................................148 Table 3-3 Estimated Value of Benefits Used to Justify Investment in UC Modernization .............149 Table 3-4 UC Modernization Project Cost by Fiscal Year ...................................................................171 Table 5-1 Current System Performance .................................................................................................184 Table 5-2 Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................................................194 Table 5-3 Weighting Criteria ..................................................................................................................195 Table 5-4 Scoring Criteria .......................................................................................................................196 Table 5-5 Alternative Scoring Results Summary .................................................................................196 Table 5-6 Alternative 1 Scoring Results ................................................................................................198 Table 5-7 Alternative 2 Scoring Results ................................................................................................199 Table 5-8 Alternative 3 Scoring Results ................................................................................................200 Table 6-1 Phase 2 Activities ....................................................................................................................206 Table 6-2 Phase 3 Activities ....................................................................................................................206 Table 6-3 Project Deliverables ................................................................................................................210 Table 6-4 Project Milestones and Go/No-Go Decision Points ..........................................................211 Table 6-5 Stakeholders Affected by the UC Modernization project .................................................213 Table 6-6 Project Organization Members - Roles & Descriptions .....................................................227 Table 6-7 Quality Standards by Project Area .......................................................................................228 Table 6-8 Project Risk Checkpoints ........................................................................................................231 Table 6-9 Risk and Mitigation Table ......................................................................................................239




Table 7-1 High-Level Business Requirements ......................................................................................254 Table 7-2 High-Level Technical Requirements .....................................................................................256




LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 National Status of UI Benefits Modernization .....................................................................16 Figure 1-2 Proposed Project Phases .........................................................................................................18 Figure 1-3 Proposed Project Timeline .....................................................................................................18 Figure 1-4 Cumulative Discounted Cash Flow.......................................................................................21 Figure 2-1 UC Organization and Reporting Structure .........................................................................25 Figure 2-2 National Status of UI Benefits Modernization .....................................................................31 Figure 2-3 Department Goals and Strategic Objectives .........................................................................37 Figure 2-4 Claims Intake Process - IVR ...................................................................................................41 Figure 2-5 Adjudication Process ...............................................................................................................57 Figure 2-6 Customer Call Center Process ................................................................................................63 Figure 2-7 Wage Determination Process .................................................................................................74 Figure 2-8 Special Payments Process .......................................................................................................79 Figure 2-9 Employer Charges Unit Process ............................................................................................84 Figure 2-10 Appeals Process ...................................................................................................................102 Figure 2-11 Special Deputy Process .......................................................................................................103 Figure 2-12 Quality Improvement and Federal Reporting Process ...................................................112 Figure 2-13 Conceptual UC Business Model ........................................................................................140 Figure 1-1 UC Modernization Project Timeline....................................................................................146 Figure 1-2 UC Modernization Benefits Realization Timeline .............................................................149 Figure 1-3 UC Benefits Realization Management ................................................................................150 Figure 1-4 Estimated UC Modernization Project Costs .......................................................................163 Figure 1-5 Cumulative Discounted Cash Flow.....................................................................................172 Figure 4-1 Project Risk Assessment Summary .....................................................................................174 Figure 4-2 Project Risk Assessment Summary Table ...........................................................................175 Figure 5-1 High Level Architecture........................................................................................................179 Figure 5-2 IVR & TeleClaims...................................................................................................................182 Figure 6-1 UC Modernization Project Phases .......................................................................................203 Figure 6-2 Proposed Project Timeline ...................................................................................................205 Figure 6-3 Proposed Change Request Process ......................................................................................217 Figure 6-4 High-Level Work Breakdown Structure ............................................................................219 Figure 6-5 Proposed Project Organization ...........................................................................................222




1 COVERSHEET & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 COVERSHEET

INSERT COPY OF SIGNED COVERSHEET Table 1-1 Schedule IV-B Cover Sheet and Agency Project Approval




1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.2.1 Introduction The Agency of Workforce Innovation (AWI) impacts the lives of Florida’s citizens at a moment when their needs are greatest. AWI operates a $2.2 billion dollar Unemployment Compensation (UC) program that is responsible for processing the unemployment applications of approximately 900,000 individuals and making payments to 500,000 individuals. The unemployed citizens of Florida use these payments to provide the bare necessities for their families, while they look for new employment. Over the years, AWI has developed numerous processes and software applications to meet the requirements of the UC program, but relies heavily on legacy technology centered on the Claims and Benefits mainframe system. The system has served the agency well since its inception in 1972, but is based on antiquated technologies that are inherently rigid and difficult to maintain. It was designed for use in a prior service delivery model when UC was handled face-to-face with the claimant. The system can no longer meet the challenges facing the agency, including: • Unemployment claim volumes that have more than doubled in the past 3 years • Ever increasing risk of infrastructure failure • Limited integration with workforce activities that support getting back to work. • Lack of customer self service options and costly, inefficient manual processes

hinder timely resolution of disputed claim payments resulting in higher employer tax rates

Due to the technological limitations of the UC system, AWI has had no choice but to design new business processes around the capabilities of the current system. This has resulted in more time and resources spent on activities that should be automated, like claims intake, instead of activities that can help get claimants back to work sooner and shorten the duration of their claims. As demands on the UC program continue to grow the current system will continue to exacerbate these problems. The analysis conducted during this feasibility study determined that a new system would increase operating efficiencies and reduce operating costs. It will also allow AWI staff to focus on delivery of UC program services and getting unemployed folks back to work, ultimately reaping a benefit of $43.1 million in savings each year.




1.2.2 Cost and Benefits of new UC system

The UC Modernization target benefits described in this analysis will be the result of replacing out-dated, inefficient technology in combination with improvements in UC business processes supported by the system and enhanced integration with and support of re-employment activities. The tangible benefits are a mix of operating cost savings and reduced UC Trust Fund disbursements. The operating costs savings result from system efficiency gains and business process improvements; the reduced trust fund disbursements come from two sources: (1) better integration with and strengthened emphasis on re-employment activities that lead to faster and better employment outcomes for claimants and (2) a shift from low-value, high-volume processing tasks to high-value tasks that resolve issues and prevent overpayments from the UC Trust Fund. The new UC system is estimated to deliver the following annually recurring tangible benefits: $ Amount Benefit Description

$6.2 Million Cost savings from reduced call volume, fewer non-monetary determinations and a reduced number of appeals if the new system creates efficiency gains similar to what other states have experienced (15%).

$4.8 Million Reduced benefit overpayments if the new system facilitates the rate of improvement in overpayment reduction experienced by Ohio following the introduction of their new benefits system.

$0.9 Million Additional interest revenue due to reduced UC Trust Fund disbursements if the new system creates the projected efficiencies and improvements observed elsewhere.

$9.0 Million Reduced UC Trust Fund disbursements if the system facilitates faster re-employment for claimants based on better Workforce integration and an emphasis on re-employment activities such as claimant profiling.

$12.3 Million Reduced UC Trust Fund disbursements if the system facilitates resource re-allocation away from low value, high volume processing tasks to high value administrative tasks such as eligibility reviews that can contribute to shortened claim length.

$0.8 Million Benefits from increased use of electronic correspondence.

$9.0 Million Reduced UC Trust Fund disbursements if the system facilitates automation of low value, high volume processing tasks to high value tasks such as processing JVA claims that are on the PIT list awaiting a non-monetary determination to be made.

$43.1 Million Total Table 1-2 UC system benefits

Replacement of the legacy UC system with a modernized system is estimated to deliver $43.1 million per year in recurring tangible benefits.




1.2.3 Risk of Failure

Although the benefits derived from a new system provide sound justification on their own for replacing the current UC system, consideration must also be given to risk of failure facing the current system. The UC system is integral in the payment of unemployment claims, and the impact of a UC system failure would be catastrophic to the citizens of Florida who are dependent on the unemployment payments they receive to provide their most basic needs. The failure of the UC system would also have a detrimental affect on state agencies that rely on data from the system in the performance of their public duties potentially impacting the funds made available to the state from the federal government. This would include Public Assistance Fraud in the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Economic Services in the Department of Children and Family Services, and Child Support Enforcement in the Department of Revenue. How long can the legacy UC system last before it fails? While predicting exactly when the system will fail is not possible, the system has been showing signs of stress for some time. The increase in claim volumes has made it evident that the system can no longer keep pace with the needs of the UC program. The workloads experienced in 2008 stressed the system to the point that AWI contracted with IBM in order to improve system performance. System response times had gotten so bad that the staff conservatively estimated 30-45% of their day was spent waiting for the system to respond. Many customers were unable to access on the online claims application during peak hours and many had to call the phone claim system multiple times before they were able to secure an open line. While IBM was on site working on the UC system performance issues, they documented a list of recommendations as well as concerns and risks with the UC system and summarized: “In total, these business, technical and organizational risks and concerns hamper AWI’s ability to provide UC services as efficiently, as effectively, and as responsively as it otherwise would be. While IBM can recommend fixes to these problems, these are only short-term fixes that can aid in keeping the UC system running in the short-term.” 1.2.4 Getting Floridians Back to Work

Although the payments provided by the UC program are crucial to the claimants, more important is the prospect of getting back to work. The average benefit paid is $236.12 a

AWI continues to invest considerable time and money on short term fixes but these will not improve the long term health of the legacy UC system.

Shortening the duration of claims will have a immediate positive effect on trust fund levels which will allow the state to keep the employer tax rate in check.




week while the median weekly wage in Florida is currently $576.1 The financial benefit for the claimant to get back to work is obvious, but it is also in the best interest of the employers and taxpayers of Florida for every claimant to get back to work as soon as possible as it ultimately results in a reduction in unemployment taxes. The average claimant receives 15.2 weeks of benefit payments. If the state of Florida could get every claimant back to work one week sooner the resulting annual savings would be between $110 million and $150 million. The AWI UC Program is aware of the financial impacts and is focused on helping claimants get back to work sooner through tighter integration with the AWI Workforce Program. The current UC system is a roadblock to these efforts. Due to the siloed nature of the applications that support the UC program, it is not possible to provide all of the vital data that the Workforce program needs to effectively profile and match the claimants for effective services. Studies show that effective profiling combined with targeted workforce services can reduce the average length of an unemployment claim by as much as 2.2 weeks and increase subsequent earnings by over $1,050.2 1.2.5 Additional Challenges

The current system requires UC staff to spend too much time on activities that could be automated. The UC staff must access as many as 16 applications that comprise the UC system to complete their jobs. In addition the inflexibility in the legacy system requires that staff resort to manual work-arounds to get the job done. A new system could be developed to support automated activities such as no-touch internet claims which would free up staff to spend more time on activities like eligibility reviews and other value add activities. Studies have proven that active and effective administration of a UC program can reduce claim durations and is one key to maintaining a viable trust fund, thereby keeping tax rates at favorable levels for employers. 3 The age of the UC system impedes its’ ability to easily adapt business processes to reflect changing circumstances, such as changes in law or program policy. The laws and policies governing UC change, such as the recent addition of extended benefits. As a result of age, rigid design, and lack of documentation, AWI’s thirty-five year-old legacy system is too inflexible, too fragile, and too expensive to incorporate these changes easily. A modern maintenance design methodology utilizing componentization, modularization, and segregation of code by process and business function would make such changes possible with little effort. In the current environment, each new change 1Florida AWI Labor Market Statistics, http://www.floridawages.com/navtree.php, November 2008 2American Economic Review, “ Is the Threat of Reemployment Services More Effective Than the Services Themselves? Evidence from Random Assignment in the UI System”, September 2003 3 Urban Institute, “Low Benefit Recipiency in State Unemployment Insurance Programs”, June 2001

AWI’s experienced staff struggles to complete their workload due to the poor performance of the system. This problem will only be magnified in coming years as large numbers of skilled staff members approach retirement.




merely adds to the complexity of the business processes staff must master and the fragility of the supporting application. It costs too much to do business. While AWI is taking steps to reduce transaction costs with more self service and web-based claims filing, AWI will be better served with a comprehensive solution that applies Business Process Reengineering and modern technology to automate routine tasks (virtually eliminating paper-based processes) focuses talented workers on tasks that add value to customers, and reduces the cost of every transaction. AWI will soon face a knowledge progression crisis as large numbers of skilled staff members approach retirement. UC is a tremendously complicated business requiring skilled workers who understand its complexities and nuances. Like most UC agencies nationwide, AWI faces a potential crisis as its most experienced staff approach retirement age. Because the institutional knowledge for UC has always resided in its people and not its systems, as staff retire there is no systematic way to pass their knowledge and wisdom to the remaining workers. Developing a UC application that automates routine tasks and supports staff with the tools they need to do their jobs increases AWI’s ability to reduce the impact of any knowledge progression crisis.

1.2.5.1 Principal Conclusions The following are the principal conclusions of the UC Modernization project cost-benefits analysis:

1. The proposed UC modernization project will effectively support the UC program for years to come. The stakes are high as the resources impacted include over $55 million a year in operating costs and upwards of $2 billion a year in benefit payments ($1.4 billion in FY 2007-08 and growing at a staggering rate (YTD) in FY 2008-09).

2. The proposed UC modernization project will require an investment of $2 million during FY 2009-10 for requirements development.

3. The proposed UC modernization project will require an investment of $26.8 million during FY 2010-11 for analysis, design and initial development work.

4. An investment of $26.5 million will be made during FY 2011-12 to complete development of the new UC system.

5. Functional testing, system testing and user acceptance testing will be conducted during the first six months of FY 2012-13 at a cost of $12.9 million.

6. The $68.25 million total investment for UC Modernization comes to less than 1.0% of the cost of UC operations (including benefits payments) over the same time period.

7. A UC modernization is critical at this juncture given that the current application and architecture are well past the end of their useful life. Their shortcomings threaten AWI UC’s ability to efficiently manage the ever growing UC claims




process. The result is that the UC Trust Fund is experiencing charges that could be avoided and that reduce the fund balance subjecting Florida’s employers to potential unemployment tax rate increases.

8. The UC modernization project can provide the UC program with the tools to operate more efficiently. But this is not the most compelling benefit – the ability to better manage the enormous pool of unemployment tax revenues paid by employers is the what makes implementing this new system a must. The annual benefit in the form of reduced UC Trust Fund dollars will help provide the type of long-term stability to Florida’s UC program that benefits all Floridians – both claimants and employers.

1.2.6 Recommendation The service life of the UC system has been extended through clever programming and a substantial commitment of resources to maintain it and work around its technical shortcomings. This cannot go on indefinitely. By industry standards, the UC system is an “aging” system — one for which “any further new development should be actively discouraged.” The UC system is a mission critical system nearing end-of-life, which struggles to support real-time decision making and efficient business process operations.4 It should be noted that this situation is not unique to Florida. For this reason, research into the current nationwide UC modernization trend was a principle component of this study. Figure 1-1 displays the current status of UC program modernization efforts across the country.

Figure 1-1 National Status of UI Benefits Modernization

The ultimate recommendation of this study is to replace the aging mainframe 4 Gartner Group, “Software Aging Analysis”, January 2006.




application with a modern application that supports the following: • Claims and Adjudication • Customer Information Requests • Benefit Operations

o Wage Determinations o Special Payments o Employer Charges o Special Programs

• Benefit Payment Control • Appeals • Quality Improvement and Federal Reporting

The Alternatives Analysis performed resulted in a recommendation to replace the mainframe with a transfer system from another state or a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) application with the expectation that customization will be necessary. However, the near term recommendation is to conduct a detailed requirements and business process analysis project phase, followed by a competitive procurement process that evaluates both COTS products and possible transfer systems from other states. As a next step AWI recommends that the Unemployment Compensation modernization project be approved and sufficient funds be appropriated to begin Phase 2 – Requirements Definition and Procurement Support in FY2009-2010.

1.2.6.1 Recommended approach for replacement of the UC system

“Multi-Phased Plan” - This study recommends that the replacement of the UC system be conducted according to best practices5 in a phased plan to transition to a solution that meets the business process requirements and user needs as delineated in Figure 1-2 Proposed Project Phases.

5 Project Management Institute Project Management Body of Knowledge

The Agency recommends undertaking a deliberate, planned, and orderly transition to replace the UC system with a modern system.




Figure 1-2 Proposed Project Phases

1.2.6.2 Project Timeline A preliminary, high-level project timeline is shown in the Figure 1-3. The actual project timeline will be highly dependent upon the technology solution selected by AWI.

Figure 1-3 Proposed Project Timeline

Phase 1 of the UC modernization project includes the development of this Feasibility Study and its associated Legislative Budget Request as well as the development of a procurement vehicle for Phase 2. Phase 2, Requirements Gathering and Procurement Support, will include the following: Activity Description

Business Process Analysis and Improvement

This activity will include low-level business process analysis to document the current state of UC business processes, followed by business process improvement planning focused around the program’s core strategic goals.

Requirements Gathering

This activity will include documenting the functional and technical system requirements necessary to support the improved business processes. The Phase 2 vendor will work with Agency staff to evaluate solutions that align with the documented requirements.




Activity Description Procurement Support

In this activity, the Phase 2 vendor will work with the Agency project management team to develop procurement documents and organize procurement related activities.

Table 1-3 Phase 2 Activities

Phase 3, System Development and Implementation, will include the following: Activity Description

Analysis The Analysis phase will include validation of the system requirements collected during previous business process improvement and requirements gathering efforts.

Design The Design phase will include Joint Application Design sessions with end users, functional and technical design documentation and user interface prototyping.

Build The Build phase will include application configuration and system development, database development, data conversion, data migration, data warehouse development, unit testing, creation of help screens and development of an online user tutorial.

Test The Test phase will include the creation of a test plan and test cases, and the performance of integration testing, system testing, user acceptance testing, and regression testing.

Deploy The Deployment phase will include implementation planning and the deployment of the new system to a production environment.

Operations Operations phase will begin during the system implementation phase. The emphasis of this phase will be to ensure that the necessary equipment, staff, and procedures are in place to meet the needs of end users and ensure that the system will continue to perform as specified.

Table 1-4 Phase 3 Activities According to this proposal, all of FY2009-2010 will be devoted to Phase 2 activities. Implementation of the chosen alternative will begin in July 2010 and run for approximately thirty months. Considering the size and complexity of the system, a phased deployment should be considered. It is likely that a transformation of this magnitude will require a period of workforce adjustment as staff become more familiar and confident with new processes and the new system. After a time, individual productivity should steadily increase to a level higher than that achieved using the current system and then the other benefits identified in this study should also begin to be realized.

AWI is requesting an appropriation of $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2009-2010 to purchase Phase 2 services.




1.2.6.3 Project Costs

The estimated total cost of implementing the UC Modernization project is $68.3 million over a 3.5 year period, which amounts to less that a penny on the dollar of the UC Trust Fund.

FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12 FY12-13 3.5 Year Total $2,000,000 $26,801,727 $26,529,725 $12,918,929 $68,250,382

Table 1-5 UC Modernization Project Cost by Fiscal Year The hidden costs of not using technology to enable AWI to modernize its UC system and processes to make essential improvements to operating capabilities far exceed the cost of this investment. The agency has computed the following values the UC Modernization project (from CBA Form 3):

Investment Term Computed Value 1. Total Cost $68.3M distributed over three fiscal years. 2. Tangible Benefits $43.1M per year in recurring benefits. 3. Net Tangible Benefits $79.4M over five years 4. Return on Investment $ 11.1M over five years 5. Payback Period 4 Years and 9 months from the start of the

project (FY2013-14 - within 1.5 years of deployment)

6. Net Present Value $4.5M 7. Internal Rate of

Return 9.1%

1. The breakeven year is FY 2013-14, the year after the UC modernization project will deploy. A breakeven or “payback” period of 5-to-10 years indicates a good investment. A payback period that ends the year after the investment is completed is an excellent investment.

2. The net present value (NPV) is $4.5 million. Any positive value for NPV is a good investment. By this measure the UC modernization project is an excellent investment.

AWI is requesting less than a penny on a dollar of the total UC Trust Fund to implement the UC Modernization project and improve their ability to effectively and efficiently deliver services to Florida’s unemployed workers.




3. The internal rate of return (IRR) is 9.1%. The Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) estimates the cost of capital for investment analysis purposes to be 4.65% for the foreseeable future. The IRR for the UC modernization project is almost 2 times the cost of capital. The UC modernization project is an excellent investment.

4. The $68.3 million total investment for the UC modernization project comes to less than 1% of the total projected expenditures (as of 10/31/08) from the UC Trust Fund for FY 2008-09.

Figure 1-4 Cumulative Discounted Cash Flow displays the cumulative discounted cash flow from the UC modernization project’s costs and benefits over the five fiscal years. This figure depicts the superior performance of the UC Modernization project as an investment.

Figure 1-4 Cumulative Discounted Cash Flow

AWI recommends that the proposed UC modernization project be approved and authorized to proceed with procurement of a Phase 2 vendor, and that required funding be requested by the Executive Office of the Governor and approved by the Legislature.




1.2.7 Conclusion

The UC program in Florida is facing many of the same challenges that face other UC programs nation-wide. Some of the key environmental factors affecting the UC program include increased customer expectations, reduced or static funding levels, aging and retiring workforce, and aging and inflexible 30-year old automated system. The mainframe application is a foundational mission-critical UC system nearing its end-of-life. The Agency recommends more due diligence and further analysis to allow the Agency to analyze and execute a deliberate, planned and orderly transition to complete a comprehensive modernization project. The recommended next step is to secure $2 million dollars for Phase 2 of this project.

The UC system is mission-critical and — under the best of circumstances — a replacement for this aging system will be at least three years in the making.

For this reason, it is recommended that the Agency pursue a replacement UC system with haste.




2 SCHEDULE IV-B BUSINESS CASE 2.1 BACKGROUND AND STRATEGIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Purpose: To clearly articulate the business-related need(s) for the proposed project. 2.1.1 Agency Programs and Services Environment The Agency for Workforce Innovation administers Florida’s Unemployment Compensation Program. This program provides temporary wage replacement benefits to qualified individuals who are out of work through no fault of their own. The primary mission of the AWI is:

The UC Program is a Federal-State partnership based upon Federal law, but administered by State employees under State law. Federal law establishes certain requirements for the program. Title III of the Social Security Act and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) set forth broad coverage provisions, some benefit provisions, the Federal tax base and rates, and administrative requirements. The Federal government ensures conformity and compliance with State law, regulations, rules, and operations with Federal law. States whose laws and administrative practices meet the approval of the United States Department of Labor (US DOL) are eligible to receive administrative grants for the operation of the State’s UC Program. Employers in the state are also eligible for a credit against the Federal unemployment tax. Each State designs its own UC program within the framework of the Federal requirements. The State statutes set forth the benefit structure (e.g., eligibility/disqualification provisions, benefit amounts) and the State tax structure (e.g., State tax base and rate). AWI is the Agency designated by the Legislature to have ultimate authority for the administration of the Benefits portion of the Florida UC Program. State law mandates that the Agency contract with the Department of Revenue to administer the unemployment tax program. Within the Agency, the Office of UC Services is responsible for program operations. Listed below is a description of each of the offices within this program area: • Claims and Adjudication Centers – Two hubs receive and process initial UC claims via

Internet, telephone and paper. Adjudicators perform fact-finding interviews for claim eligibility issues and make initial eligibility determinations.

• Customer Information Center –This is the clearinghouse for providing information to all claimant customer telephone inquiries regarding eligibility and claim statuses.

• Benefit Operations Section – This section a support all benefit related activities and consists of the following units. o Wage Determinations- This unit is responsible for resolving disputes on monetary

eligibility issues. This includes wage credit investigations and obtaining or transferring wage credits from or to other states.

Advance Economic Prosperity The Agency for Workforce Innovation’s mission is to advance the economic well-being and self-

sufficiency of all Floridians through premier early learning and workforce services




o Special Payments -This unit is responsible for ensuring daily UC payments are issued and mailed. They are also responsible for ensuring lost or forged checks are reissued and replaced.

o Employer Charges- This group receives and reviews employer responses to employer claims notices that are sent to base period employers. This unit also issues determinations and re-determinations relating to employer chargeability relating to payments.

o Special Programs – This unit is responsible for managing Trade Readjustment Act (TRA) and Short Time Compensation (STC) claims.

• Benefit Payment Control -This section monitors payment of unemployment benefits and ensures the integrity of the UC Program. It is responsible for fraud and overpayment detection and recovery of those funds through various recovery methods.

• UC Reengineering -This office coordinates the development of business process enhancements and improvements primarily using technology.

• UC Appeals -This office receives employer and claimant protests regarding initial claim determinations and coordinates formal administrative hearings. The hearings are predominately conducted by telephone.

• Quality Improvement and Federal Reporting - This section is responsible for submitting Federal Unemployment Insurance (UI) required reports, conducting Federal data validation of UI workload, evaluating claims for Benefits, Timeliness and Quality of UI non-monetary determinations, conducting Benefits Accuracy Measurement reviews of UI claims and providing UI programmatic training. This section also contains the Internal Security Unit, Tax Performance System (TPS) and UC Contracts.




Figure 2-1 UC Organization and Reporting Structure

The following diagram illustrates the core services provided by the UC program and the touch points across the organization.

FY 2008-09 SCHEDULE IV-B FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION MODERNIZATION


CLAIM INTAKE

WAGEDETERMINATIONS

ADJUDICATION

Customer submits claim via Web, Mail, or Phone

-Determine claim type-Review wages -Determine monetary eligibility-Generate UCB-13

-Review separating employer-Base period employers are issued a UCB-412-Manually issue to outside base year employers

Issue Tax investigations for employer liability

A

Customer issued a wage transcript determination

C

Issue nonmonetary determination

CERTIFICATION PROCESS

BENEFIT PAYMENT CONTROL

APPEALS

Customer files appeal of benefit

determination to Office of Appeals by internet, fax, or mail

Hearing scheduled and notice and

documents mailed to parties

Receive request for

investigation of application

issue

B

-Receive Potential Issues on SAR Reports -Receive UCB-412 responses from employers

Receive UCB-412 response

and/or employer protests

Determine if employer on UCB-412 is chargeable

Enter non-charge for

employer via BE11

Overpayments

detected

-Receive New Hire reports from DOR-Receive automated appeal reversals

Delete potential issue flags-Release weeks for payment

Unemployment Compensation Services

-Identify issues on claim-Add flags or remove flags from prior claims

Input claimvia JB51 transaction

(automates Job Service registration)

G

C

C

A

Receive request for wages via UCB-13,

wage transcript responses, or

employer protest

A

-Review tax screens for employers and

wage reports

-Send claimant UCB-67 letter requesting proof of wages-Send employer UCB-9 letter requesting verification of wages

Customer issued a redetermination

or denial

-Review responses from claimant and employers-Review investigation findings from DOR

G

Test and Research

issue

-Provide issue status and resolution

A

Prioritize work by first payments and non-first payment claims

Conduct fact-finding with claimants and employers

G

EMPLOYERCHARGES

-Customer certifies for each week of benefits

Customer inputs responses regarding earnings, able/available, address changes, work search, etc.

Potential issues are flagged on claim

Weeks released for payment F

C

Issue charges to employer generating determination based

on UCB-412

E

E

F

Conduct wage credit post

audit (crossmatch

benefit weeks with wage reports)

Issue overpayment determination

G

Case is examined and docket number

assigned

Hearing convened with parties and

witnesses, testimony taken, evidence

accepted, direct and cross examination and objections addressed

G

GAppeal Decision issued including findings of fact,

conclusions of law and result

48

RE-ENGINEERING

UC Application issue found B

INQUIRY

-Customer calls into IVR with question regarding claim and benefits

Agent responds and completes

call

Call is routed to agent based on routing business rules

SPECIAL PAYMENTS

D

-Customer is issued first warrant (check)

Issue with payment is found. (lost check, undeliverable, forgery, cancel, change in effective date)

Agent researches

makes corrections

E

F




In recent years, Florida’s unemployment rate has remained lower than the national average, yet demand for services has remained high as economic factors create shifts in workforce requirements. The Unemployment Compensation program was impacted by the recession that began in March 2001 and the tragic events following September 11. The program realized a spike in unemployment compensation claims resulting from the decline in tourism and air transportation. The program experienced what was a record year in number of claims filed in 2001 with 642,177. The Unemployment Compensation program experienced another record year in 2002 in number of claims filed with 754,744. In 2003, the economy began to show a slight improvement from the recession and the UC Program experienced a decrease in the number of claims from the previous years. In 2006, the number of claims filed began to show an increase each month compared to the same month the previous year. The increase began in July and that trend continued in 2007 with 670,306 new claims filed. In 2008 a dramatic increase has been observed with new claims filed projected to reach 1,940,000 by year end. The Agency has met an increasingly demanding workload with the implementation of innovations such as: • Initial and Continued claim filing via an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system

and Internet • Employer charge responses via the Internet • Benefit Overpayment Screening System (BOSS) case management system for

Benefit Payment Control • Implementation of a Reengineering group • Dedicated call center for customer inquiries • Internet Appeals and digital recording applications • Electronic document management (Imaging) • AWI mainframe reporting system (VIEW) • UC resources on the AWI intranet site

Many of these applications function independent of the others; some interface with the aging mainframe. While essential in conducting the business of the Agency, the processes developed around these initiatives are extensive and time-consuming. Additional subsystems have also generated a number of interfaces between the newer technologies and the legacy systems, which requires specialized knowledge to manage and synchronize. In summary, the challenges faced by the Agency as they attempt to address both the aging technology and the necessary business process improvements include: • Maximizing the current technology opportunities to increase customer service

levels and reduce the need for in-person communication




• Continuing to fund costly maintenance of old technology with reduced or static funding levels from Federal administrative grants

• Aging and retiring workforce • Keeping pace with business rule and process changes using aging and inflexible

legacy systems • Providing consistent and accurate data across multiple systems • Collecting information and documentation from multiple systems to support

claims and benefit investigations • Coordinating workflow among Agency staff in order to have a consistent and

controlled approach to claims management • Training Agency staff on multiple systems in a timely manner

The increase in claims filed in 2008 has forced the Agency to perform at a higher capacity with fewer people using business processes that lack cohesiveness and consistency. Many Agency staff and other stakeholders are eager for a more consistent, comprehensive system that allows the staff to work efficiently and effectively. Instead of each area working in a silo, there exists an opportunity to develop a single unified system that benefits claimants, employers, and the Agency working for them. 2.1.2 Stakeholders and Users of UC Programs, Services and Business Processes The Project Management Institute defines a stakeholder as “anyone who may be positively or negatively impacted by the project.” Table 2-1 lists the project stakeholders that have been identified to-date, followed by a summarization of how each will be affected by, or will participate in, the UC modernization project.

Major Stakeholders Customer User Group AWI Workforce Services Financial Management Systems Assurance Section (FMSAS): Unemployment Appeals Commission Florida Department of Children and Families Florida Department of Financial Services Florida Department of Revenue Employers Unemployed Floridians General Public Legislature US Department of Labor Florida Department of Education

Table 2-1 UC Modernization Project Stakeholders




AWI Workforce Services – This area is responsible for providing One-Stop Program Support services (workforce program information, guidance and technical assistance) to the Regional Workforce Boards, as well as providing Labor Market Statistics information to our workforce partners and the general public. Additionally, AWI in its role as the administrative entity to Workforce Florida, Inc. (WFI) operates under a performance-based contract. The Office of Workforce Services is responsible for managing this contract, which includes specific deliverables and performance requirements in the statewide administration and coordination of workforce services. Financial Management Systems Assurance Section (FMSAS) – This section is responsible for various monitoring and compliance activities for cost allocation plans, financial monitoring and contract monitoring for AWI sub-recipients. Other related activities include providing technical assistance and training to the sub-recipients and performing research for AWI management, Workforce Florida, Inc., the Office of Early Learning or other responsible parties as needed. Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) - This administrative appellate body is the highest level for administrative review of contested unemployment cases decided by the Office of Appeals. The Commission is an independent body of three members appointed by the Governor. Florida Department of Children and Families - Responsible for adoption and foster care programs, as well as family recovery and providing financial assistance to those families in need. Benefit and employment data is exchanged with the Department of Children and Families. Florida Department of Financial Services - This department manages the State's accounting functions, monitors the investment of State funds, and oversees the contract for debts against the State. The Department also issues unemployment warrants for the Agency. Florida Department of Revenue – This Department manages the State's Child Support Enforcement Program, and General Tax Administration, which administers the unemployment tax program. Employers - Any person or organization that has paid wages to one or more employees during the current or prior calendar year. Employers are responsible for paying unemployment taxes and responding to Agency inquiries regarding unemployment claims. Unemployed Floridians - Any individual who has been employed in Florida and is currently unemployed or partially unemployed seeking UC services. General Public - A general body of people within the Florida community. The general public access information regarding Agency services, including UC services, via the Agency internet site. Legislature – A governing body responsible for enacting laws. The Legislature has exclusive authority to adopt the budget for State government activities.




US Department of Labor – The Agency of the Federal government with administrative oversight for workforce programs, including unemployment compensation. USDOL provides funding, interprets Federal law, establishes performance goals, approves State plans, and monitors performance. Florida Department of Education - The Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program (FETPIP) located within the Department of Education is a data collection and consumer reporting system to provide follow-up data for Florida’s workforce development system, which relies on UC administrative information for its evaluations. 2.1.3 Statement of Need Across the nation, state UC administrative agencies are faced with numerous challenges in meeting federal performance standards while workloads are increasing and state budgets are decreasing. The challenges of this environment are very demanding: economic downturns, shifting state funding priorities, technology enhancements, and the increased expectations of the public for easier access to government services. These demands must be met in a highly visible and politically charged backdrop, particularly if employers are faced with tax increases due to high benefit outlays. In the State of Florida, the number of UC claims filed between 2006 and 2007 increased by 36%. Projected claims volume increase between 2007 and 2008 is 144%. As a result, workloads are on the rise, and staffing levels are down due to high turnover rates. The primary technology systems that support the business processes are at the end of their life cycles and stopgap technology solutions have been deployed to meet the increased demands. As a result, the primary needs of the Agency fall into two categories: • Addressing the reality of a mission critical application approaching its “end of

life”; • Improving existing business processes to achieve operational efficiencies and

move toward a 21st century service delivery model. The application that provides core system functionality for all UC operating units is a 30-year-old legacy mainframe system which has been modified over the years in an ad-hoc manner with very little surviving documentation. This situation is not uncommon; many states have begun replacing their unemployment insurance benefit systems with modular and flexible system architectures that are easier and cheaper to support, that reduce the need for many manual processes, and can be modified more easily when business rules and legislation change. Figure 2-2 displays the current status of UC benefits modernization efforts in the US.




Figure 2-2 National Status of UI Benefits Modernization

2.1.4 Mission Critical Application at End of Life Today, the Agency’s UC systems are comprised of multiple ancillary software applications, which are supported by a mainframe application referred to as the Claims and Benefits (C & B) System. Most of the ancillary systems interface with the 30-year-old C & B mainframe application and rely on the synchronization of data between each system and the mainframe via batch processes. There are significant issues in trying to keep the existing C & B system synchronized with other UC supporting software applications due to the inflexibility of the mainframe architecture. Many of the UC sub-systems have been developed independently without a consistent underlying architecture, resulting in overlapping and redundant functionality and data. Documentation on some of these sub-systems is currently outdated or not available. According to Gartner6, three main drivers lead organizations to modernize their mainframe applications:

6 Gartner, Key Issues for Platform and Application Modernization, 2007




• Total cost of ownership. This is a key factor in determining whether a modernization initiative should be undertaken, including a desire to move to less-proprietary, lower-cost platforms with more-competitive options.

• The generational shift in skills. The effect of this growing issue is leading companies to consider the risk associated with maintaining their application portfolios independent of the technical merits of their IT platforms7.

• The need for application development (AD) agility. Along with the limitations that aging legacy applications place on the organization, AD agility is a driving consideration of modernization options.

These issues are prevalent in the current AWI infrastructure, as evidenced by: • Complex and poorly understood code complicates the process of evolving

business requirements. Simple changes take too long to complete and test, and tend to cause significant “ripple effects” requiring more regression testing. As many applications are written on different platforms, interfaces have to be developed and/or modified to perform the new functions. This requires additional testing time and multiple development teams for each change. This, in turn, increases maintenance and evolution costs.

• Closed and outdated technology that is difficult to integrate and interface with new, open technologies and modern distributed architectures. This often requires developing a new application to act as middleware between the modified applications.

• Shrinking talent pool of developers skilled in legacy systems and decreasing vendor support. Knowledge of these systems is usually restricted to a core set of people whose knowledge is difficult to replace. While some vendors do not end their support for specific software, their pool of qualified staff is decreasing as they shift staff to new products. In the event of a problem, the response time by the vendor is increased, as they have to locate and reallocate the appropriate staff to correct the problem.

• Lack of application knowledge due to the departure of original developers or users, as well as missing or obsolete documentation. One of the first mainframe programs was created on November 1, 1972. The amount of time it takes to ‘reverse engineer’ an application to be able to correct an issue will be prohibitive.

• Inability to update applications due to the “end of life” of the current software and the inability to perform an upgrade to all the current applications. This happens when the software company no longer supports the version of software the Agency is running.

7 Gartner, Key Issues for Governance in Applications, 2007




2.1.5 Business Process Issues and Opportunities Many dedicated and seasoned UC program staff members have made tremendous efforts to meet the demands placed on their program by the recent economic downturn. However, the inherent limitations of a 30 year old information system hinder their ability to serve the unemployed citizens and employers of Florida as efficiently and effectively as would be possible with a modern, fully integrated, web-enabled system. The current limitations having the greatest impact are: • Inability to distribute workload evenly across the available resources • Multiple databases (some non-relational) result in redundant and inconsistent

data • Limited self service capability for claimants and employers • Excessive reliance on manual and “paper” processes • Inability to share data across process areas

These multi-faceted problems require a combination of solutions, including business process reengineering, streamlining redundant data collection and storage, and reducing manual operations and agent intervention. Business improvements must focus on eliminating inefficient manual tasks and streamlining operations. Implementing new workflow and document management systems can significantly reduce the number of lost, misfiled, or mishandled documents. Increasing customer self sufficiency must also be a focus. Customer service options should be improved to provide customers more ability to access their benefit information online, 24/7. Finally, document scanning and imaging operations should be centralized at the point of entry to save time and labor and provide immediate electronic access to documents from any workstation. The following sections provide a summary of the issues affecting the core UC business processes, followed by opportunities for improvement with the implementation of a modern technology solution. These business processes are discussed in more detail in Section 2.2.2. Claim Center Operations Issues:

• Claims center agents have to interact with both standard and web views of the mainframe and often have to copy data from one view to another, increasing process time.

• Informational calls are not logged, preventing root-cause analysis and a complete view of a claimant’s history.

• Agents printing items for imaging is wasteful and delays processing of claims. • Agents do not have scripting to help with call efficiency and consistency.




• If the longest waiting call to the call center queue is greater than 2 minutes, the caller is turned away with a message stating that there are no available agents (unable to determine the number of blocked calls).

• No service levels have been established for inbound calls. Customer service feedback and problem-solving is qualitative and/or complaint driven.

• There is no consistent reporting structure to capture inbound call metrics. • Due to high volume and workload, quality assurance measures are informal at

best. Opportunities:

• Utilize a single system and relational database that allows for quicker access to claimant data.

• Facilitate a more equitable workload distribution method by changing routing strategy to remove area code routing rules and use pure “first available”.

• Configure call screens to minimize and simplify data entry. Internet Claims – Customer Self-Service Issues:

• Weekly claims certification is not available nights or weekends. • The number of Internet “no-touch” claims is low (~ 21 %). • Only 55% of customers use the internet to file claims.

Opportunities: • Increase the proportion of internet filings of unemployment claim applications

and weekly claim certifications with 24/7 access. • Increase the completeness and accuracy of user inputs to increase proportion of

no-touch internet claims with automated data validation. • Auto-generate inquiries to claimants and employers based on automated review

of the internet claim filings and certifications. Adjudication Issues:

• Adjudicator workload is high and there is currently a pending workload of 18,000 potential issues to be resolved on 14,000 claims (and rising).

• The impact of the increased workload has been observed in increased employee turnover (staff is being asked to work weekends to handle the current claim volume).

• The complexity of the current process requires up to two years before adjudicators are fully trained.

• There are no formal QA processes due to workload, so determinations are not reviewed other than to provide feedback through the quarterly BTQ process.




Opportunities: • Implement a single, integrated case management system for use across all UC

processes. • Automate adjudication process where possible to help adjudicators make better

determinations more quickly. • Integrate a document management application with the case management

application so documents can easily be accessed and associated with claims. • Utilize computerized training and knowledge base tools to reduce cost and time

required for on-boarding and training of adjudicators. • Utilize a workflow automation module for direct assignment of claims with

workload balancing. Appeals Issues:

• Appeals functions span multiple business processes, agencies (AWI, DOR and UAC), systems (mainframes), and databases. And requires manual entry and retrieval of data into these systems.

• Appeals pending workload has reached about 13,000 (historically about 4,000). Opportunities:

• Create a single integrated business process for Appeals across multiple organizations.

• Implement a single, integrated case management system for use across all UC processes.

• Increase automation of the Appeals process, thus reducing processing time, costs, and pending workload.

Benefit Payment Control Issues:

• Current process requires manual compilation and printing of case documents for courts.

• BPC staff must manually revise benefits after judgments given in appeals and court.

• The Agency’s ability to file and pursue cases in civil courts is limited by the availability of State resources.

• Recovery of overpayments is currently possible by check only (more overpayments could be collected if credit cards were an option).

Opportunities: • Simplify preparation of case documentation for filing in the courts.




• Automate calculation of changes in benefits based on results of appeals / court decisions.

• Recover overpayments online using additional forms of payment (credit cards, etc.)

Technology Architecture and Management • Integration and maintenance of the numerous ancillary systems is burdensome. • Poorly-document legacy applications and proprietary standards make

modifications risky. • Detailed understanding of the interdependencies of data and systems is limited • First indications of system problems usually come from user complaints.

Opportunities: • Introduce standards-based, integrated system architecture. • Consolidate the numerous databases and storage systems into a single relational

database. • Utilize standards-based software to increase support options. • Integrate / replace the Claims and Benefits Mainframe, FLUID, BOSS, FAAS,

Appeals Systems with a single business system. • Simplify interactions with outside agencies through modern integration and

automation features. Ultimately, AWI staff needs to be empowered with new skills and tools to perform their work functions more efficiently. Staff performance tends to improve when a system is easy to use, convenient, consistent in its user interfaces, and easily accessible. A modern information system will be more user-friendly and contain features that provide help to the non-experienced user. Many business decisions will be automated, making staff training easier by reducing the current system’s high learning curve. These improvements will have a positive impact on staff morale, resulting in more efficient business processes performed by a highly effective workforce. 2.1.6 UC Program Business Objectives The Agency has documented its goals and strategic objectives in a Long-Range Program Plan (LRPP). Specific business objectives were defined and mapped to the goals and strategic objectives targeted for UC services. Figure 2-3 builds on that foundation and outlines the progression of the goals to strategic objectives on down to the business objectives, with the identification of supporting technologies to assist the Agency in achieving its goals.




Figure 2-3 Department Goals and Strategic Objectives




The remainder of this section will present each business objective with a description of how a modern UC business system will support that objective. Business Objective #1 Create flexible, integrated UC applications, information, and business processes for UC Benefits and Appeals in order to create operational efficiencies. In support of this objective, a modern UC system will: • Implement a case management system to store claims, determinations, claimant

and employer data, and appeals information. This “one-stop shop” for all UC information will prove vital to reducing the staff time spent on each UC process.

• Make the resource assignments and re-assignments for required work based on the process flow.

• Provide an alert system to inform Agency workers of system or application faults or outages. Prioritize alerts based on work assignments to bring important items to the worker’s attention.

• Allow staff to monitor their assigned work. • Allow management to monitor assigned work to their workers under their

supervision. • Eliminate duplicative data entry between disparate systems or within the same

system. • Provide staff training to meet desired skill levels.

Business Objective #2 Provide a consolidated system with user-friendly search criteria to provide internal and external stakeholders, partners, and the general public with easily accessible, secured and “on demand” access to claims data. In support of this objective, a modern UC system will: • Consolidate systems to allow customers access to information through the

Internet and IVR system. • Provide immediate access to data to support decision-making processes. • Provide access to comprehensive data for complete and accurate trend analysis

and statistical reporting, using a data warehouse. • Provide report customization capabilities. • Provide self-service capabilities to authorized claimants and employers. • Provide a browser-based interface conforming to industry web development

standards (style sheets and navigation rules). • Provide automated data population and cascading of data between input screens

to improve productivity and reduce data entry errors. • Provide simultaneous access to data among various users.




• Improve security, both internal and external. • Increase audit trail capabilities.

Business Objective #3 Provide a system that is fully compliant with Federal and State laws and statutes as well as Agency procedures and rules. In support of this objective, a modern UC system will: • Create a system platform that can meet the changing processing needs of the

Agency. • Utilize an accessible and flexible business rules engine.

Business Objective #4 Provide a state-of-the-art technology system architecture that will effectively support the dynamic application processes and modifications required because of legislative changes and Agency needs. In support of this objective, a modern UC system will: • Improve system usage and provide consistent application of data elements

through increased coordination and integration with IVR and Internet applications.

• Eliminate duplication of technology and share common objects to the fullest extent possible. The IVR and Call Center should use the UC Integrated database and the business objects should be shared with Internet applications.

• Mitigate the risks associated with operating and supporting outdated technology.

• Provide a scalable platform with an open architecture to support process improvements and system integration requirements.




2.2 BASELINE ANALYSIS Purpose: To establish a basis for understanding the business processes, stakeholder groups, and current technologies that will be affected by the project and the level of business transformation that will be required for the project to be successful.

The UC program conducted a high-level review and documentation of the current and business process performed at AWI headquarters as well as those performed by call centers throughout the state. This documentation includes diagrams, narrative and requirements obtained during interviews with program staff. 2.2.1 Guide to the Business Process Descriptions in this Section For each UC business process, the following information is provided in Section 2.2.2: • Process Overview – a brief description of the purpose and objectives of each of the

documented business processes • Process Flow Diagram – a workflow diagram of the core activities that make up

the business process • Process Inputs – a brief description of the action(s) or information required to

initiate the business process • Core Activities – a narrative description of each activity within the business

process • Process Outputs – a brief description of the product, result or service generated by

the business process • Interfaces – list of the information systems that provide input to or receive output

from the business process • Participants – key stakeholders impacted by the business process • Process Improvements – suggested opportunities for improvement based on

industry best practices as well as specific items captured during interviews with process experts.

• Activity Detail Table – detailed information pertaining to each core activity in the business process, including:

o Associated Tasks o Source of Data o Systems/Interfaces o Automated or Manual Designation o Outputs o Customers/Participants

2.2.2 Current Business Process Requirements The following sections contain an overview of the UC business processes that a modern business system would be required to support and enhance. High-level functional and technical requirements mapped to these processes are included in Appendices A and B of this document.




2.2.3 Claims Intake Process – Interactive Voice Response (IVR) The function of the two claim hubs is to capture the information necessary to complete the initial filing of a claim and process the claim. Any individual who is currently unemployed or partially unemployed can file an unemployment claim via mail, fax, IVR or Internet. Claimants filing via the IVR through a toll-free number are automatically routed to agents in the Tallahassee and Ft. Lauderdale hubs based on agent availability. The diagram below depicts the flow of the business processes for the claim intake area:

Figure 2-4 Claims Intake Process - IVR

Process Inputs When a UC claims taker receives a call, a Graphic User Interface (GUI) screen automatically pops on the claims taker’s screen. Based on the Social Security number entered, the system pulls existing claimant information from the mainframe as well as the responses the claimant entered within the IVR. The claims taker validates the callers’ identities by verifying the claimants’ employment histories through automated employer wage records. The agent then has to determine the status of the claim. Core Activities Determine Claim Status Before the claim is presented to the call center agent, there are business rules within the IVR application to determine claim status. The claim is assumed to be an initial claim; however, if a current claim is found in the system with a monetary balance, the claim status is changed to either a Reopen or Additional based on employment information.




The system or claims taker determines if the claimant has worked since last filing for benefits, which would alter the claim status to Additional. Review Wages When an existing benefit year cannot be found, a new claim must be filed. Review of existing wages with the claimant assists in determining initial eligibility. It must first be determined if the individual had sufficient work and earnings to establish monetary eligibility. The claims taker reviews with the claimant past employment for accuracy and completeness of wage information From this information, the claims taker must determine whether the claimant has earned sufficient income to satisfy a potential benefit disqualification from any prior period of employment. If not, the separation information on the next prior employer must be provided until the earnings criteria are met. Verification on all recent employment is also required by the claims taker when an additional claim is filed on an existing claim. Determine Monetary Eligibility The TeleClaims system automatically determines the unofficial monetary eligibility of a new claim based on statutory requirements. During the claim interview, if the claims taker determines the wages within the system are incorrect, a request for monetary reconsideration can be generated. When the claim is complete and information is written to the mainframe, a nightly batch job is run creating the official wage transcript and the monetary request for reconsideration is electronically sent to the Wage Determination Unit for further investigation. In addition to these steps the claims taker must determine the claim type-whether the claim should be filed against Florida, another state, jointly with another state, against the Federal government or a branch of the military, or based on a federal disaster declaration. Review Alien Status During the claims taking process, if the claims taker confirms the claimant is not a U.S. citizen, an alien registration number is obtained from the claimant and validated via the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) operated by the United Stated Customs and Immigration Services Office of the Department of Homeland Security. When the SAVE system cannot validate the claimant’s alien status, the claims taker can initiate a claimant request for proof of authorization. Add or Remove Flags Upon completion of the claim, the claims taker discusses potential issues with the claimant. Potential issues are any circumstances or conditions that could result in the denial of benefits pursuant to law. This results in the setting of potential issue flags in the claim record that must be resolved prior to benefit payments. Continued Claims




After filing the initial claim, continued claims are filed on a bi-weekly basis to certify eligibility for weeks of unemployment. Continued claims may be filed via the Internet or the IVR system. In exceptional cases, continued claims may also be filed by fax or mail. If claimants have questions during the certification process, a toll-free number is available which will direct the claimant to the Orlando Customer Information Center for assistance. Once the certification is completed, the data is passed to the mainframe, the record is processed and payment, if appropriate, is issued. Process Outputs A completed claim and the information available to make a determination of a claimant’s eligibility are the outputs of the claim intake process. When the claims taker completes the TeleClaims application, the information is saved to the SQL TeleClaims database. At approximately 7:00 PM each workday, a process runs on the call center database server, which accesses the TeleClaims database and extracts all records completed that day. This information is reformatted and used as the input to the mainframe nightly processing which uses the information to establish the claim and make payments. The record is marked as processed and the Tele-claims application will only present the information back in an Inquiry mode. A component of the batch processing is the transfer of initial claims information to the Workforce system for automated work registration notifying Regional Workforce Boards of potential clients. Interfaces Below are other business systems that provide inputs to claims takers or receive outputs from their processes: • Mail or Fax • TeleClaims • Mainframe • Tax Registration Accounting Information Network (TRAIN) or its successor,

System for Unified Taxation (SUNTAX) • SAVE

Participants The following key stakeholders are impacted by the performance or management of the claims taking processes: • Claimants • AWI UC Program staff • Employers • Pitney Bowes




• TRAIN and/or SUNTAX • Workforce Services • Other State agencies

Opportunities for Improvement These suggested opportunities for improvement are based on industry best practices as well as specific items captured during interviews with key staff members. These opportunities will be explored during detailed requirements gathering in Phase 2. • Telephony coordination and Internet integration should be considered • The IVR and claims intake should use the UC Integrated database and the

business objects should be shared with the Internet Application. There should be no duplication of technology. In addition, as much technology as possible, i.e., database business objects, etc should be shared.

• Provide Advance Automatic Speech Recognition (ARS) for all mandatory languages. The system needs to recognize values, dates, and other possible key choices from pre-recorded items or directories

• Provide Text-To-Speech (TTS) to return responses to the participant. TTS needs to be capable of handling natural and intelligent voices

• Unique case information and identifiers should attach to the call and flow forward to produce a screen pop simultaneously with call answering by the agent

• Screen Pop with claimant information should follow a call, specifically on misdirected calls that require a transfer

• Provide outbound calling and options for automatic call back • Provide customer satisfaction survey capability through the IVR • Script flow options should include escape to an agent as a secondary choice • Smart Call Routing should be automatically determined through the unique

identifier with multiple options for action and direct the call to the agent with designated skills

• The system should allow for mail or email out requests without agent intervention. This includes customer request for forms that could be processed without agent intervention. System should include fax on demand capability.

• Record on Demand should be a feature of the new system • Supervisor help and intervention (conferencing) should be user friendly • “Listen-in” capability for supervisors for monitoring and evaluation purposes • Provide the ability for ad hoc and customized reports • IVR and Customer Relationship Management(CRM) to be capable of tracking a

historical transaction (such as previous transaction) and upon demand provide the caller a response/update such as request pending or closed




• CRM should be a product which will integrate with the claims intake applications

• CRM reporting will allow for tracking tickets, reports and supervisor monitoring • Recording should provide the capability to export to portable media with

indexing and search capability • Create a system that would allow other states to assist in claims taking in the

event of a disaster • Incorporate a scheduling application to allow agents to schedule determination

appointments for adjudicators • Provide the capability to easily create and change messages and prompts on the

IVR




Core Activity Detail Claims Intake Process - IVR

# Activity Tasks Source of Data Systems/ Interfaces

Automated or Manual

Process Outputs Customers/

Participants 1 Determine Claim

status

• Claimant enters SSN on IVR • System determines if claim is

new, additional or reopen • Call transferred from IVR • Claims taker verifies

employment • If no employment since last filed

agent changes claim from Reopen to Additional or vice versa

Mainframe / Claimant

TeleClaims Auto Manual

None Claimant/ Claims taker

2 Review Wages • TeleClaims interface populates GUI screens with claimant wage data

• Claims taker reviews wages with claimant

Mainframe/ Claimant

TeleClaims Auto Manual

None Claimant/ Claims taker

3 Determine monetary eligibility

• TeleClaims interface populates GUI screens with unofficial monetary determination

Mainframe TeleClaims Auto None Claimant/ Claims taker




Claims Intake Process - IVR # Activity Tasks Source of Data Systems/

Interfaces Automated or Manual


Participants 4 Generate request

for monetary reconsideration

• Claims taker completes Request for Monetary -Reconsideration (UCB-13) on GUI screen to request corrections or additions

• Completed TeleClaims data transferred to mainframe

• Mainframe runs batch claim process to establish claim and issue UCB-13 electronic form to Wage Determination Unit

TRAIN/SUNTAX

TeleClaims Mainframe

Manual Auto

Electronic and paper copy of UCB-13 form

Claimant/ Claims taker

5 Review Alien Status

• Claimant indicates not a citizen on IVR

• Call transferred from IVR • Claims taker accesses the SAVE

system to confirm status

Claimant SAVE system

TeleClaims SAVE website

Manual None Claimant/ Claims taker/

6 Review separating employment information

• Call transferred from IVR • Claims taker obtains

employment information from claimant and enters information on GUI screens

Claimant

TeleClaims Manual None Claimant/ Claims taker







Participants 7 Generate

employer claims notice (UCB-412)

• Call transferred from IVR • Claims taker obtains

employment information from claimant– and/or mainframe tax system

• UCB 412s are mailed to appropriate employers

Claims taker SUNTAX

TeleClaims Auto and Manual

UCB 412 Claimant/ Claims taker Employers Pitney Bowes

8 Identify potential eligibility issues

• Claimant indicates potential issue on IVR

• Call transferred from IVR • Claims taker confirms answer

with claimant

Claimant TeleClaims Auto and Manual

Potential Issue Flag added to claim and to Potential Issue Tracking reports.








Participants 9 Add/remove

flags to/from prior claims

• Add Flag • Claimant indicates an issue on

IVR • Call transferred from IVR • Claims taker confirms issue with

claimant • Remove Flags • Claims taker confirms with

claimant and claim history that issue flag is no longer needed and indicates on Issue screen that issue flag is to be deleted


• Mainframe runs batch claim process to establish claim and issue flags are added or removed as indicated from TeleClaims data

Claimant Mainframe claim history

TeleClaims Manual and Auto

Potential Issue Flag is added to claim and added to Potential Issue Tracking reports.








Participants 10 Work

Registration (automates work registration)

• Claimants are work registered directly from TeleClaims information provided by the claimant in the IVR process and to the claims taker

Claimant Claims taker

TeleClaims UC Interface Employ Florida Market-place

Manual Auto

Work registration

Claimant/ Claims taker/ Regional Workforce Boards

11 Claimant issued wage transcript


• Mainframe runs batch claim process to establish claim and issue monetary determination

TRAIN/ SUNTAX

TeleClaims Auto Wage Transcript (UCB-11) Updates to mainframe claim information

Claimant/ Claims taker DOR/ Pitney Bowes







Participants 12 Claimant certifies

for weeks • Claimant calls IVR system and

chooses option to claim weeks • Claimant answers eligibility

questions • Weeks are accepted for

processing • The mainframe payment batch

run process, which runs in the middle of each workday, processes the requests for payments and determines if payment is due the claimant

Mainframe / Claimant

TeleClaims interface w/ mainframe

Auto Check (warrant) or Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) payment Claimant notification for next report date

Claimant/ Claims taker/ Department of Financial Services/ Pitney Bowes

Table 2-2 Claim Intake Process – IVR – Activity Detail




2.2.4 Claims Intake – Florida Unemployment Internet Direct (FLUID) Claim intake through the Internet is supported by the FLUID application. A claimant can access FLUID from any computer by entering www.fluidnow.com 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. This website also provides Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), information regarding a specific claim and the ability to download forms and the Claimant’s Rights booklet. The claims hubs intranet application is accessed to create a report of filed FLUID claims by geographic location. This is printed and the claims are assigned to call center agents to verify and process. The processing is very similar to that of TeleClaims filing, however, the processes automated by the TeleClaims application, have to be manually entered for FLUID claims. The breakdown of core processes that an agent must follow to validate and submit the FLUID claim for processing is the same as the Claim Intake section for the IVR. Process Inputs/Outputs When a claim is filed via the Internet, the information is gathered using the online application and the claimant submits the claim. The data is then stored to the SQL server database. The data is transferred to the mainframe every 15 minutes, unless the mainframe is unavailable, in which case it is queued for the next available time and transferred. Opportunities for Improvement The following opportunities for improvement are based on industry best practices as well as specific items captured during interviews with key staff members. These opportunities will be explored during detailed requirements gathering in Phase 2. • The process for claim filing via FLUID should be better automated in order to

reduce agent processing • The IVR and claim hubs should utilize a new UC Integrated database where the

business objects are shared with the Web Application. There should be no duplication of technology and technology should be shared, i.e., database business objects.

• Internet and IVR transactions to use common code to retrieve information. Industry standard such as Voice Extensible Markup Language (VXML) for integration is strongly recommended

• New system should allow for a single change to business rules for both IVR and Internet

• New system should allow for online scheduling of adjudication built on business rules




Core Activity Detail Claims Intake - FLUID Application


Automated or Manual Process

Outputs Customers/ Participants

1 Determine Claim status

• Type transferred from internet application

• Claims taker accesses mainframe claims entry screen (JB53)

Internet app & mainframe

3270 Interface Claims taker verifies answers auto filled in and can make manual changes to answers to change type

None Agent/ Claims taker

2 Review Wages • Claims taker accesses unofficial benefit determination to see if there is prior claim

Mainframe 3270 Interface Manual None Claims taker/ Claimant

3 Determine monetary eligibility

• Claims taker accesses benefit history and unofficial benefit determination to determine monetary eligibility

Mainframe 3270 Interface Manual None Claims taker/ Claimant




Claims Intake - FLUID Application # Activity Tasks Source of Data Systems/

Interfaces Automated or

Manual Process


4 Generate request for monetary reconsideration

• Claims taker accesses mainframe claims entry screen

Mainframe 3270 Interface Manual & request for monetary reconsideration is displayed

Request sent to Wage Determination Unit

Claims taker/ Claimant

5 Review Alien Status

• Claims taker accesses JB53 & claim history comment (BH31)

• Claims taker accesses SAVE to confirm alien status

Mainframe & Internet

3270 Interface & Federal internet site

Manual & auto to BH31

Secondary verification


6 Review separating employment information

• Claims taker accesses JB53 & Fluid Application via FLUID Admin system

Mainframe, Intranet

3270 Interface & Intranet

Manual None Claims taker Claimant

7 Generate employer claims notice (UCB 412)

• Claims taker accesses JB53 and enters info to send UCB 412

Mainframe 3270 Interface Auto and Manual

Prints and mails UCB-412s to employers

Claims taker Employers/ Pitney Bowes

8 Identify potential eligibility issues

• Claims taker accesses claims history (BH10), JB53, FLUID App & potential issue flag transaction (BQ41) to add or delete potential issues


None if just identifying. If updating, claim history updated and reports generated





Claims Intake - FLUID Application # Activity Tasks Source of Data Systems/

Interfaces Automated or

Manual Process


9 Add or remove flags from prior claims

• Claims taker accesses JB53, BH10 and BQ41 pages are updated if necessary


Updates claim history and generate reports


10 Input claim via claims intake screen (JB53) (automates work registration)

• Claims taker accesses JB53 to submit claim

Mainframe 3270 Interface Work Registration Interface

Manual Auto

Updates Work Registration

Claims taker/ Claimant Regional Workforce Boards

11 Claimant issued wage transcript

• Mainframe runs batch claim process to establish claim and issue monetary determination

Mainframe 3270 Interface Auto Generates Wage Transcript to claimant

Claims taker Claimant/ Pitney Bowes

12 Claimant certifies for weeks

• Claimant accesses Fluidnow.com via Internet

FLUID Interface FLUID Internet interface with mainframe

Auto Reports, flags to history Also payment files for paper check or EFT

Call Center Agent (potential)/ Claimant

Table 2-3 Claim Intake Process - FLUID Application – Activity Detail




2.2.5 Adjudication The Adjudication process consists of the review and determination of claims that have been identified as having one or more potential issues. After a claim is submitted, any issues that are flagged require further review by an adjudicator. The adjudicators are located in five sites - Tallahassee, Ft. Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Orlando, and Pensacola. The primary role of an adjudicator is to determine if the claimant meets all eligibility requirements for unemployment compensation as defined in Florida Statutes Chapter 443, and to issue nonmonetary determinations relating to those provisions of law. When the investigation is complete, the adjudicator will issue a written determination(s), which is mailed to the claimant and the employer. Figure 2-5 depicts the activities within the adjudication process.




Figure 2-5 Adjudication Process

Process Inputs The initial input into the adjudication process is the submitted claim with flagged potential issues. A flag will be created on a claim whenever the claimant indicates in the application process that the reason for separation occurred for any reason other than for lack of work or if the claimant has an availability issue. The adjudicators will use existing information from the mainframe and imaging system, but the adjudicator’s fact-




finding is primarily a manual process. Much of the information necessary to make a determination is gathered via phone conversations with the client. A new application to assist the adjudicator in conducting fact-finding investigations will be implemented in 2008. Core Activities Employer Responses to Claims Notices (UCB-412) When a claim is submitted, a form UCB-412 is sent to appropriate employers to obtain separation information. Forms are returned either by mail or electronically, are imaged and made available for viewing. During the adjudication process, the adjudicator will access the claim history within the mainframe to confirm the information provided by the claimant during claim filing was accurate. The UCB-412 response provides the adjudicator initial information necessary to start the fact-finding process. Potential Issues Tracking (PIT) Reports Sysout Archival Retrieval (SAR) is a reporting tool used by the Agency to generate reports that sort by specific criteria within the claims database. In support of adjudication, the Information Technology (IT) group created a PIT report from SAR making it available in a more accessible format. The PIT identifies the claim hub assigned to the claim, the issue to be resolved by the adjudicator and the age of the issue. The supervisor within each office assigns claims with issues to adjudicators by a spread of Social Security numbers. Prioritize Workload The manual business process of prioritizing work relies on the PIT list to inform the adjudicator if first payment has been received. The adjudicator determines the claims requiring a first payment and creates their workload to conduct fact-finding interviews. Conduct Fact Finding If a claimant filed via the IVR, there is very little information available to the adjudicator other than what is in claim history and the imaging system. If a claimant filed their claim via FLUID, a fact-finding form is available for input at the end of the claim filing process. Regardless of the filing method, in most cases the adjudicator must contact the claimant and usually the employer via telephone in order to gather sufficient information needed for the determination (on occasion there is sufficient information available in FLUID and contact with the claimant is not necessary). Fact-finding interviews are not pre-scheduled. Due to claimant and employer unavailability, the adjudicator frequently must arrange for callbacks to a direct number. Tracking the status of the fact-finding interview is a manual process relying on notes entered in claim history and imaged documents. Issue Non-Monetary Determination The adjudicator enters determinations into a mainframe application, which automatically generates a determination letter that is mailed to the affected parties. The




mainframe application used for non-monetary determinations allows adjudicators to set stop orders for payments or remove flags to allow payments. Process Outputs The outputs of the Adjudication processes are initial non-monetary determinations and deletion of unnecessary flags that were set during the claims taking process. Interfaces Below are other business systems that provide input to or receive outputs from the Adjudication process: • Mainframe • Email • TRAIN and/or SUNTAX • Mail or Fax • The imaging system • TeleClaims • FLUID

Participants The following stakeholders have responsibilities in the performance or management of the Adjudication and Wage Determination processes: • Claimants • Call Center Agents • Adjudication Supervisors • Adjudicators • Employers • Pitney Bowes • Department of Revenue

Opportunities for Improvement The following opportunities for improvement are based on industry best practices as well as specific items captured during interviews with key staff members. These opportunities will be explored during detailed requirements gathering in Phase 2. • Provide scheduling component to allow adjudication interviews to

be pre-scheduled • Provide a single telephone number to claimants for call backs to

the adjudication unit; use call routing to distribute workflow fairly




(alternatively, have adjudicators provide a rescheduled call back time)

• Mask adjudicator’s personal phone numbers when contacting claimants

• Automatically generate specific fact finding forms and send them to claimants

• Provide web chat capabilities • Provide system-driven workload balancing




Core Activity Detail Adjudication

# Activity Tasks Source of Data

Systems/ Interfaces

Automated or Manual


Participants 1 Receive Potential

Issues on SAR Reports

• Assigned to region automatically

• Assign Issues to adjudicator

Mainframe Intranet site

Manual Potential Issue tracking list

Adjudicator Supervisor

2 Receive UCB-412 • Access the imaging system by internet

• Determine if flag is necessary

Mail Fax Internet

Website Imaging

Manual UCB-412 Adjudicator Employer

3 Prioritize work by first payments and non-first payment claims

• Adjudicator views claims that have received first benefit week payment

Report Intranet Manual Adjudicator

4 Conduct fact-finding with claimants and employers

• Review the imaging system, TeleClaims if necessary

• If filed in FLUID there is a fact finding form completed

• Call claimant • Call employer if necessary

TeleClaims Imaging FLUID Claimant Employer

TeleClaims Imaging GUI FLUID Phone

Manual or Auto with FLUID

Adjudicator Employer Claimant




Adjudication # Activity Tasks Source of

Data Systems/ Interfaces

Automated or Manual


Participants 5 Delete potential

issues flags • Decision is entered • BQ51 process • Mainframe triggers flags

as necessary

Mainframe 3270 Emulator

Manual Adjudicator

6 Release weeks for payment

• Determination is issued and the weeks are released automatically


Manual

Adjudicator

7 Issue monetary determination

• Wage transcript is issued once claim is filed

Mainframe Batch process

Auto Wage transcript Adjudicator Claimant

Table 2-4 Adjudication Process – Activity Detail




2.2.6 Customer Information Center IVR customers who have questions about their claims are routed to the Customer Information Center to speak with an agent. Figure 2-6 illustrates the processing required to complete an inquiry call.

Figure 2-6 Customer Call Center Process

Process Inputs Initial input to this process is a contact via phone by a claimant. The agent receiving the call accesses information from multiple sources in the mainframe. The number of potential transactions related to a claim/claimant and the multiple locations of this information significantly increases the time and effort required to perform this function. Core Activities Provide Claim Filing Information Over half of the calls coming into the Center are general information questions regarding claims filing. Much of this information is available via the AWI UC Internet, the FLUID application and the IVR Frequently Asked Questions. The majority of calls processed by the Orlando call center are from individuals who want to know the status of their existing or “continued” claim. The Ft. Lauderdale and Tallahassee focus primarily on new claims. Provide Eligibility Status Many of the questions are to verify the status of benefit determinations. Although the Internet and Benefits Rights booklet provides general timeframes for these results, there are currently no tracking capabilities for the claimant to view a determination status. Address Changes Within the certification application, the claimant is asked if his or her address has changed. Customers who need their addresses updated are routed to Center staff that confirms the caller’s identity through security questions and accesses the mainframe




system to update addresses. The agent must manually print out the security information form for auditing purposes. Provide Payment Information Claimants frequently call for specific payment information. Questions surrounding the status of their check, the amount and the balance on their accounts are provided by agents via mainframe transactions. The identity of the claimant is also verified before this information is provided. Return to Work A claimant is asked within the IVR if they have returned to work. An affirmative answer to this question automatically flags the claim for benefits to be stopped. When the agent speaks to the claimant, whether they are transferred from the IVR or if they are calling to inform the Agency of recent employment, they confirm employment status and put a stop on the claim. Status of Appeals Agents must have access to both mainframe application and the independent appeals application to provide claimants information on the status of an appeal. Process Outputs Agents are responsible for providing the claimant with accurate information. The output for this process is the response and updated claim information. Interfaces Below are other business systems that provide input or receive output from the Center’s processes: • Mainframe • Email • Mail or Fax • Appeals application

Participants The following stakeholders have responsibilities in the performance or management of the Center’s processes: • Claimants • Employers • Other UC staff




Opportunities for Improvement These suggested opportunities for improvement are based on industry best practices as well as specific items captured during interviews with key staff members. These opportunities will be explored during detailed requirements gathering in Phase 2. • With advanced technology and the ability to properly and securely identify a

claimant, many of these calls could be automated. This could be done within the IVR or providing the capability to enter more supporting information for a claim on the Internet.

• Allow staff to access a knowledgebase system with a single editor or provide a “wiki-type” software application to allow the users to add pertinent information

• Create a centralized application for all services to ease troubleshooting • Provide claim information, adjudication and appeals status within the Internet

and IVR applications • Provide the ability for an Agency employee to change IVR questions until the

question can be better understood by the claimants • Automate address and PIN changes, requesting forms, receiving status

information • Create an Inquiry mailbox for emails, faxes, etc.




Core Activity Detail Customer Information Center


Systems/ Interfaces

Automated or Manual


Participants 1 Provide claim

filing information

• Provide general knowledge Mainframe 3270 Emulator

Manual Agent Claimant

2 Provide Eligibility Status

• Caller Verification • Access BH- 10 transaction

from mainframe



3 Conduct Address change

• Caller Verification • Access BP01 transaction

from mainframe • Form is printed and

completed


Manual Month-end an audit is done and a letter is sent out to verify address change was requested.

Agent Claimant

4 Conduct PIN reset

• Verify caller by asking SSN and employment information

• Access BC 10 transaction from mainframe



5 Provide Payment information

• Caller Verification • Access BH- series

transaction from mainframe






Customer Information Center # Activity Tasks Source of


Automated or Manual


Participants 6 Remove flags

from claims • Caller Verification • Access BQ 41 transaction

from mainframe if determination issued use BQ 61


Manual UCB 45 is sent when a redetermination is issued

Agent Claimant Employer

7 Return to work • Caller Verification • Access BQ 41 to add a stop

to claim transaction from mainframe


Manual Claim taker Claimant

8 Status of appeals

• Caller Verification • Access BH-10 to see if an

appeal was filed


Manual Claim taker/ Claimant

Table 2-5 Customer Information Center Process - Activity Detail




2.2.7 Reengineering Within the Agency, the Reengineering group has many roles. This group is responsible for technological enhancements, process changes, expanding the use of the Internet as a service delivery mechanism and the reporting of all application/system problems to the IT group for research and resolution. Process Inputs Much of Reengineering workflow is non-automated. Initiating their work is frequently done by contact made by phone, email or in-person. This lack of automation makes it difficult to track workflow for members of the team as well as resource management. Core Activities Troubleshoot Application and System Issues When a business unit member detects a system issue, they contact a Reengineering staff member by phone, email, or in person. Currently, there is no automated/comprehensive method for tracking these reported issues within UC Services. Although reported issues are primarily tracked through email, there is no automated/comprehensive method for tracking these reported issues. An email or phone call is made to the member(s) of the team who research/resolve the issue and report back to the caller/business units. Some issues are passed on to AWI network/development programmers or vendor partners who use their own system to track problem resolution. The lack of an automated/comprehensive tracking system may lead to inefficient resource management. Project Proposals and Contract Approval When business needs are identified and funding is provided to fulfill the proposed solution, members from the Reengineering team write or assist in writing the project specifications for the request for service. This is done without template and mailed or emailed to the vendor or business unit for review. When the team receives the statement of work, they assist in contract development and manually monitor the processing of the contract by periodic phone calls or emails to approving parties. Implementation of New Projects When a project is launched, the Reengineering Analyst assists the Project Management Office with developing the project charter. Project management training is conducted through mentoring and training classes offered by vendors. This guidance helps the Analyst to create requirements within a Microsoft Word document. Once requirements are written, updates are done to the system documentation to enable development. When the initial phase of development is completed, a Reengineering team member coordinates system testing. Sometimes this is facilitated with a testing document, otherwise there is ad hoc testing. When the product is complete, a team member will assist with implementation. This may involve system installation, production testing and system monitoring. The Reengineering Analyst reports issues and is the liaison between the vendor and the business units.




Coordinating and Ordering of Hardware and Software When additional hardware or software is required, the Reengineering team handles every aspect of the delivery. Using the website http://dms.myflorida.com/mfmp , the team member can request, coordinate delivery, receive, log, and issue payments. When the equipment arrives, the group coordinates tagging the equipment and retaining the contract records. Process Outputs The output for the Reengineering group is always a complete and functioning system. Whether they are resolving issues on existing systems or implementing a new one, a fully functional system meeting the existing requirements is essential to their team. Interfaces Below are other business systems that provide inputs to reengineering or receive outputs from their processes: • Mainframe • Email • Various system interfaces used within the Business Areas • Mail or Fax

Participants The following are stakeholders in the performance or management of the reengineering processes: • Claimants • Representatives from Business units within the Agency • IT Help Desk • Vendors • Project Management Office (PMO) • Auditors

Opportunities for Improvement These suggested opportunities for improvement are based on industry best practices as well as specific items captured during interviews with key staff members. These opportunities will be explored during detailed requirements gathering in Phase 2. • Provide an application to assist with tracking tickets, or include this group in the existing issue resolution process

• Establish alert system to let call center staff (and other Agency areas) know of hardware or software issues

• Create a centralized application for all services to ease troubleshooting




• Allow script and web changes, whether business rule or wording, to be altered by Agency employees

• Provide better training for issue resolution to call center staff • Provide more efficient technical architecture for better server maintenance




Core Activity Detail Reengineering


Systems/ Interfaces

Automated or Manual

Process


1 Troubleshoot application and system issues

• Receive phone call or email or in person reporting issue

• Verify issue is not already reported

• Access various systems for troubleshooting

• Notify AWI Helpdesk or enter a problem ticket into the IT Application group tracking system, as appropriate.

• Assist in resolving issue by phone, email, or in person

• Contact initial point person or all UC staff to inform of issue resolution

Phone Email In-person

Phone Email MS Access for database TeleClaims FLUID Imaging system Mainframe

Auto Manual

Resolution of issue

Reengineering Analyst Agency employees




Reengineering # Activity Tasks Source of


Automated or Manual

Process


2 Work on project proposals and contract approval.

• Review overall project list and contact appropriate personnel to get feedback on the necessity of the different projects

• Write initial project specifications

• Request SOW from vendor or ROM from Agency IT staff.

• Assist in contract development process as needed

• Ensures that contracts are approved in a timely manner

• Monitor existing contracts for vendor and Agency compliance.

Business Units Email Phone

Email Phone MS Word myfloridamarketplace.com Legal Procurement Business Units Management IT Financial Mgmt

Auto Manual

Project list spreadsheet Contracts RFP/RFQ

Reengineering supervisor Business Units




Reengineering # Activity Tasks Source of


Automated or Manual

Process


3 Implementation of new projects

• Input into project charter • Add requirements for

new projects • Initiate and update

system documentation • Access various test

platforms for independent ad hoc testing

• Install production platforms

PMP Various Agency personnel

Email MS Word

Manual Project charter Requirements matrix System documenta-tion Completed test cases Live application

PMP Reengineering Analyst Project team Vendor

4 Responsible for coordinating and ordering of hard/software Initiating payments

• Obtaining quotes • Coordinating delivery • Assigning to proper

business unit, tagging equipment

• Log and issue payments

Phone Email Contracts Mail

myfloridamarketplace.com Email Phone

Auto Manual

Hardware/ software acquisition Payments Vendor Records

Business Units Vendors Internal record-keeping Auditors

Table 2-6 Reengineering Process Activity Detail




2.2.8 Wage Determination The Wage Determination Unit investigates claimant wages by reviewing the information provided from the mainframe system and through contacting employers. If unit staff finds issue with the information provided, the Department of Revenue is contacted to conduct an investigation. Once the correct wages are determined, unit staff updates the information in the mainframe and issues a redetermination. Figure 2-7 illustrates the workflow of the Wage Determination Unit.

Figure 2-7 Wage Determination Process

Process Inputs The Wage Determination Unit conducts an investigation of the claimant’s base period employment based on receipt of a request for monetary reconsideration (form UCB-13) from Claims Intake or the claimant. The monetary request for reconsideration is electronically submitted via the mainframe, which generates the form UCB-13. Core Activities Request for Wage Verification The Wage Determination Unit receives the hard copy form UCB-13, printed by the mainframe and delivered daily. This form indicates there is a discrepancy in wages reported on the initial claim filing. Review Tax Screens and Wage Report Responses Wage Unit staff reviews the Wage Transcript and Determination and mainframe tax screens to determine what information is on file. Based on the information available, the employer and claimant may be contacted for additional information. Send Claimant Proof of Employment Request Unit staff then accesses the mainframe to generate a request for proof of employment from the claimant. The mainframe will process the request, which will be mailed the following business day through Pitney Bowes. Send Employer Form UCB-9 Letter




Within the same transaction, the unit staff can generate a request for wage information to the employer. The mainframe will process the request, which will be mailed the following business day through Pitney Bowes. Issue a Redetermination If additional wages are assigned, a new wage transcript with corrected wages is mailed to the claimant. If additional wages are not assigned, unit staff can access the mainframe and request the redetermination of denial notice to be mailed to the claimant. This notice contains a statement to why wages were not assigned and provides the claimant with an opportunity to request an administrative hearing. If wages with an employer were not previously used on the claim, the new employer is mailed a form UCB-412. If the employer was previously a base period employer, that employer as well as all other employers in the base period, are mailed a notice of redetermination advising them of the claimant’s new available credits and the adjusted chargeability of their accounts. Blocked Claims If after investigations unit staff is unable to verify employment, a request for investigation is entered into the mainframe tax system (TRAIN/SUNTAX). The documents available to unit staff are attached to an email to aid DOR in its investigation. When the results of the investigation are received from DOR, the claim is redetermined. Process Outputs The output for the Wage Determination Unit is monetary redeterminations. The following includes the supporting documentation in the redetermination process: • Form UCB- 13- Request for further wage investigation • Form UCB- 67- Request for proof of wages from claimant • Form UCB- 9- Request for proof of wages from employer • Form UCB-71 – Redetermination Denial- Letter sent based on wage investigation • Form UCB-11- Wage Transcript and Determination • Form UCB-412 – Determination Notice to Base Period Employer of Valid Claim

Filed • Form UCB-59 – Notice of Claim Redetermination

Interfaces Below are other business systems that provide input to Wage Determination or receive output: • Mainframe • Email • TRAIN/SUNTAX • Mail or Fax




• The Electronic Imaging System • TeleClaims • FLUID

Participants The following stakeholders have responsibilities in the performance or management of the Wage Determination Unit processes: • Claimants • Call Center Agents • Claims Takers • Wage Determination Unit staff • Employers • Pitney Bowes • Department of Revenue

Opportunities for Improvement These suggested opportunities for improvement are based on industry best practices as well as specific items captured during interviews with key staff members. These opportunities will be explored during detailed requirements gathering in Phase 2. • Automatically generate specific fact finding forms and send them to claimants

and employers • Provide better process to initiate and monitor wage investigations • Provide system-driven workload balancing




Core Activity Detail Wage Determination


Automated or Manual


Participants 1 Receives

request for wages via form UCB-13

• Staff determines there are wages reported incorrectly while entering claim

• Staff completes form UCB-13 which is printed and sent to Wage determination unit

Mainframe TeleClaims Mainframe

Manual/ Auto

Form UCB-13

Agent Unit Staff

2 Review tax screens for employers and wage report responses from claimant and employers

• Staff reviews employer and wage information

Mainframe Imaging Hard copy form UCB-13

3270 Imaging I

Manual Unit Staff

3 Issue employment or wage investigations to DOR for determination

• Staff scans documents • Enters mainframe request for investigation to DOR

• Email documents to DOR

Claimant Outlook 3270

Manual/ Auto

Email Unit Staff DOR

4 Send claimant form UCB-67 letter requesting proof of wages

• Transaction generates a letter to the claimant

• Letter mailed by Pitney Bowes

Mainframe 3270 Manual Auto generated letter

Form UCB-67

Unit Staff Claimant Pitney Bowes




Wage Determination # Activity Tasks Source of Data Systems/



Participants 5 Send employer

Form UCB-9 letter requesting verification of wages

• Transaction generates a letter to employers requesting wages

• Letter mailed by Pitney Bowes

Mainframe 3270 Manual Auto generated letter

Form UCB-9

Unit Staff Employers Pitney Bowes

6 Process DOR determination

• Assign or deny wages DOR 3270

Manual/ Auto

Unit Staff DOR

7 Issue a redetermination

• Enter assigned wages in mainframe or send denial letter

Mainframe 3270 Manual/ Auto

Redeter-mination document

Unit Staff Claimant Employer Pitney Bowes

Table 2-7 Wage Determination - Activity Detail




2.2.9 Special Payments This unit is responsible for ensuring daily UC payments are issued and mailed. The unit is also responsible for ensuring lost or forged checks are reissued and replaced. The unit is also responsible for correcting inaccurate social security numbers provided by claimants and providing supplemental payments following monetary redeterminations. In addition, the unit cancels returned warrants and oversees the timely mailing of the yearly IRS form 1099-G. The diagram below illustrates the Special Payments interaction with the mainframe to process their workload.

Figure 2-8 Special Payments Process

Process Inputs The requests for processing done by the Special Payments Unit are typically received in the form of an email, fax, mail, or phone call. Core Activities Correcting Social Security Numbers Unit staff receives a request from within the Agency requesting a social security number be changed on a claim. The person making the request does the information verification. Correction of the requested number is performed and updated in the system through the mainframe application. Correcting Effective Dates




Correcting effective dates on claims is another task that is requested from a business area within the Agency. Correction of the requested date is performed and updated in the system through the mainframe application. Canceling Claims Unit staff may receive a request to cancel a claim from a claimant or within the Agency. Staff must determine if the claim should be cancelled and accesses the mainframe to perform the cancellation. Issue Supplemental Payments Supplemental payments are issued following completion of monetary redeterminations when the redetermination results in a higher weekly benefit amount. Cancel and Reissue Benefit Warrants and EFT Issues Unit staff will cancel a warrant if there is confirming information the claimant should not receive payment or when the warrant is returned by the post office as not deliverable. Lost or stolen warrants are also reissued as necessary by unit staff. Claimants who have problems with EFT deposits also contact unit staff for assistance. Mailing Form 1099-G IRS Forms 1099-G is prepared during the first month of each calendar year for mailing to all claimants who received benefit payments in the previous year. When a claimant contacts the Agency to request a duplicate form 1099-G, the request is forwarded to the Special Payments Unit. Unit staff reissues form 1099-G via the mainframe and makes necessary address corrections. Process Outputs • Supplemental payments • Duplicate warrants • Cancelled warrants • Form1099-G • Corrected claim information

Interfaces Below are other business systems that provide inputs to Special Payments or receive outputs from their processes: • Mainframe • Email • Mail, Fax, or Phone




Participants The following stakeholders have responsibilities in the performance or management of the Special Payments unit processes: • Claimants • Various UC Program areas • Department of Financial Services • Banks • Pitney Bowes (postage and mail processing company)

Opportunities for Improvement These suggested opportunities for improvement are based on industry best practices as well as specific items captured during interviews with key staff members. These opportunities will be explored during detailed requirements gathering in Phase 2. • Provide better process for reporting correction of claim information • Allow claimants to cancel EFT via IVR • Allow claimants to request duplicate form1099-G via IVR or FLUID and process

automatically • Allow claimants to request status of warrants via IVR or FLUID • Allow claimants to report lost or stolen warrants via IVR or FLUID • Provide a better system for Special Payments Unit to track and troubleshoot EFT

issues




Core Activity Detail Special Payments


Automated or Manual


Participants 1 Correcting

Social Security numbers

• Special Payments staff receives request to correct Social Security number on claim

• Access mainframe to make change

Phone Email Fax Mainframe

Outlook 3270

Manual Claimant UC Program Area Special Payments staff

2 Correcting effective dates on claims

• Special Payments staff receives request to correct effective date on claim



Outlook 3270


3 Cancelling claims

• Special Payments staff receives request to cancel claim



Outlook 3270


4 Issue supplemental payments

• Special Payments staff receives information that additional wages were reported

• Verify wages • Access mainframe to make change

Mainframe Outlook 3270

Manual Supple-mental payment

Claimant UC Program Area Special Payments staff




Special Payments # Activity Tasks Source of Data Systems/



Participants 5 Cancel and

reissue benefit warrants and EFT issues

• Special Payments staff receives information that warrant requires cancellation or reissue

• Verify information • Access mainframe to make update • Contact claimant and banking

institution for EFT issues

Phone Email Fax Mail Mainframe

Outlook 3270

Manual Duplicate warrant

UC Program Area Special Payments staff Claimant Banking Institution

6 Mail duplicate form 1099-G

Mainframe Outlook 3270

Manual/ Auto

Duplicate form 1099-G

UC Program Special Payments staff Claimant Pitney Bowes

Table 2-8 Special Payments - Activity Detail




2.2.10 Employer Charges Unit The Employer Charges Unit handles employer responses to claim information requests, Determination Notice of Unemployment Compensation Claim Filed (form UCB-412). The information within the form UCB-412 assists staff in determining if the employer’s account chargeability as well as claimant benefits eligibility. These associates also respond to employer protests to notices generated by the Department of Revenue, Notice of Benefits Paid (form UCT-1) and Reimbursement Invoice (form UCT-29) concerning the chargeability of benefits to their unemployment tax accounts. The diagram below identifies the workflow of an Employer Charges staff.

Figure 2-9 Employer Charges Unit Process

Process Inputs The majority of UCB-412’s are received via fax and mail. The recently established Internet based filing system for UCB-412’s, Automated Employer Notification Response (AENR), has limited flexibility. The limitation within the system is the inability to attach documents, which are necessary to support an employer’s allegation of misconduct. Core Activities Receive Employer Responses The form UCB-412 can be received by fax, mail or filed via the Internet. The forms are dispersed to the specialist in paper form when received by mail or the internet (not faxes). The AENR filing process negates the benefit of a paperless solution and leaves the single benefit of the Internet system being its ability to track and record responses, which has helped to reduce duplicate forms being sent out and received. Because the Internet system cannot accept supporting documentation, employers are instructed to use fax or mail if they have attachments to support an allegation of misconduct or the comments supporting misconduct can be written in the comment section of form UCB-412. Employer Protests to Benefit Charges The Department of Revenue mails quarterly benefit charge statements to employers to posting debits and credits for benefits that are based on wages previously paid by the




employer. The employer can submit a written protest with an explanation of the protest. The protest that may affect claimant’s eligibility for past, current, or future benefits is forwarded to the appropriate claim hub for adjudication. Protests not involving benefit eligibility are resolved in the Employer Charges Unit. Determine Employer Chargeability Staff reviews the information submitted by the employer to determine chargeability of the employer’s account. These determinations are processed through the automated non-monetary determination system within the mainframe. Enter Non-charge for Employer If it is determined an employer protest, or if a form UCB-412 indicates the employer should not be charged, unit staff can access the mainframe transaction to enter a non-charge. Some employers do not make quarterly contributions to the unemployment trust fund and finance benefits on a reimbursement basis. Only nonprofit organizations, the State, and political subdivisions can elect to be reimbursable employers. Protests from these employers are processed through automated letters executed through the mainframe when the claimant has earned 17 x WBA, otherwise they are sent to the hubs for handling. Process Outputs The output for the Employer Charges Unit is a determination on the chargeability of the employer’s account or an explanation to the employer regarding the propriety of a charge already made. Interfaces Below are other business systems that provide inputs to Employer Charges or receive outputs from their processes: • Mainframe • Imaging • SUNTAX • AENR

Participants The following stakeholders have responsibilities in the performance or management of the Employer Charges Unit’s processes: • Claimants • Employers • Adjudication • Department of Revenue




Opportunities for Improvement These suggested opportunities for improvement are based on industry best practices as well as specific items captured during interviews with key staff members. These opportunities will be explored during detailed requirements gathering in Phase 2. • Provide a system that can identify duplicate employer information • Provide processing that mandates the information that is included in a form

UCB-412 request. Currently many employers send letters missing applicable information

• Provide the AENR system to allows the employer to upload supporting documentation

• Provide a system that can automatically scan the form UCB-412 for reason codes • Provide employers with a way to submit separation information in batch uploads • Provide an employer portal for external users to view their employer information • Provide a system that will not allow duplicate determinations to be entered via

BQ81




Core Activity Detail Employer Charges Unit


Automated or Manual


Participants 1 Receive UCB-

412 response • Received by mail, fax or

internet (AENR) Imaging AENR

Imaging AENR SUNTAX

Manual Employer Charge Unit Staff Claimant

2 Receive employer protests

• Received by phone, mail or fax • Review claimant history BH-10

Phone Imaging

Imaging SUNTAX


3 Determine if employer on UCB-412 is chargeable

• Review responses • Access mainframe to enter

charge or non-charge determination

Imaging AENR

Imaging AENR SUNTAX


4 Enter non-charge for employer if applicable

• Access mainframe transaction to enter non-charge

• If reimbursable employer, enter mainframe transaction

Mainframe 3270 Emulator Manual/ Auto

Forward responses to adjudication hub for determination Letter automatically generated for reimbursable employers

Employer Charge Unit Staff Employer Adjudicator Claimant




Employer Charges Unit # Activity Tasks Source of Data Systems/



Participants 5 Issue

chargeability determination

• Access mainframe transaction to enter charge determination

Mainframe 3270 Emulator Manual/ Auto

Determination DOR Employer Charge Unit Staff

Table 2-9 Employer Charges Unit - Activity Detail




2.2.11 Benefit Payment Control (BPC) Benefit Payment Control’s role in the Unemployment Compensation business process is to detect and determine benefits overpaid, deter fraudulent claim filing through prosecution, and collect and recoup overpaid benefits. Process Inputs Adjudication and appeals decisions, Agency conducted audits, hot line tips and employer protests provide the BPC unit with information on overpayments. The systems conduct cross-matches on wages and benefit payments as well as system cross-matches with other programs such as New Hires, Department of Health, and reported incarcerations. • System processed cross-matches • Non-monetary determinations • Appeals decisions • Agency conducted audits

Core Activities Conduct Wage Credit Post Audit A cross match of benefits paid against wages earned is done once a quarter. When there is a match, the mainframe computer prints form UCO-2, Request for Breakdown of Earnings. These forms are mailed to employer(s) each quarter requesting the exact weeks of employment and the wages earned. When the UCO-2 forms are returned, an initial review is completed to eliminate those forms that have no apparent conflict. Those with conflicts are investigated and an overpayment determination is issued if appropriate. Conduct New Hire Audit The New Hire Unit is responsible for handling re-employment issues. When the New Hire information is received from the Florida Department of Revenue and the Department of Health and Human Services, a cross match is conducted against active unemployment claims and a potential issue flag is placed on the claim if a match is found. This flag prevents payments from being issued until the potential issue is investigated and if appropriate, a decision issued with regard to continuing eligibility. Potential issues are automatically assigned as tasks to New Hire staff. Supervisors can control task assignments by putting them in or taking them out of the system or they can reassign tasks if a specialist is unavailable. Investigate Hot Line Tips A toll free telephone number and an Internet web site are available for the general public to advise the Agency anonymously that a claimant may be working and drawing unemployment at the same time. The information is reviewed and appropriate action is taken.




Investigate Employer Protests The UCT-1, Statement of Benefit Charges Notice, is mailed by the Department of Revenue (DOR) to employers at the end of each calendar quarter. The form lists the claimant’s name and the amount of benefits charged to the employer’s experience rating account. The employer may question the charges. When there are allegations of a claimant concurrently working and claiming benefits or other questions of eligibility, an investigation is initiated to determine if improper payments were made to the claimant in question. Other Audits/Cross matches Information is regularly received from the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Department of Health (DOH) regarding claimants who are incarcerated or deceased, respectively. Benefits are suspended while an investigation is conducted and if appropriate an overpayment determination is issued. BPC also receives information regarding potential conflict from the multi-address and multi-warrant audit that is produced by the data warehouse. These audits advise if three or more claims are filed from the same address and if three or more warrants are mailed to the same address or deposited in the same bank account for the same period of time. Investigations are conducted and overpayment determinations are issued if appropriate. Benefit Accuracy Measurement Findings The BAM Unit is a Federally mandated program designed to determine if benefits have been properly paid. The Unit audits a randomly selected number of claims per week as mandated by the United States Department of Labor (USDOL). During the course of an audit a possible overpayment may be discovered. When an overpayment exists the information/investigation is routed to BPC where an overpayment determination is issued. Lottery Cross-Match Recovery An automated extract of current overpayments is sent from IT to the Lottery Commission. If a Social Security number matches, the information is given to BPC to research and investigate. New Claim with Existing Overpayment Recoupment If an eligible claim is subsequently filed anytime before the overpayment recovery period has expired, current claim benefits that would otherwise be payable are automatically withheld (offset) and applied toward the overpayment. Non-Monetary Overpayments/Non-fraud Recovery These overpayments result from oversight, misunderstanding, technical errors, re-determination, adjudication and appeals decisions, Unemployment Appeals Commission orders, decisions of the District Courts of Appeal or mitigating




circumstances where there is no intent to commit fraud. Initially, a Notice of Determination (form UCO-15 or form UCB-45) is generated and mailed followed by a monthly statement of Payments Received and Balance Due (UCO-17) until the debt is satisfied. If these payments are not made, court action is initiated or the overpayment is referred to a collection agency. With the exception of a case that is referred to a collection agency, once the form UCO-17 is stopped it will only be generated when a payment is received. As long as the case is with a collection agency, the form UCO-17 will never be generated unless the stop is manually overridden via transaction BF82. If the debt is not paid within one-hundred and twenty (120) days from the date the overpayment determination was mailed or from the date of the last payment, a letter is automatically mailed (UCO-202) advising of possible Court action, requesting repayment and providing information on how to make repayment. If the Agency does not receive a response within 30 days, a letter is automatically mailed (UCO-249) advising of the Agency’s intent to file in Court or refer to a private collection agency. After an additional 30 days (6 months from initial determination letter), a non-monetary overpayment is placed on a monthly Drop-off List, which is given to the collection agency for handling. If the overpayment is deemed non-fraud, the list is given to the Recovery unit to prepare cases for filing in Court. The Civil Court Team changes recovery responsibility to team members. If the case cannot be filed in Civil Court because the claimant cannot be served, the case is referred to the collection agency. Civil Court Filing The Civil Court Team files cases in Civil Court as necessary in an effort to obtain restitution. These cases are primarily non-fraud cases. They can also include fraud cases that the state attorney would not accept for prosecution for various reasons. Civil Court Team associates also monitor cases for post-trial activity to insure that conditions of restitution are being met. Fraud Overpayments/Recovery Fraud is statutorily defined as any false statement or failure to disclose a material fact, knowingly made for the purpose of obtaining or preventing payment of benefits contrary to the provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Law. As provided in F.S. 443.151(6) (a) and (b), the Agency for Workforce Innovation must affect recovery or recoupment of fraud overpayment within five (5) years of the re-determination or decision. At the conclusion of this time period the law prevents the Agency from actively pursuing collections. Prior to a case reaching the SOL, the Agency initiates recovery or recoupment of an overpayment in the following manner: • A Notice of Determination (UCO-15) is system generated and mailed – recovery

responsibility is assigned to a number series; • A statement of Payments Received and Balance Due (UCO-17) is automatically

mailed each month until either the debt is satisfied or Court action is initiated. Once the case is referred to a State Attorney, the UCO-17 will only be mailed when a payment is received;




• Associates responding to calls from claimants should encourage the claimant to make monthly repayments that will provide for the debt to be satisfied before the case reaches the SOL for the State Attorney (three {3} years from the last week claimed);

• If no payments are received within one-hundred and twenty (120) days from the date the overpayment determination was mailed or from the date of the last payment, a letter is automatically mailed (UCO-202) advising of possible Court action, requesting repayment and providing information on how to make repayment;

• If no payment is received within one-hundred and fifty (150) days from the date the overpayment determination was mailed or from the date of the last payment, a letter is automatically mailed (UCO-249) advising of the Agency’s intent to file in Court or refer to a collection agency if repayment is not received within ten (10) days;

• If no payment is received for one-hundred and eighty (180) days (six {6} consecutive months), monthly statements are discontinued and the overpayment is placed on the monthly Drop-off List.

• A comment is automatically placed on the BF01 “COLLECTION LETTERS STOPPED, OP ADDED TO COLLECTION AGENCY LIST” and the List is given to the Recovery Unit to prepare cases for filing with the State Attorney. The Fraud Recovery Investigators change recovery responsibility to themselves.

Fraud Prosecution/Court Action • Once a fraud overpayment determination has been made and a payment has not

been received for six (6) consecutive months, the case is forwarded to the appropriate Fraud Recovery Investigator according to the circuit where the claimant resides;

• The Fraud Recovery Investigator is responsible for obtaining all evidentiary records pertaining to the case and preparing the case for filing with the appropriate State Attorney’s Office;

• It is up to each Fraud Recovery Investigator to meet with their respective State Attorney to determine what evidentiary records are required in their respective circuits and prepare the cases accordingly;

• Fraud Recovery Investigators then file fraud overpayment cases with the State Attorney;

• It is critical that the Fraud Recovery Investigator assign the case in BOSS to themselves with regard to collection responsibility;

• Once the case has been filed with the State Attorney, the investigator will change the recovery responsibility to their court persona.

Collection Agency Management All nonmonetary overpayments that fall on the Drop-off list are referred to a collection agency. Acknowledgment receipt of cases BPC has referred for collection is listed on the




collection agency’s website. The collection agency will mail to BPC a list of claimants who have made payments. A check for the any repayments collected will be enclosed. This list will be given to the Payment Processing Center associates to apply to the individual claimant overpayment Payment Processing The Payment Processing Center is responsible for processing all money orders, personal checks and cash that are sent to the Agency as repayment. Associates enter payments to the overpayment file by using a secured mainframe transaction and route all monies to the AWI Financial Management Section. The Agency’s mail vendor picks up and delivers mail to the Payment Processing Center in BPC twice a day (10:00 and 3:00). Upon delivery, the mail is opened and distributed within the center. No additional associates are permitted in this area and all payments not processed are locked in the safe. To prepare the payments for input, the assigned associate must search to determine if the payment belongs to the collection agency. The associate also searches for social security numbers if it is not included with the payment. This is done by running a BF01 on each payment. The payments are divided into three stacks; personal checks, money orders and business checks. Collection agency payments are separated from regular payments. Collection agency payments are counted and the number is recorded on the Daily Cash Summary. The summary is dated and signed. Payments received from the collection agency are tracked on an Excel spreadsheet. Every week the collection agency payments are forwarded to the collection agency with a prepared worksheet that contains detailed information such as the claimant’s name, social security number, check amount, and check type and a cover letter. A letter is prepared and sent to each claimant advising that his or her payment was sent to the collection agency for processing. Regular payments are stamped (endorsed) “for deposit only” and an associate enters the payments into the system using the secured transaction BF76 to enter the payment. The next business day a SAR report will be printed for payment reconciliation purposes. The SAR report displays the total amount of payments entered that day using BF76. The associate who entered payments that day must not be the person who adds the payments. When the payments are manually balanced, they should match the amount listed on the SAR report or adjustments have to be made for errors found while reconciling the report in order to arrive at a correct total. Process Outputs • UCO-8- A form to inform claimant of the offsetting of their benefits • UCO-17- A from to inform claimant of their overpayment of benefits • UCO-15- A Notice of Determination form • UCO-202- A form used for collecting overpayments




• UCO-249- A form notifying the client of potential judicial action to be taken if payment is not made

• UCO-6- A form sent to claimant requesting proof of wages • UCO-706- A form sent to confirm New Hire status with employer • UCO-707- A form sent to confirm New Hire status with claimant, if applicable

Interfaces Below are other business systems that provide inputs to BPC or receive outputs from their processes: • Mainframe • Imaging • BOSS • VIEW

Participants The following stakeholders have responsibilities in the performance or management of the Benefit Payment Control processes: • Claimants • Employers • Agency • Lottery Commission • Collection Agency • IT Department • Florida Department of Financial Services • State Attorney Offices

Opportunities for Improvement These suggested opportunities for improvement are based on industry best practices as well as specific items captured during interviews with key staff members. These opportunities will be explored during detailed requirements gathering in Phase 2. • Employers are currently allowed up to a year to respond which causes

determinations having to be made again once new information is received. Mandating or getting the employers to respond within a timely manner would eliminate a lot of the workload. There are currently no penalties for ignoring 412’s.

• The IVR’s disconnection of caller forces claimants to find other ways to contact the Agency, therefore resulting in with other staff, including managing, having to answer phones and assist claimants




• Better processes to educate the public on the eligibility requirements of the UC Program in clear, plain simple language that everyone can understand

• Allowing on-line payments would help reduce the manual payment processing that BPC has to deal with every day

• Provide a system with the functionality of scanning in documents and having the systems automatically classify them and add to work queues

• Devising means to make it easier for employers to respond and giving them a benefit to responding would increase the number of optional responses

• There currently is no process to track the number of mailings that result in responses. Perhaps using a numbering process on the mailings that go out or possibly a scan bar containing information about the mailings that gets returned with the responses would allow for a means to track the number of responses from a mailing.

• BPC files in criminal and civil court approximately 1,000 cases a month. A case can require 10-20 documents each and creates a massive paper process and mailing process. An automated system to cut down the time to retrieve and print the information surrounding a case, as well as an electronic means, to send this information to the courts would save time and increased efficiency.

• Provide a system with reliability. Currently there is a problem requiring frequent reboots of the BOSS system when it remains idle for a period of time. Currently it is sometimes necessary to reboot the system 4-5 times a day. This may be a result of the Client/Server architecture being used;

• Create clearer and more concise determinations and appeals documents • Requiring employers to give a reason for separation at the time of separation

would reduce overpayments by ensuring that eligibility is correctly adjudicated when the claim is filed




Core Activity Detail Benefit Payment Control


Systems/ Interfaces

Automated or Manual


Participants 1 Conduct wage

credit post audit

• Mainframe prints a UCO-2 sent to employers

• Wage Audit examines all UCO-2 • Reviews BH 01, 10 and 08 • Enters a case in BOSS

Mainframe Imaging

3270 Emulator Imaging BOSS Mainframe

Manual Automated BOSS system

DOR BPC Specialist Employer Claimant

2 Conduct New Hire Audit

• Automated cross match is conducted and a 09ARN flag is generated

• UCO-707 is generated for employer • UCO- 706 is generated for claimant • Issue lists are automatically generated

in BOSS & cases are automatically assigned to specialists

SAR Report BOSS VIEW Mainframe

Automated DOR HHS BPC Specialist Employer Claimant

3 Investigate Hot Line Tips

• Tips received via telephone or Internet • Orlando Call center forwards

telephone tips to BPC mailbox • Cases assigned to specialists for

investigation/resolution

Internet/ Telephone

Outlook mailbox

Manual BPC Call Center Specialist Public Claimant




Benefit Payment Control # Activity Tasks Source of


Automated or Manual


Participants 4 Investigate

Employer Protests

• Employer protests UCT-1 statement of charges generated by DOR

• UC 412 Unit manually forwards protests to BPC

• Case manually assigned to specialist for investigation/resolution

UCT-1 Mainframe Manual DOR UC 412 Unit BPC Specialist Employer Claimant

5 Other Audits/cross matches

• Cross match conducted • BPC notified of conflict via flag or

computer report • Assigned to specialist for

investigation/resolution

DOC DOH

Mainframe BOSS Data warehouse

Automated DOC DOH BPC Specialist Employer Claimant

6 BAM Findings • BAM Unit notifies BPC of discovered overpayment

• BPC determines overpayment & initiates recovery efforts

Mainframe SUN System Manual BAM BPC Specialist Employer Claimant






Automated or Manual


Participants 7 Lottery cross

match • Ninth day of each month the IT group

conducts a cross-match of lottery winners and claimants.

• Any matches are given to BPC. • If claimant pays letter generated to

lottery • If not Lottery will transmit funds via a

Journal Transfer • When the Journal Transfer is received

in BPC, input the payment on transaction BF76.

IT Dept Mainframe

3270 Emulator

Manual Lottery match list

Lottery Commission IT Dept BPC Specialist

8 New Claim with Existing Overpayment Recoupment

• System generates UCO-8B • System automatically offsets new

benefits to repay overpayment

BOSS BOSS Automated UCO-8 BPC Specialist Employer Claimant

9 Non-monetary overpayments/Non-fraud Recovery

• Notice of Determination (UCO-15) is mailed as well as monthly statement (UCO-17)

• When given to collections, access BF-82 to stop UCO-17

• After 120 days follow up with UCO-202 advising of court action

• After 150 days, follow up with UCO-249

• Drop off list is given to Recovery Unit for processing

BOSS Mainframe

BOSS Both UCO-17 UCO-15 UCO-202 UCO-249 Drop Off List

BPC specialist Investigator Civil Court Team Collection Agency






Automated or Manual


Participants 10 Civil Court

Filing • Case appears on drop-off report for

nonpayment • Investigator reviews to determine if

appropriate for court filing • Investigator prepares paperwork and

files case • Investigator represents Agency in

Civil Court when case is heard

Mainframe BOSS

BOSS Primarily Manual

Various court docu-ments depend-ing on circuit

BPC Investigator Claimant Employer Civil Court System

11 Fraud Overpayments/Recovery

• As with Non-monetary overpayment/non-fraud recovery except case is referred to state attorney for prosecution

BOSS Mainframe


Various court docu-ments depend-ing on circuit

BPC Investigator Employer Claimant State Attorneys

12 Fraud Prosecution/Court Action

• Case prepared for state attorney according to their instructions

• Investigator may appear in court to provide testimony

• Case is followed for resolution and restitution by working several mainframe generated prosecution reports

Mainframe BOSS


BPC Investigator Claimant Employer State Attorney Probation Officers






Automated or Manual


Participants 13 Collection

Agency Management

• Referral Lists prepared and forwarded to collection agency

• Money received on cases forwarded transferred to collection agency

• Collection agency transfers money collected to BPC

• Funds must be reconciled and reports provided to Financial Management

Mainframe BOSS


BPC Collection Agency Payment Processing staff Financial Management staff Claimant Employer

14 Payment Processing

• Verify if payment belongs to collection agency with transaction BF-01

• If collection agency’s it is collected and logged on an excel spreadsheet and

• A Summary of Daily Receipts is prepared by the associate that opens the mail

• All payments received are entered into the system using transaction BF76

• Next day SAR report shows payment allows vouchers to be printed

• Specialist accesses FLAIR system to verify accuracy of the deposits.

Mail 3270 Emulator MS Excel VIEW FLAIR

Manual Vouchers Claimant Employer Collection Agency BPC Specialists Financial Management

Table 2-10 Benefit Payment Control - Activity Detail




2.2.12 Appeals If a determination is provided that adversely affects a claimant or employer, that person may file an appeal regarding eligibility, qualification, experience rate charges, child support deductions, overpayment, special programs and/or fraud. Those appeals, known as benefit cases, are heard and decided by appeals referees. When an appeal is filed the Office of Appeals must provide an opportunity for an administrative hearing providing all due process rights and in compliance with Florida’s administrative code, evidence rules and applicable rules of procedure. Pertinent files documents must be made available to all parties. Following the hearing, a written decision is issued setting out findings of fact and conclusions of law with a ruling affirming, denying or modifying the determination. That written decision can be appealed to the Unemployment Appeals Commission and then to the District Court of Appeal in the district where the decision was issued. Figure 2-10 depicts the business process workflow for the Appeals unit. In addition, employers may file appeals of their tax rate liability for taxes, penalty and interest assessed, or a requirement to reimburse the trust fund. Those appeals are filed at the Department of Revenue and heard by AWI Special Deputies. For each tax appeal, the Office of Appeals provides the opportunity for an administrative hearing holds a hearing providing all due process rights and in compliance with Florida’s administrative code, evidence rules and rules of procedure. Following the hearing a written recommended order is issued setting out recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law with a recommended ruling affirming, denying or amending the determination. The Director of AWI issues a final order in these cases, which may be appealed directly to the District Court of Appeals. Figure 2-11 depicts the Special Deputy process workflow.




Figure 2-10 Appeals Process




DOR Sends Determination

Inter-office Transfer

Employer ExaminerDockets Case and Enters into

Appeals ApplicationFiles an Appeal

to DOR

Compile Case

If Tallahassee

Field OfficeSchedules Hearing

Employer

Claimant

HearingNotification

HearingNotification

HearingNotification

DOR

Employer

Claimant

DOR

Recommended Result

Recommended Result

Recommended Result

Hearing Attendees

Claimant

Employer

Appeal Referee

Optional Witness

Optional Lawyer/Representative

DOR Exceptions/Counter Exceptions

Exceptions/Counter Exceptions

Exceptions/Counter Exceptions

Final Order By AWI Director

Employer

Claimant

DOR

Written Order

Written Order

Written Order

File in DistrictCourt of Appeals

Figure 2-11 Special Deputy Process




Process Inputs Any legible written notice that expresses disagreement with or indicates a desire to appeal a determination or redetermination constitutes an appeal. Use of an official form is not mandatory. The appeal will include the appellant’s identity, name and social security number of the claimant, the unemployment tax account number of any involved employer, the date and subject matter of the determination, and a brief statement of the reason for disagreement with the determination. Failure to include this information will not cause the appeal to be rejected, but may delay the processing of the appeal. The Agency provides AWI Form A100, Notice of Appeal, which may be used to prepare an appeal. An appellant may file by mailing or faxing this completed form, a letter, or other written document containing the appellant’s identity and claimant’s social security number. Internet appeals must be completed on the Agency’s website at www.fluidnow.com/appeals. However, e-mailed appeals are not accepted due to the potential for identity theft inherent in unsecured e-mail transactions. Appeals are not accepted by telephone. Core Activities Appeal of Benefit Determination If an appeal is filed by mail or fax, an examiner in the Appeals Clerk's Office can use the Benefits mainframe transaction BQ71 to enter appeals of automated (UCB45) determinations. These appeals are termed automated because upon entry in the mainframe application, information from the UC Benefits database will upload to the Appeals computer system and then information regarding the appeal filing will be available on both systems (using BQ01 transaction on the Benefits mainframe application). Appeals of determinations other than those on Forms UCB45 must be manually entered in the Appeals Application and do not upload to the UC Benefits mainframe application and cannot be viewed on a BQ01 transaction. Generally, a comment advising users that an appeal of a non-automated determination was filed is typed and entered in the UC Benefits mainframe and appears only on the claim history. Upon entry in the Appeals application, the case will not yet have a docket number and its status will be shown as “To be examined.” The case is assigned to an Appeals Office by the computer, based on the cost center number on the appealed determination. The entry of an appeal of an automated (UCB45) determination also generates a batch report including a copy of the claimant’s wage transcript(s), determinations made on the claim, a docket sheet, and a request for a copy of the adjudication file. Appeals to wage credit, overpayment, fraud, and child support determinations must be manually keyed in the Appeals application database and a docket sheet must be created from the Appeals application by an examiner. An examiner must key in a request for determination copies, e-mail a request for the adjudication file, and key in a comment for the claim history to show that an appeal was filed. Internet appeals of automated determinations filed at www.fluidnow.com/appeals upload nightly to Appeals and Benefits mainframe databases.




Case Examined / Docket Number Assigned The Clerk's Office manually associates all documents regarding an appeal (the appeal, determinations, adjudication file if available) and assigns them to associates in social security number order. The assigned examiner reviews each case to verify determination and appeal dates, party addresses, and that each appeal document is associated with the appropriate determination(s). An examiner identifies any associated cases, removes any duplicate addresses from the database and verifies the case suffix L which identifies the funding program and will appear at the end of the docket number when docket numbers are assigned. When the day’s appeals are examined and accepted, the Clerk of Appeals dockets the day’s work and the Appeals intranet application assigns a docket number and computes 30, 45, and 90-day disposition dates, and designates the Appeals Office where the case will be assigned and the adjudication file forwarded. In a process called “Set Up,” the docket number of each case is manually affixed by label to the docket sheet and a case file folder. The docket sheet, determinations, appeal, and any other available documents are placed in the case file folder. In addition to the docket number, the label identifies the 30, 45, and 90-day dates for timely case disposition. The docket sheet is used to track the progress of each case. Hearing Schedule and Notice / Documentation Mailed A hearing officer or Deputy Clerk manually schedules each hearing. A Notice of Telephone Hearing is mailed to the parties with a copy of pertinent file documents and an Appeals Information pamphlet. The wage transcript and copy of the determination are included. The Appeals pamphlet advises parties to arrange for any witnesses to testify and to have an extension or speaker telephone available. The scheduling referee must identify significant documents available in the file and arrange them in logical (usually chronological) order for mailing to the parties. These documents may be mailed with the Notice of Hearing if they are available or will be mailed at a later date. The mailings include pertinent pages of the application for benefits, fact-finding statements, related correspondence, the determination, the appeal, and any documents that accompanied the appeal. Some Appeals Offices set both individual and hearing pool schedules. A hearing pool schedule refers to a group of hearings scheduled for several hearing officers who are assigned to a hearing pool. An individual schedule refers to a group of hearings scheduled for one hearing officer. In a hearing pool, several hearings are scheduled at or near the same time. Upon completing a hearing, each hearing officer accepts the next case file from a designated “pool”. The Deputy Clerk or referee must review each case file to see whether a translator should be provided for the claimant. Translators are scheduled by submitting a fax requesting a specific date and time to the Miami scheduling office. If a translator is not available, a contracted translator is acquired. An INT note on the hearing notice is included in mailing to advise the claimant that a translator will be provided.




Subpoenas, Discovery Orders and Other Documents Issued Each party to a benefit or special deputy hearing has the right to conduct discovery under the Florida Evidence Code. The agency will provide subpoenas for discovery upon application. An application for subpoena must be in writing and contain sufficient information to prepare and serve the subpoena, including the name and address of any witness being subpoenaed and a detailed description of any documents to be produced. Any case documents received in the Clerk’s Office from the claim file or a party will be labeled as miscellaneous mail and forwarded to the appropriate Appeals Office. Other document types, including pre-hearing orders, letters, etc. may also be created via the Appeals application and sent to the parties. The Office of Appeals is responsible for creating witness subpoenas for any party upon request and serving subpoenas requested by claimants. The subpoenas are coordinated by the Deputy Clerk. Hearing Convened with Witnesses Each party and/or its representative have the right to participate in the entire hearing, that is, to examine and cross examine each witness, present and hear all testimony and view all evidence. Occasionally, a representative will participate in a hearing on behalf of a party. A party may choose to be represented by an attorney or other authorized representative, at the party’s own expense. The hearing officer must approve any fee charged by a claimant’s attorney or representative and the fee is paid by the claimant. Witnesses may be permitted to hear all testimony given or may be sequestered at the request of an opposing party or the hearing officer. Parties participating by telephone may have observers at their locations, observing by speakerphone or extension telephone. Although it is appreciated when parties announce that an observer is present, no legal requirement requires such disclosure on the record. The digital recording system, a computer interface, the appeals application, and a telephone all interact to record telephone and in-person hearings. See Appendix Tab 7 for digital recording and telephone user interface (TUI) instructions. As long as a telephone is available, hearings can be recorded even if the appeals application, digital system, or computer is down. If the computer is down, but telephones are working, the hearing officer uses the TUI or a hand held recorder to record hearings. If the appeals application is down but the computer interface, digital system, and telephones are working, participant names and phone numbers will not be available electronically and it will be necessary to type in the names and telephone numbers of participants before they can be added to the telephone conference. If the digital application is down but telephones are working, the hearing officer uses the telephone conference call feature, three-way dialing, or a state operator to record hearings using a hand held recorder. Appeals Decision Issued




Once the hearing is complete, the hearing officer manually completes the UC Appeals Docket Sheet (Form UCA-1). Any address changes, additional address, errors, and other items are corrected or updated as appropriate. The decision information and a written decision are entered into the Appeals application and forwarded to a Deputy clerk for final processing and mailing. When the decision is prepared and mailed the docket sheet is updated and the case file is prepared for imaging. Process Outputs Many documents and reports are generated in the Appeals application, the most significant being: • Hearing Notices • Decisions • Notices of Continuance • Appeals Docket Sheets and labels • Hearing Schedules • Subpoenas • Discovery and other Orders • Digital Recording File • Daily, weekly and monthly reports, including but not limited to docketing, disposition, case aging, and result reports.

Interfaces Below are other business systems that provide input or receive output from the Appeals process: • UC Mainframe • Appeals Internet application • Appeals Intranet tracking application • Imaging • Digital Recording system • Email • Mail/Fax • BOSS • SUNTAX

Participants • Claimants • Employers • Lawyers and Authorized Representatives




• The Agency • Deputy Clerks • Hearing Officers • Appeals Commission • Department of Revenue • Adjudicators

Opportunities for Improvement These suggested opportunities for improvement are based on industry best practices as well as specific items captured during interviews with key staff members. These opportunities will be explored during detailed requirements gathering in Phase 2. • System should provide Address verification application • System should alleviate the documentation processing by maintaining information in one location and implementing a system to compile and mail that information

• Provide Agency PIN numbers for employers and access to an Employer Homepage

• Allow claimants and employers to file an Appeal via the IVR • Allow claimants and employers to cancel appeals via IVR • Provide seamless integration of the Appeals processes into the new system by using the same applications for all business units

• Allow better ad hoc reporting




Core Activity Detail Appeals


Systems/ Interfaces

Automated or Manual


Participants 1 Customer files

appeal of benefit determination

• Filed by claimant, employer, or representative via fax, mail or Internet

Determina-tion

Mailed Manual and automated

Appeal filing

Claimant Employer Agency

2 Case is examined and a docket number is assigned

• Appeal is received and logged into Appeals application by Clerk’s office or web filing printed

• Clerk compiles case documents received from Adjudication and other sections

• Docket number is automatically assigned when the case is accepted by an examiner

• Case batching is done and files are sent to district offices

FLUID Imaging Appellant Mainframe Nightly batch download of appeals

FLUID Imaging Appeals Mainframe

Manual and Auto

Docket number Paper case file

Examiner Adjudicator Claimants Employers

3 Hearing schedule prepared and notice and documentation mailed out to parties

• Schedule telephone hearing • Possibly schedule interpreter by

manual scheduling • Additional documents from

Adjudication and parties to file • Identify and number significant

file documents

Appeals application

Appeals Fax Mail Claims and benefits mainframe

Manual & Auto

Hearing schedule Notice and documenta-tion mailed

Employer Claimant Translator Witnesses Lawyers or Representatives Hearing Officers Agency




Appeals # Activity Tasks Source of


Automated or Manual


Participants 4 Subpoenas,

discovery orders, and other documents created and issued

• Deputy clerk issues subpoenas, discovery orders and other documents

Appeals application

Appeals Manual & Auto

Subpoenas Discovery orders and many other documents

Employer Claimant Witnesses Deputy clerk UAC Lawyers or Representatives Employers Agency

5 Hearing convened with or without witnesses

• Evidence is accepted, direct and cross examinations are conducted and objections addressed

Hearing attendees Notice of hearing attachments

Automated Digital Recording System

Manual Automated

Digital Recording file

Employer Claimant Lawyers or Representatives Employers Agency Witnesses




Appeals # Activity Tasks Source of


Automated or Manual


Participants 6 Appeals decision

issued including findings of fact, conclusions of law and result

• Decision data is entered into Appeals system; decision document is generated

• Case information is forwarded to deputy clerk

• Decision is proofed copied and mailed

• All documents are prepared for imaging

• Decision result downloaded to mainframe or reported to Adjudication for manual entry

Hearing attendees/ case file

Appeals system and Mainframe

Manual Appeal Decision Document Digital Recording File

Deputy Clerk Employer Claimant AWI Lawyers or Representatives Agency

Table 2-11 Appeals Process



2/3/2009 of 266 UC Modernization Project

2.2.13 Quality Improvement and Federal Reporting This section is responsible for submitting Federal Unemployment Insurance (UI) required reports, conducting Federal data validation of UI workload, evaluating claims for Benefits, Timeliness and Quality of UI non-monetary determinations, conducting Benefits Accuracy Measurement reviews of UI claims and providing and conducting UI programmatic training. This section also contains the Internal Security Unit, Tax Performance System (TPS) and UC Contracts.

Figure 2-12 Quality Improvement and Federal Reporting Process

Process Inputs The Quality Improvement and Federal Reporting area uses sample cases to produce statistics on the UC program in general. Errors uncovered because of their reviews are corrected where feasible; however, the primary purpose is to identify system-wide problems, so that when corrected, future errors can be prevented. Likewise, the quality review of nonmonetary determinations accomplished under the Benefits Timeliness and Quality (BTQ) system provides an assessment of the adequacy of the state’s fact-finding, application of law and policy, and the written determination, but does not inform the system about the accuracy of the determination. Core Activities Conduct Benefits Timely Quality (BTQ) Reviews An automated random sample selects 50 separation and 50 non-separation determinations issued by adjudicators during a calendar quarter for review. The review is a manual process of gathering imaged documents and information from the claim history to score the quality of the determination. Training Using their knowledge and experience from performing quality reviews, the Specialist performs training for other UC Program areas. This may include basic, advanced,




refresher and specialized training for adjudication staff and other UC process staff when requested. Specialized training materials are created to meet the training need. Benefits Accuracy Measurement (BAM) This process is a federally required system that provides the basis for assessing the accuracy of Unemployment Insurance payments and the accuracy of benefits denied. It is also a diagnostic tool for the use of Federal and State Workforce Agency staff in identifying errors and their causes. This is accomplished through examination of records and contacts with claimants, employers, and other parties to verify all aspects of the claim that could affect eligibility for payments. The BAM Specialist has the responsibility to draw samples, perform investigations, identify errors, compute error rates, analyze data, and initiate corrective action if appropriate. The primary federal responsibilities are to ensure system integrity through monitoring Federal State Workforce Agency practices and procedures and to analyze BAM data to assess the impact of federal requirements on the UC system. The BAM system has been designed to be as highly automated as possible. It supports operations to link with the Agency’s mainframe system as well as the USDOL host computer. This system is designed to increase the accuracy of data flows by minimizing the number of paper transactions and simplifying data storage and retrieval. It also increases the usefulness of the data by simplifying data retrieval and raising the sophistication with which it can be manipulated and combined with other data, reducing the amount of time BAM staff must spend in data handling. Generate Federal UC Required Reports Unemployment Insurance Required Reports data are used for economic statistics, to allocate UC administrative funding based on state workload, to measure state claimant eligibility criteria and performance in providing benefits, and to account for fund utilization. Process Outputs The output is federally required reports to USDOL and internal to the Agency as well as assisting in the training of UC staff. This is an extremely time consuming task when information is located in many different areas. Interfaces Below are other business systems that provide input or receive output: • Imaging • Federal SUN system • Mainframe • Internet




Participants The following stakeholders have responsibilities in the performance or management of the Quality Improvement and Federal Reporting processes: • BTQ Specialists • BAM Specialists • Claimants • Adjudicators • Appeals • Federal and State UC staff • Unemployment Appeals Commission

Opportunities for Improvement These suggested opportunities for improvement are based on industry best practices as well as specific items captured during interviews with key staff members. These opportunities will be explored during detailed requirements gathering in Phase 2. • A case management system would ease the burden of gathering information

surrounding a determination • Provide a system that allows point and click to gather necessary documents by

using a Windows GUI and document management system • Provide a system that automatically creates reports that are given to adjudication

hubs and management • Provide a system that provides online training • A structured, consistent training plan followed by all of UC would improve

quality • Use a scheduling system for adjudicators so they can add more quality checks to

their work • Allowing custom reports would be helpful • Enable more reports to automatically load into SUN report such as: Financial,

claims determination, and tax rate reports • Provide a system that verifies employer account numbers at time of entry




Core Activity Detail Quality Improvement and Federal Reporting

# Core Processes Tasks Source of Data

Systems/ Interfaces

Automated or Manual


Participants 1 Conduct

Benefits Timely Quality reviews

• Gather random non-monetary determinations

• Use imaging, hard copies etc. • Use quality reporting handbook

(ET301) to determine scoring • Enter scores in federal SUN system

Imaging Hard copies Mainframe

Imaging 3270 Federal SUN system ET301 Handbook

Manual Determina-tion Sample

BTQ Specialist Adjudicator USDOL UC Staff

2 Provides training for adjudication staff and other UC process staff when requested.

• Update and maintain adjudication related manuals, procedural instructions, and memory joggers

• Provides technical assistance to UC staff.

Documenta-tion

Personal computer applications

Manual Updated training documenta-tion

Agency Participants BTQ Specialist




Quality Improvement and Federal Reporting # Core Processes Tasks Source of


Automated or Manual


Participants 3 Perform

Benefits Accuracy Measurement tasks

• Review claim history information • Review appeals decisions • Review supporting documents in

imaging • Review MyFlorida job search records • Review other job services information

and also verification of work searches • Requests and audits

employer/claimant related wage records

• Verify facts of previously resolved monetary and nonmonetary issues

• Conduct new and original fact-finding on all undetected issues.

Mainframe Appeals system Imaging MyFlorida Hard copies

3270 Imaging Internet

Manual Automated into SUN system

Agency BAM Specialist US DOL

4 Generate Federal UC Required Reporting

• Report to US DOL on a monthly and quarterly basis under the Unemployment Insurance Required Reports System

Generated Reports

State Web Menu

Manual Reports Agency BAM Specialist US DOL US DHS DOR

Table 2-12 Quality Improvement and Federal Reporting




2.2.14 Assumptions and Constraints The following assumptions are statements about the project or its environment that are taken to be true and, accordingly, are factored into AWI’s plans and analysis for the proposed UC project. • A suitable configurable business application exists which will satisfy 70% of the

business requirements, with less than 30% of the solution to be customized – ideally, no customization should be made

• The procurement process for the systems solution(s) will be timely, fair, open, competitive and without serious challenge

• AWI desires to increase process effectiveness, reduce manual steps that rely on the use of ad-hoc tools and processes

• AWI will embrace the Organizational Change Management needed to implement the recommended solution

• The project team will be adequately staffed to accomplish the project’s deliverables, milestones, and infrastructure, manage user involvement, produce necessary project planning documents, project status reporting, etc.

• The system will invest in building data interfaces with other agencies/departments rather than re-create the storing of duplicate data

• Data conversion and migration from multiple legacy systems will be required • All labor costs for the project are assumed to be for system integrator and

support contractor staff only, exclusive of state employees • Labor rates for contracted staff are assumed to be in accordance with the IT

consulting State Term Contract for staff augmentation and comparable to similar projects recently undertaken by other Florida State Agencies

Constraints Constraints are identified factors that will limit the project management team’s options, and impact the progress or success of the proposed project. • Project funding is appropriated annually and may be subject to periodic releases

throughout the year; depending upon suitable schedule and cost performance. • Approval by either the Executive Office of the Governor (in consultation with the

Legislature) or the Legislative Budget Commission is required before any appropriated funds are made available to the Agency.

• All schedules depend on the continual availability of appropriated funds. • The total time to plan for the procurement process is unknown, because the total

time from start-to-finish to complete IT fixed-price procurement varies widely. This analysis is based upon a realistic and achievable schedule.

• Information requests from external overseers and partners can be time consuming to produce and can impact the project’s timeline.




• State and/or federal statutory changes, changes in administrative rules, and AWI policy changes may impact the project.

• The software tools supporting desired capabilities will be determined based on the solution proposed by the selected system integration vendor.




2.3 PROPOSED BUSINESS PROCESS REQUIREMENTS Purpose: To establish a basis for understanding what business process requirements the proposed solution must meet in order to select an appropriate solution for the project.

In order to meet the ever increasing needs of unemployed citizens and employers in Florida, the UC program requires a modern, integrated Claims and Benefits system that provides greater consistency and improved data integrity than the existing system. During Phase 2, detailed “To-be” business process flows incorporating the many proposed process improvements identified during Phase 1 will be designed. These improved process flows, as well as the high-level requirements documented in this section, will be used as a starting point for a more the detailed requirements gathering process. The outputs of Phase 2 will serve as a basis for the selection of the most closely matched business solution. 2.3.1 Process Specific Business Requirements The following high-level business requirements were gathered from UC program staff following a preliminary business process analysis. Sections 2.3.1.1 through 2.3.1.8 outline process-specific business requirements for the new system, as gathered from UC program staff. Section 2.3.1.9 contains general business requirements that will apply to all processes. A comprehensive matrix of business and technical requirements including a requirement identifier, priority level, and the extent the requirement is met by the current system can be found in Appendices A and B, respectively.

2.3.1.1 Claim Intake, Certification Process, and Inquiry These functions include receiving and processing initial and continued UC claims via Internet, telephone and paper; as well as ensuring weekly payments are issued. This area also meets the needs of providing claim information for claimants and employers. The business requirements necessary to support these functions in the new system are: • The proposed system must support Internet and IVR channels for claims intake. • The IVR system must utilize modifiable scripts that gather information from the

caller and the database with no agent intervention. System users with the proper security level must be able to manage scripts (add, edit, delete, and re-order) through a user-friendly interface that does not require coding.

• The proposed system must allow the claimant to file an initial Florida claim through the Internet without agent intervention.

• The proposed system must auto-populate existing claimant data (address information, email address, etc.) into on-screen forms.

• The proposed system must make all necessary calculations to complete claims-taking processing, given data entered by claimant as well as information accessed via the relational database, data warehouse and corresponding interfaces.

• The proposed system must maintain a history of all claims.




• The proposed system must allow the selection of occupational codes via the Occupational Information Network (ONET) on both IVR and Internet application.

• The proposed system design must allow for changes to the business process flow. If the choice is made to codify the workflow, the design of the work management will account for business process variations identified by AWI management.

• The proposed system must maintain a customer audit trail of transaction responses and dates of access. This information will be available to all business units.

• The proposed system must have the ability to identify the employer number for each employer during the base period. The system will continue to access the Tax database to retrieve the employer’s primary mailing address and any special form UCB-12 mailing addresses needed for mail-out of employer notices, form UCB-412.

• The proposed Internet system must include Benefits Rights Information. The customer will be required to confirm that they have read and understand the information.

• The proposed system must have override capabilities to allow for the processing of claims that continue to be rejected under existing business rules.

• The proposed system must be accessible from all claim and call centers with full functionality and allow staff to handle any request at each site.

• The proposed system must have the ability to generate mail or email requests without agent intervention. This includes customer request for forms, which could be processed with no staff intervention. The system must include FAX on demand capability.

• The proposed system must be able to change start and end employment dates on a claim.

• The proposed system must provide the ability to change effective dates on initial, additional, and reopened claims.

• The proposed system must provide claimants the option of having federal taxes withheld from their benefit payments.

• The proposed system must allow claimants to cancel EFT via IVR or Internet. • The proposed system must allow users to view monetary determinations online. • The proposed system must automatically balance claims after monetary re-

determinations. • The proposed system must control the receipt of accurate and timely wage

reporting and address confirmation from employers. • The proposed system must automate defined payments to claimants. • The proposed system must offer a choice between direct deposit and debit cards

for benefit payments.




• The proposed system must provide the ability to view payment details by check number, trace number, or benefit week for a claimant.

• The proposed system must provide the ability to do multiple payment transactions on a single business day to a claimant.

• The proposed system must provide capability for employers to electronically file mass claims and continued weeks.

• The proposed system must provide fact finding for defined claim types. • The proposed system must automatically re-determine a claim when the effective

date is changed or when wages on a claim are modified.

2.3.1.2 Wage Determination The existing business processes for this unit support the investigation of claimant’s wages via information from the SUNTAX system. The business requirements necessary to support these functions in the new system are: • The proposed system must provide the flexibility to configure business rules for

the calculation of base periods, qualifying requirements; weekly benefit amount, benefit duration, and employer benefit charges.

• The proposed system must provide system-driven workload balancing.

2.3.1.3 Adjudication The existing business processes performed by adjudicators include fact-finding for claim eligibility issues and the issuance of non-monetary determinations. The business requirements necessary to support these functions in the new system are: • The proposed system must provide the ability to manage issues including status,

tracking, resolution, and pending documents from claimants and employers. • The proposed system must support automatic claimant and employer scheduling

when separation issues are detected during claim filing. The proposed system must have the ability to post issues and future issues to a claim.

• The proposed system must support and automate fact-finding interviews and forms.

• The proposed system must have the ability to tie an unresolved issue to a specific date range allowing payment of unaffected weeks and accurately charging benefits to employer accounts.

• The proposed system must provide the ability for supervisory adjudicators to review and modify the work of other adjudicators. Non-supervisory adjudicators must have the ability to view the work of other adjudicators in read only mode.

• The proposed system must present all claimant information to the adjudicators.




• The proposed system must provide a determination writing module that allows adjudicators to select from pre-drafted legal statements and state the reason for determination.

• The proposed system must have functionality to assign cases to a worker. • The proposed system must have the ability to display assigned cases, regardless

of case status, for the worker that is logged into the application. • The proposed system must allow appointment scheduling for adjudicators to call

back claimants or employers for fact-finding interviews. • The proposed system must have the capability to automatically call participants

to remind them of appointments or other events.

2.3.1.4 Benefit Payment Control and Special Payments The existing business processes to support overpayment detection and recovery of benefit overpayments include interaction with the BOSS case management system. Special payments business processes facilitate the ability to create and process supplemental payments using the mainframe. The business requirements necessary to support these functions in the new system are: • The proposed system must include integrated case management with automated

triggers and task assignment across defined UC functions. • The proposed system must have the ability to redeposit adjustments. • The proposed system must have the ability to issue/reissue benefit payments. • The proposed system must provide the ability for AWI to deduct monies from

benefit payment (Pension, Social Security, wages) using different computation methods.

• The proposed system must provide AWI with the ability to intercept tax withholdings, overpayments, and child support from a benefit payment.

• The proposed system must have the ability to flag a warrant that has a stop payment issued.

• The proposed system must automatically detect and establish an overpayment across defined UC programs.

• The proposed system must have billing, debt recovery, collections, and repayment functionality.

• The proposed system must accept payments via EFT, credit and debit card. • The proposed system must provide overpayment decision control and

management capability. • The proposed system must schedule and track repayments. • The proposed system must allow overpayments to be viewed by benefit week

and allow repayments to reflect the overpayment to which they are credited.




• The proposed system must have the ability to accurately track adjustments to employer charges for all overpayments.

2.3.1.5 Employer Charge Unit The existing processes for this unit support determinations relating to employer chargeability for benefit payments. The business requirements necessary to support these functions in the new system are: • The proposed system must allow form UCB-412 to be submitted online. • The proposed system must have a method to prevent duplicate forms UCB-412

from being submitted by employers. • The proposed system must have case management software to help track forms

UCB-412. • The proposed system must be able to scan in the employer responses and

automatically identify the reason codes that do not affect the claimant’s eligibility for benefits.

• The proposed system must have the functionality to upload attachments to the form UCB-412 responses on the Internet.

• The proposed system must allow fax and mail responses to be scanned and electronically reviewed; determinations to be automatically generated; and workflow established for those not able to be automatically determined.

• The proposed system must have the ability to receive separation information electronically.

2.3.1.6 Appeals The existing business processes for Appeals support the handling of claimant and employer protests through administrative hearings. The business requirements necessary to support these functions in the new system are: • The proposed system must provide a decision-writing module that allows

hearing officers to select from pre-drafted legal citations and space to state and analyze findings.

• The proposed system must automate scheduling of hearings. • The proposed system must include a digital recording system with four-month

retention of hearings with ability to extend retention period and archiving. • The proposed system must include a digital recording system with the ability to

capture at least 100,000 recordings per year. • The proposed system must include a digital recording system capable of

recording in person, telephone, and mixed hearings.




• The proposed system must include a digital recording system with full featured conference calling: including muting, sequestering, adding and removing participants.

• The proposed system must include a digital recording system with availability for seven office locations and numerous remote sites for telecommuters.

• The proposed system must include a digital recording system with post hearing follow-up and decision dictation capabilities including reverse for dictation.

• The proposed system must include a digital recording system with speed control upon playback.

• The proposed system must include a digital recording system with transcription capabilities.

• The proposed system must include a digital recording system with remote retrieval of recordings and administration via any networked computer.

• The proposed system must include a digital recording system with the ability to burn recordings to a portable digital medium (i.e., Compact Disc (CD), Digital Video Disc (DVD), etc.). The CD must be playable on a CD product. Must have capability to split a hearing across CDs.

• The proposed system must include a digital recording system with the ability for retrieval by indexed fields.

• The proposed system must include a digital recording system with ability to assign dates for timely processing.

• The proposed system must include a digital recording system with the ability to record 70 to 80 simultaneous hearings.

• The proposed system must include, or fully integrate with, a digital recording system for use in the Appeals process.

• The proposed system must include a digital recording system with encrypted recordings delivered via the Internet.

• The proposed system must include a digital recording system with the flexibility to use existing and future networks.

• The proposed system must include a digital recording system with centralized storage of hearings possibly within case management system.

• Telephone user interface needed to listen to hearing and to record hearings and decisions when computer is down.

• The proposed system must include an application that produces Notice of Hearing and Decision mail out that can be sent to a Mail center for mailing.

• The proposed system must image all the determinations including pre-printed language on back of documents.

• The proposed system must provide the ability to file and track an Appeal via IVR.




• The proposed system must allow for multiple levels of security to guard against unauthorized access to hearings and Appeals decisions prior to issuance.

2.3.1.7 Reengineering The existing business processes support this area’s coordination of the development of technological enhancements and improvements for all business areas. The business requirements necessary to support these functions in the new system are: • The proposed system must improve the current process for reporting hardware

and software issues internally and externally. • The proposed system must be equipped with an alert system to let system users

know of hardware or software issues. • The proposed system must provide statistics, management reporting, and call

monitoring. • The proposed system must provide ad hoc reporting capabilities. • The proposed system must provide text to speech and voice recognition

capabilities. • The proposed system must interface with the imaging system.

2.3.1.8 Quality Improvement and Federal Reporting The existing business processes of this group supports the creation of US DOL mandated reports, provides and conducts UI program training, performs tax performance system reviews, and conduct internal and external security audits and reviews. The business requirements necessary to support these functions in the new system are: • The proposed system must implement a case management system to ease the

burden of gathering information surrounding a determination. • The proposed system must provide the capability to produce ad hoc reports,

both programmatic and security. • The proposed system must provide the capability to perform operational and

productivity reporting. • The proposed system must provide Federal required reports. • The proposed system must provide IRS form 1099-G reporting. • The proposed system must provide State required reports. • The proposed system must provide the flexibility for reports and documents to

be batched or locally printed. • The proposed system must provide the capability to reprint official documents. • The proposed system must provide the capability to produce ad hoc external

reports, forms, and notices for the Legislature, Employers, or other States.




• The proposed system must provide the capability of reports, forms, document images, and notices to be archived and for the archived documents to be viewed online and retrieved.

• The proposed system must include an audit trail for user transactions, with ad hoc reporting capabilities to detect unauthorized attempts to gain systems access, unauthorized changes, and other threats and vulnerabilities to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of the system and data stored within the system.

• The proposed system must have the capability to manage user access privileges to restrict access privileges to only those required in the performance of the user’s duties.

2.3.1.9 General Business Requirements In addition to the process-specific business requirements listed above, the system must support the following general business requirements. As with the process specific requirements, this list will be refined following the Phase 2 requirements gathering process. • The proposed system must provide a single interface for all defined UC benefit

processes and use a single repository for all unemployment compensation data. • The proposed system must provide the ability to interface with the appropriate

interstate and intrastate systems. • The proposed system must provide support for foreign language speaking

claimants and employers. Public-facing screens must be available in English, Spanish and Creole.

• All system-generated correspondence must be capable of being produced in English, Spanish and Creole.

• The proposed system must provide the ability to print documents on demand or queue them for printing locally or remotely.

• The proposed system must have processes that routinely purge and archive data based on rules defined by AWI.

• The proposed system must provide answers to frequently asked questions through the IVR and internet.

• The proposed system must allow outbound calling, including the capability to call claimants with a mass announcement within a targeted population.

• The proposed system must provide the capability to easily create and change questions and provide announcements within the IVR and Internet application within one location.

• The proposed system must include an online training module as well as online help.




• The proposed system must allow participant access through the Internet to have capability to accept participant transactions through the Internet including scanned documents.

• The proposed system should include Agency wide telephony system integration. • The proposed system must provide alerts when technical difficulties occur or

detail application faults. • The proposed system should be designed to allow other states to assist in claims

taking and allow AWI to assist other states in the event of a disaster. • The proposed system must have user level configurable printing functionality.

2.3.1.10 Call Center/IVR • The proposed system must provide the ability to interface with multiple

Customer Call Centers operated by AWI. • The proposed system must have Record on Demand availability while a worker

is on the phone. • The proposed system must allow supervisory help and intervention

(conferencing) as well as the “listen-in” capability for supervisors to monitor and evaluate workers.

• The CRM module of the proposed system must automatically provide UC operators with a complete claims history for a caller, and include the ability to drill-down into claim details.

• The proposed CRM product must integrate with the Call Center applications. • The proposed CRM product must allow for tracking tickets, reports and

supervisor monitoring. • The proposed system must allow call recording or appeals recording to be

exported to portable media capability.

2.3.1.11 Advanced Search Advanced searching capability functionality will be required to support all business processes by providing users with the ability to: • Search by past or present data (via defined fields) and retrieve records (across

business units) associated with the entity being searched • Search by parent or child and see all the transactions and records that are

associated with that parent or child • Create and execute custom searches on any information in the database where

multiple search criteria can be combined with logical “AND” as well as “OR” operators.

• Perform full text searches including wild card searches, Boolean operators, etc. • Search and access information stored in separate repositories with a single query

(i.e. Federated search)




• Perform searches based on root expansions or stemming (search for submit and find submitted, submitting, etc.)

• Save searches and assign user-defined names to searches • Sort the results of searches by selected criteria

2.3.1.12 Scanning and Indexing The imaging application scans paper documents of various sizes into an internal repository. It should have a screen interface to let the user view and delete what has been scanned and determine if they want to resume scanning into the current group of images or stop. Once the user accepts a batch, the workflow will move to the Index step for processing. Indexing should also include electronic media received by the user. The primary objective of the Indexing step is to allow the user to associate data values with a specific document in the batch and make sure the documents have been scanned completely and adequately. Scanning and indexing functionality will be required to support all business processes by providing users with the ability to: • Scan documents and correspondence • Scan documents in bulk or ad-hoc on a need basis • Group related documents (e.g. Applications and supporting documents) • Attach documents to an existing work-in-progress item • Attach documents to a new or existing record • Store versions of documents

2.3.1.13 Reporting A significant component of the UC system is reporting capabilities. Reporting on the data stored in the system is important to many stakeholders including: users across the Agency, Agency management, the Florida Legislature, system administrators, claimants and employers. The system must provide reporting capabilities to meet all of the informational needs of these stakeholder groups through the following methods and mechanisms: • Report administration provides the ability to design, develop, test and publish

reports that are requested by stakeholders. • System pre-defined reports shall be available via a well organized reporting

module within the graphical user interface. Well organized means that business unit users can easily navigate to reports that are pertinent to their needs without having to navigate around reports that are only pertinent to others. The navigation also imposes the necessary security mechanisms to allow only authorized users to view specific reports. Many pre-defined reports shall have the ability for the user to define specific parameters to drive report content and format.




• System ad-hoc reporting capability shall provide a mechanism for users to retrieve unique combinations of data on an as-needed basis. This is useful to identify specific trends in the data that may not be readily apparent in a pre-defined report, improved response to specific public information/media /external stakeholder requests and shall provide access to all system data without the need to involve system administrative resources in the process.

• Reporting features shall include the ability to schedule reports to generate automatically during a specific time which can assist with the appropriate management of system resources e.g., running reports that consume a lot of memory during non-business hours so as not to impact business users conducting transactions during working hours. Also included shall be an ability to export report data.

• Distribution of report results is an aspect of system reporting that would allow users to easily disperse reports to other users. For example: a report may be able to be saved and sent to other users via an email link. When the recipient user clicks on the link, the same report is rendered.

Reporting functions will be required to support all business processes by providing users with the ability to: • Access established reports, subject to security requirements • Write reports that access defined data elements in the system, subject to security

requirements • Design and publish ad-hoc reports • Export the data contained within a report in multiple formats to a local storage

device. Supported formats could include: Excel, csv (user’s choice of delimiter), and .pdf

2.3.1.14 Workflow The Workflow functionality will be required to support all business processes by providing users with the ability to: • Receive, review and forward work items (e.g. claims, adjudication materials, etc.)

to other users within the workflow • Prioritize work items when assigned to multiple work items (e.g. referral

applications versus regular applications) • Enter comments and collaborate with other users in the workflow when

reviewing a work item • Pend and Release work items based on business rules • Set ticklers and reminders based on events /changes to a work item • Approve and reject work items and generate relevant correspondence and

notifications to affected parties




2.3.1.15 System Administration System administration functionality will be required to support all business processes by providing users with the ability to: • Define and configure business rules for various business processes using a rules

engine that will enforce federal, state and Agency policies • Create and maintain users • Create and configure roles and associated security privileges • Maintain code tables used by various functions within the system • Enable and view audit trail information pertaining to data changes. The

proposed system must maintain a history of all claimant contacts regardless of the channel used to initiate the contact.

• Schedule and monitor report generation, data loads and other processing

2.3.1.16 Electronic Communications Electronic communication functionality will be required to support all business processes by generating: • Automatic notification and reminders to claimants and employers • Standard forms and letters • Correspondence based on specific events/triggers • Correspondence based on pre-defined templates • Correspondence in bulk (batch) and/or on-demand • Customized messages based on the target audience




2.3.2 Proposed Business Process Improvements The following tables provide a vision of how modernizing manual and outdated business processes will help AWI overcome the many challenges it faces today and in the future, and describes the value of those improvements. The proposed improvements are based on industry best practices as well as recommendations from UC program staff.

2.3.2.1 Claims Intake Process Challenges Process Improvements Value

• Call center service levels are not known and as many as 20% of calls may be blocked

• Informational calls are not logged preventing a complete view of a claimant’s history

• Claims center agents interact with two views of the mainframe and often copy between them

• Weekly claims certification not available at night and weekends

• Business continuity concerns regarding informational calls if Orlando is affected

• Only informal efforts to ensure agent efficiency and consistency

• Agents printing items for imaging delays claim processing

• Configure screens and incorporate standardized scripting and tools to decrease total call time

• Change routing strategy to remove area code routing rules and use pure “first available” and no call blocking

• Provide electronic capture and access of claim documents

• Ability to track claimant calls and claims history in one application

• Utilize case management • Increase the proportion of internet

filings of claims and certifications • Automated review of filings and

auto generation of standard inquiries

• Flexible voice architecture with no waiting time limit to reduce call blockage

• Improved call processing speeds, shorter queues and lower call wait times

• Lower AHT effectively increases claims center capacity

• Better monitoring and effective quality assurance due to efficient scripts and tools

• Reduced need for printing and imaging documents

• Complete view of claimant history helps claim processing

• More internet filings will reduce number of calls to claims center

• More accurate data would reduce the number of appeals and incorrect payments

• Improved caller experience




Table 2-13 Claims Intake Process Improvements

2.3.2.2 Adjudication and Appeals Process Challenges Process Improvements Value

• Current processes and tools require two years of training before employees can work autonomously

• Adjudicators have to manage paper-based files which contain the documentation for each claim

• Manual and multiple entry and retrieval of data into different databases and systems

• 18,000 claim backlog in adjudication due to workload

• Data in Claims and Appeals databases not fully synchronized

• Increased workload and lack of formal QA result in backlogs and lower quality

• Integrated electronic management of all claims data in an electronic case folder (ECF)

• Process-centric tools to reduce task cycle times and increase accuracy

• Electronically route claims data, via the ECF, to adjudicators and appeals personnel

• Provide real-time access to claims data for interviewers, adjudicators, and appeals personnel

• Integration of voice and case systems facilitates audio recording of statements & hearings

• Process-centric screens and tools to help adjudicators and appeals personnel with proper decisions and reduce on-boarding and training cost and time

• Simplified process for assembling adjudication and appeals information because of single source for claims information

• Reduced staff time spend on administrative or clerical activities

• Improved adjudication throughput will reduce or eliminate the current backlog

• Access to real-time status of all claims

• Lower risk of errors and misplaced documents

• Reduced overpayment costs • Reduced paper, printing, scanning,

fax and mailing costs

Table 2-14 Adjudication and Appeals Process Improvements




2.3.2.3 Control and Reporting Process Challenges Process Improvements Value

• Lack reports and measures for several key operational areas

• Minimal trend and control-based analysis

• Lack of timely and accurate information result in incorrect determinations and payments

• Manual compilation and printing of case documents for court appeals

• Ability to pursue cases in civil courts limited by external resources

• Only paper checks accepted for recovery payments

• Need to collect and analyze more accurate, current and complete data on all processes

• Simplified production standard reports in a variety of formats

• Ability to generate performance reports and dashboards to analyze data across various functions, categories or geographies

• Provide AWI with ability to analyze data, observe patterns or trends and make confident forecasts

• Drill down capability from general reports into case-specific data

• Consolidated management of all case data simplifies security and access controls

• Capability for claimants to refund overpayments online

• Faster and easier detection of frauds and over/under payments

• Reduced time and effort for Federal and State reporting

• Availability of current, accurate performance data helps early identification of areas needing operational improvement

• Improved ability to forecast and plan

• Savings due to lower number of frauds and overpayments

• Easier filing and tracking of recovery cases in court

Table 2-15 Control and Reporting Process Improvements




2.3.2.4 Infrastructure Challenges Process Improvements Value

• System limitations cause downtime in continuing claims voice and web systems

• Mainframe-driven architecture with multiple point integrations

• AWI has key man risks for several “person built” systems that were inadequately documented

• Proprietary and legacy technologies in use

• Configuration management is less rigorous outside of the Mainframe environment

• First indications of system problems usually come from user complaints

• Changes to routing and IVR only by Interactive Intelligence have direct costs and slow turnaround time

• Simplify architecture via consolidation of claims functions onto one system used by multiple organizations

• Simplify voice architecture with a unified system for all locations

• Integrate applications using a “loosely coupled” architecture

• Integrate the numerous applications, databases and retrieval systems leading to integrated case and document management

• Standards-based architecture and integration

• Potential for 24X7 availability • Uniform utilization of standard-

based, e.g. ITIL, change management and system management procedures

• Improved service levels due to more robust systems and architecture

• Reduced key man risk and standards-based IT skill set

• Lower total cost of ownership • Improved ability to integrate with

outside agencies and vendors • Greater control, flexibility and

agility with simpler procedures to modify the systems/processes

• Better ownership of routing rules and IVR information

• Improved quality of measures, real-time performance dashboards and decision support

Table 2-16 Infrastructure Improvements

FY 2009-10 SCHEDULE IV-B FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR <UC SYSTEM MODERNIZATION>


2.3.3 Business Process Participants Table 2-17 identifies the business process participants who will be impacted by the implementation of a modern UC system and describes how they will benefit from the new system.

Stakeholder Benefits Realized AWI Executive Management • Access to timely, accurate information for decision

making • Improved ability to analyze data for trends, assessments

and accounting purposes

UC Staff • Reduced manual processes • Reduced workload • Improved quality of work produced • Reduced learning curve • Web-based intuitive navigation mirroring business

processes • Self-service capability for ad-hoc reporting • Elimination of duplicative data entry into multiple

systems • Easier access to integrated claim data • Case management functionality • Ease of maintenance and making changes to the system • Fewer points of failure

External State Agencies • Access to unemployment information in a timely manner Claimants • Enhanced customer service experience

• Real-time access to claims information • Faster benefit payments • Ease of providing information • One place to access all their claim data • More self-service options

Employers • More timely information • Ease of providing information • More timely determinations • More self-service options

Legislators • Timely access to accurate information • Greater flexibility to implement future Legislative

changes Table 2-17 Business Process Participants

2.3.4 Performance Measures The Agency does not anticipate changes to the performance measures required by the Federal government as a result of this system implementation. However, system-specific measures that



relate to cost savings will be implemented to track and manage system performance/benefits realization. For more information, see the Benefits Realization Strategy in Section 3, Cost-Benefit Analysis. 2.3.5 Business Solution Alternatives The following business solution alternatives were considered to meet the needs and business requirements identified in the prior sections of this document. The business alternatives described below are consistent with industry best practices according to recent Forrester8 trends for legacy applications:

2.3.5.1 Maintain/Enhance Current System This alternative involves the continued operation of the existing applications and system architecture. This feasibility study is founded on AWI’s determination that continuing with the status quo is infeasible and detrimental to the Unemployment Compensation Program’s mission. The reasons for this have been enumerated throughout this document. The current systems are unable to fully support the implementation of the identified business processes improvements that will allow the Agency to move to a 21st century service delivery model. Limitations of the current system cannot be overcome through system modifications, and staying with the “status quo” will severely limit AWI in its ability to meet future UC program needs. Modifications to the legacy system will also be prohibitively expensive and difficult to maintain as industry support for aging mainframe systems is reduced. 9

2.3.5.2 Custom Development This alternative involves the competitive procurement of a vendor to develop a one-of-a-kind application. This approach has the advantage of resulting in a UC system that is an “exact fit” to the business requirements. However, this alternative also represents the longest duration before implementation (thus delaying benefits) and the greatest risk of cost and schedule overruns. Like the purchase of anything unique, a custom developed application is invariably the highest cost alternative.

2.3.5.3 Purchase a Commercially-Available, Configurable Business Application or obtain State Transfer

This alternative involves purchasing a configurable business application and procuring a vendor to develop it to AWI’s requirements. A growing number of applications are now available that provide a broad selection of generalized, core business functions that can accommodate substantial tailoring to the purchaser’s nomenclature and other business requirements. This alternative is recommended for organizations that are too large and diverse to be supported by a pre-made COTS solution, but need to avoid the risk and delay of custom development. This alternative also includes the possibility of selecting a systems integrator who has successfully implemented a UC system in another state that can be transferred to AWI and reconfigured to satisfy the UC program’s business requirements. 8 Forrester white paper "Got Legacy? Four fates await you applications" January 10, 2006.

9 Gartner Group, "Software Aging Analysis", January 2006.



2.3.6 Rationale for Selection The methodology used for selecting the most viable business solution alternative was two-fold: (1) each alternative was compared to each proposed business process improvement, and the alternative or alternatives that could fully support the improvement were documented; (2) the results were then evaluated to determine the alternative that supports the greatest number of improvements. Table 2-18 describes the proposed process improvements, the business process(es) impacted by each improvement, and the business solution alternative(s) that would allow AWI to fully implement the proposed improvement.

Proposed Improvements Areas Impacted Supporting Alternative(s)

The use of Debit Cards to allow for claimants quick and easy access to their benefits is currently being evaluated. This has the added benefit of allowing AWI to replace their paper check function and provides more efficient methods of accounting and reporting. Note: New UC system must be able to support implementation of debit cards.

Primary – Special Payments Additional impact – Benefit Payment Control

Enhance Existing Business Solution, Procure COTS Solution Or Custom Development

Provide an integrated means through telephone, internet and mail to allow the public to request unemployment compensation services. This includes: • Automated support to determine

claim type, review wages, and determine monetary eligibility

• Automated assessment of Alien status along with separating employment information

• Automated employer claims notices inside and outside the base period

• Automatic generation of work registration

• Electronic issuance of wage transcript determination

Primary - Claims Intake Additional impact - Adjudication Benefit Payment Control Federal Reporting and Quality Control Appeals

Enhance Existing Business Solution, Procure COTS Solution Or Custom Development




Provide a system that will: • Flag potential issues and create

workflow for review • Automatically provide fact finding

forms based on business rules and allow the fact finding interviews to be scheduled

• Support automated deletion of potential issue flags and release weeks for payment

• Support timely and efficient non-monetary and monetary determinations

Primary - Adjudication Additional impact - Benefit Payment Control Federal Reporting and Quality Control Appeals

Procure COTS Solution

Provide a system that will allow an integrated means to certify a claimant for each week of benefits via the Internet, IVR and mail/fax. This includes allowing claimants to input responses regarding earnings, potential issues, address changes and work search activities.

Primary - Customer Information Center Additional impact - Claims Intake Appeals


Enhance the capability to receive requests for wages, wage transcript responses or employer protests. This includes: • Initiate investigations and receive

employment and wage information from employers and DOR

• Send claimant letters requesting proof of wages. Send employers letters requesting verification of wages

• Dispose of responses and investigative findings

Primary - Wage Determination Additional impact - Adjudication Benefit Payment Control Federal Reporting and Quality Control Appeals


Enhance the capability to receive form UCB-412 responses and employer protests via the Internet, including supporting documentation. This includes: • Implement business rules to

determine if the employer on the claims notice can be non-charged

• Provide the ability to receive employer responses and prioritize the workflow by first payment and non-first payment claim types

Primary - Employer Charge Unit Additional impact - Federal Reporting and Quality Control Appeals Adjudication





Provide a system that will assist in conducting wage credit post audits, receive new hire reports from DOR and receive automated appeal reversals. The system will be able to detect overpayments and issue notification of overpayment determinations.

Primary - Benefit Payment Control Additional impact - Appeals Federal Reporting and Quality Control


Provide a system that will automatically process supplemental payments, allow claimants to request duplicate forms1099-G and manage warrant requests.

Primary - Special Payments Additional impact - Inquiry


Provide a system that will receive customer appeals on determinations via mail/fax, IVR and Internet and automatically assign a docket number. This includes a case management function to: Allow creating and maintaining docket packets and sending for printing Allow recordings, notes and discovery documents to be attached to a case Schedule hearings and automatically send notices to the parties involved.

Primary - Appeals Procure COTS Solution

Provide a system that will be able to capture details of claims, wage determinations, adjudication and certification details to facilitate quality reviews and federal reporting.

Primary - Federal Reporting and Quality Review


Table 2-18 Proposed Improvements with Supporting Alternative(s) 2.3.7 Recommended Business Solution As a result of the analysis of the alternatives described above, the Agency recommends replacing the existing business solution with a modern solution geared towards a 21st century service delivery. Figure 2-13 provides an overview of the proposed new business model. The model is centered on four core business processes: Claims Intake, Claims Management, Financial Management and Appeals. The foundational support for these core processes comes from both technical infrastructures such as rules engines, security authentication, data storage and external interfaces; and functional support using tools such as workflow management, document management, scheduling, case management, quality improvement and reporting. Help Desk and Reengineering functions support all aspects of the business model.



Figure 2-13 Conceptual UC Business Model

2.3.7.1 Impact on Core Processes Examples of how core UC processes will be improved under this conceptual UC business model include: Claims Intake The claims intake process will collect data from the IVR, Internet, mail and fax and save it into a single relational database. The information collected within Claims Intake will establish the claim and will be the basis for all further action on that claim/claimant. Claims Management Claims management will utilize supporting processes such as wage determination and adjudication. Review and entry of the forms UCB-412 and support for certification filing will be included in this core process. Appeals Processing Appeals processing will be performed using the information gathered from the Claims Intake and Claims Management processes and will no longer require manual compilation of claim documents. Financial Management



Financial management will use supporting processes to manage the financial terms of benefit payments. This core process will perform system cross-matches to check for overpayments, manage warrants and supplemental payments. Help Desk/Innovations The Help Desk will support the core and supporting processes by troubleshooting the platform on which these processes are used. This area will also gather feedback and identify technological innovations for the Agency.

2.3.7.2 Business Process Support The efficiency of core and supporting UC business process will be increased through implementation of the following functions included in the conceptual business model: Workflow Management Workflow management will be used to establish smart queues for the Customer Information Center and to create work queues for other areas within the Agency based on established business rules. Document Management A Document Management System will allow all forms of information (email, fax, paper mail, telephone conversations) surrounding an existing claim to be saved within a case in one common area. This includes an imaging system with the capabilities of reading data and automatically loading the documents into the case management system based on business rules. The document management system will have the capability to generate messages and a customizable workflow for the worker. This includes reminders of tasks as well as tracking of the documents. This integrates with a workflow application to allow for an overall view of the case. Scheduling Through the use of a scheduler application, appointments will be automatically scheduled based on business rules and interfaces with workflow management to alleviate manual scheduling processes. Case Management and Quality Improvement A case management system that integrates with the document management application and allows claim information to be sorted and saved as a case will allow information to be searchable by multiple criteria within the case. Federal Reports/Management Reports/Ad hoc Reports using a reporting tool to provide performance metrics and ad hoc reports that are easily customizable. Inquiry A single interface protocol that allows users (claimants, employers, Agency) to access unemployment benefits and tax information via IVR or internet will be implemented, and is to include dashboard capabilities so that meaningful claim data is easily available.

2.3.7.3 Technical Infrastructure Support Under the conceptual business model, the accuracy, consistency and security of claimant data will be improved as follows: Benefit Application with Rules Engine



Using a common interface protocol with all sub-systems, the Rules Engine will allow designated Agency staff to make changes to the application business rules quickly and efficiently, eliminating the need for source code modifications. SSO/Security Authentication and authorization control using single sign on (SSO) technology to manage internal and external access to the UC system. Processes will include interfacing with external sources such as Social Security Administration and the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles as well as internal users within the Agency. Data Storage Implementation of a single relational database will facilitate immediate access and updates to claim information. A data warehouse will be constructed to support program needs. External Interfaces In leveraging VXML for IVR, portal technology and web portals will allow the IVR and web application to integrate and share common data layers.



2.3.7.4 Summary of the Impacts of the Conceptual UC Business Model The proposed conceptual business model presents a comprehensive approach to UC modernization that will serve to address the inherent limitations in the current business processes. The impacts of this model are listed below. Further discussion of the resulting benefits to the UC program can be found in the Benefit Realization Table in Section 3, Schedule IV-B Cost Benefit Analysis. In summary, the most significant impacts of the conceptual business model presented in Figure 2-13 include: • More timely access to data for management decision making • Reduced cycle time for all core and supporting UC processes • Increased quality, accuracy and completeness of program data • Easier and more sophisticated reporting mechanisms • Increased capability to effectively analyze, plan, and manage costs • Increased capability to identify and manage problems and trends • Less staff time spent performing manual, paper-based activities • Better consistency in decision making processes • Increased ability to monitor performance measures • More effective management of operations • Ability to respond quickly to business changes and legislative mandates • Learning curve for new hires significantly reduced



3 SCHEDULE IV-B COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to describe in detail the expected return on investment for the proposed Unemployment Compensation modernization project. The Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) forms presented later in this section are used to identify: • proposed project benefits; • status quo program costs if the UC modernization project is not implemented; • tangible changes in program operational costs and total project cost; • planned funding sources to support resources needed for the project; and • fiscal return on investment associated with implementing the project. 3.2 SUMMARY OF THE UC OPERATING ENVIRONMENT Florida’s AWI UC program is a federal and state-mandated, state-operated program that serves as a critical local, state and national economic safety net for unemployed workers and local communities during periods of economic downturn. Funding for the administration of the program is provided by the US Department of Labor (USDOL) from the employer-paid Federal Unemployment Tax Act funds. Benefits are paid from state-collected unemployment tax funds. The Florida AWI UC program is operated in a centralized manner utilizing hubs, call centers and electronic and telephonic filings for service delivery. The Agency is responsible for the operation of the Unemployment Insurance program and directly operates claims, benefits and first level appeals services. The Unemployment Tax collection component is performed through contract by the Florida Department of Revenue in accordance with state law. In recent years, Florida’s unemployment rate has remained lower than the national average yet demand for services has remained high as economic factors create shifts in workforce requirements. The Unemployment Compensation program was impacted by the recession that began in March 2001 and the events following September 11. The program realized a spike in unemployment compensation claims resulting from the decline in tourism and air transportation. The program experienced a record year in number of claims filed with a total of 642,177. The Unemployment Compensation program realized another record year in 2002 in number of claims filed with a total of 754,744. For the most recently completed year (FY 2007-08), 795,301 claims were filed. Approximately 50% of all claims filed result in payment to the claimant.

The UC program distributed over $1.4 billion in benefits to the unemployed in FY 2007-08 while meeting or exceeding federal unemployment insurance performance targets. However,

For FY 2008-09, the UC program is on track to receive a staggering number of claims. Through 10/31/08, an average of over 161,000 claims had been received each month. If this pace continues through fiscal year-end, over 1,900,000 claims will have been filed.



continued successful performance is threatened given the growing unemployment Florida is experiencing during this extended period of national economic downturn. Relative to many other states, Florida has managed to limit overpayments; for FY 2007-08, the rate of overpayments was 3.1% or $43.6 million of the total benefits paid. To run the operations, the agency relies upon an aging mainframe system with supporting systems using various technologies that have been developed on an as-needed basis throughout the years. Program staff have voiced their desire for a more accessible, user-friendly and integrated system that allows users to work more efficiently. Instead of each area working in a “silo”, the agency envisions and proposes a joint effort to develop a single unified system that benefits claimants, employers, and the Agency working for them. The realization of this vision stands to provide significant benefits for the State of Florida and for all system stakeholders. The discussion of cost benefits in the following sections describes how an investment in modern technology reduces costs across the organization and adds value to employers, claimants and the Agency while protecting UC Trust Fund resources and ensuring the viability of program services. 3.2.1 Conditions That Have Created the Need for the Proposed UC Modernization Project

The current UC benefits system is well beyond its useful life and is not suitable for further investment. Florida’s UC program requires a modern and efficient system to serve Florida’s unemployed and support effective management of the unemployment tax revenues paid by Florida’s employers. The table below presents key reasons why the current system must be replaced by a more capable solution that does not put at risk claimants who are receiving benefits or the employers whose unemployment tax rate can be negatively impacted by current system inadequacies.

Deficiency Business Impact The risk of system failure due to aging and out-dated technology and inherent limitations of a 30 year old information system

In the current economic climate, the UC program is paying over $200 million per month in benefits to claimants; a disruption to this payment steam would be catastrophic to individuals, their families and to the broader Florida economy

Inability to distribute workload evenly across the available resources

Decreased productivity and high staff turn-over rates

The out-of-date technology employed by the UC program is inadequate to properly manage a $1.5 to $2.0 billion per year enterprise. The original system was implemented in the mid-1970’s when total annual benefit payments were less than $150 million.



Deficiency Business Impact Claimant and employee data stored in multiple databases (some non-relational)

Lack of a single relational database shared across all processes results in redundant and inconsistent data and limits reporting capabilities

Limited self service capability for claimants and employers

More agent time spent on low-value activities

Excessive reliance on manual and paper processes

Reliance on paper is costly and increases processing time

Inability to share data across processes

No one process has the "complete picture" of a claimant's case

Table 3-1 Current System Deficiencies and Associated Business Impacts 3.3 UC MODERNIZATION PROJECT TIMELINE A conservative high-level schedule for the UC Modernization project has been developed for the purpose of this analysis and to compute how the vast majority of the estimated project costs would be distributed over three fiscal years. The actual project schedule will be determined during contract negotiations with the selected system integration vendor. This estimated schedule assumes that the new UC system will be developed and deployed over a period 30 months. The schedule is summarized in Figure 3-1 UC Modernization Project Timeline below.

Figure 3-1 UC Modernization Project Timeline

3.4 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS DETAILS 3.4.1 UC Modernization Project Benefits Summary The UC modernization project is intended to replace the existing UC system with more sophisticated technology and functionality, which will enable substantial improvements in how the UC program is operated and managed. A number of specific opportunities have been identified to eliminate or reduce the cost of current practices that are labor intensive, cumbersome or inefficient. These opportunities – when realized – will yield a significant economic benefit. The UC modernization benefits described in this analysis will be the result of replacing out-dated, inefficient technology in combination with improvements in UC business processes and enhanced integration with re-employment activities. The tangible benefits are a mix of operating cost savings and reduced UC Trust Fund disbursements. The operating costs savings result from system efficiency gains and business process improvements; the reduced trust fund



disbursements come from two sources – 1) better integration with and strengthened emphasis on re-employment activities that lead to faster and better employment outcomes for claimants and 2) a shift from low-value, high-volume processing tasks to high-value tasks that resolve issues and prevent overpayments from the UC Trust Fund. Together these two components can impact the effectiveness of the UC program significantly more than the operating cost reductions due to efficiency gains driven by the UC modernization project.

Given the extreme stress on the UC system that is projected to continue for an extended period, both the rate and actual dollar amount of overpayments could rise considerably. Simply applying the FY 2007-08 overpayment rate of 3.1% to the projected $3.4 billion (assuming the rate of claims received through 10/31/08) in benefits to be paid in FY 2008-09 produces overpayments exceeding $105 million. Striving to reduce overpayments is one important goal of UC modernization projects that utilize state-of-the-art technology to reduce errors and detect fraud earlier in the claim payment life cycle. 3.4.2 UC Modernization Project Feasibility Study The following table depicts the links between the nine benefits and the business drivers identified for each benefit:

In short, a modern business system will provide AWI with a substantial increase in its ability to manage an over $2 billion a year enterprise.



BenefitsGoal Strategies (these do NOT line up 1 for 1 with the strategies)

- 24/7 Internet access

- improved Internet claims interface (ease of use)

- marketing & messaging

- improved self-service capabilities

- improved IVR - reduced time spent fact finding

- improved Internet claims interface - reduced $ amount (and #) of overpayments resulting from a reduction in the # of non-monetary determinations

- improved business logic - reduced # of adjudicated claims (non-monetary determinations)

- improved filtering of non-claims - reduced # of appeals

- improved accuracy of initial claims - reduced postage & handling costs

- reduced adjudication cycle (key facilitator is doc imaging/ mgmt and workflow)

- reduced $ amount of overpayments

- reduced appeals cycle (key facilitator is doc imaging/mgmt and workflow)

- increased interest revenue due to reduced trust fund disbursements

- online overpayment collections - decreased time spent on adjudication activities

- improved data accuracy - decreased time spent on appeals activities

- improved electronic cross-matching - reduced time & money spent on collections activities (including collection fees)

- slow growth in the unemployment tax rate/a faster rate of tax decrease when overpayments are going down

- Workforce integration - reduced average claim duration

- reduced trust fund disbursement

- improved electronic interfaces - reduced rework

- use of imaging workflow - reduced process cycle time

- increased use of e-mail as a means of communication with employers and claimants throughout all processes; allow them the option to "opt out" of paper-based communications

- make Internet portal primary means of communication w/claimants and employers

- improved case mgmt capabilities

100% Internet Claims

Increase No Touch Claims

Reduce Non-Fraud Overpayment

- reduced # of phone lines

- reduced call volume (TOTAL call duration)

Focus on Re-Employment

Utilize Electronic Communication

- reduced postage, handling & printing costs

Table 3-2 Benefit Drivers for the UC Modernization Project The goals and associated strategies to realize benefits from the UC modernization project were reviewed and verified by UC program staff through several meetings with key personnel. The following table contains the computed value of each of nine benefits using data supplied by AWI UC staff and collected on other states that have modernized their respective UC benefits systems:



Benefit # Benefit Description

Final Amount

1Enhanced customer self-service and streamlined claims processing creates system efficiency gains resulting in a reduction in the # of calls

$ 2,917,821

2Enhanced customer self-service and streamlined claims processing improving the quality/accuracy of claimant info resulting in fewer non-monetary determinations

$ 1,769,056

3Enhanced customer self-service and streamlined claims processing improving the quality/accuracy of claimant info resulting in a reduced # of appeals

$ 1,543,299

4 Reduced dollar amount of benefit overpayments $ 4,827,514

5 Increased interest revenue due to reduced trust fund disbursements $ 874,841

6aFaster re-employment for claimants (claims reduced by 1 week for 15.0% of all claimants who exhaust their benefits)

$ 9,035,611

6b Shortened claim duration (claims duration reduced by 1 week for 10.0% of all claimants) $12,329,615

7Reduced postage, handling & printing costs resulting from increased use of electronic correspondence

$ 796,894

8Reduced trust fund disbursements resulting from addressing high value tasks, such as (in this example) resolving JAVA claims currently on the PIT list awaiting processing due to high processing volumes

$ 9,007,642

Total Annually Recurring Cost Savings 43,102,294$

Table 3-3 Estimated Value of Benefits Used to Justify Investment in UC Modernization An effort like the UC modernization project will transform the way work is done at AWI UC. But, not all of the benefits are realized at the same rate over the 5-year project analysis period. This is because some of the benefits can be partially realized from extensive Business Process Improvement efforts. Consequently this analysis uses a phased realization rate when computing the estimated benefits for each fiscal year, as shown in the following figure:

Figure 3-2 UC Modernization Benefits Realization Timeline

By the time the new UC system is completely implemented, which is projected to be the last half of FY 2012-13, all 12 identified benefits should have begun to be fully realized. Some of the benefits can be realized partially in advance of full system implementation due primarily to business improvements that focus on eliminating inefficient manual tasks and streamlining operations. Implementing new workflow and document management systems can significantly reduce the number of lost, misfiled or mishandled documents. Clearly, business process improvements will have their biggest impact once the new system is fully operational, but process improvements can provide some near-term relief as the UC program struggles to keep



up with expected claim volume growth. Because the benefits have been conservatively estimated in this analysis, the respective values realized could exceed forecasted values. 3.4.3 UC Modernization Benefits Realization Strategy AWI has developed a strategy for realizing the estimated benefits expected from modernizing its UC system to improve UC business processes and their outcomes. That strategy is summarized in this section and is the same process developed to manage benefits realization for the new UC information system. Figure 3-3 UC Benefits Realization Management summarizes how AWI will track and manage UC modernization benefits realization.

Figure 3-3 UC Benefits Realization Management

The thoughtful and intentional realization of benefits cannot begin until a process is in place – with strong leadership, broad understanding and support from all stakeholders – to regularly obtain meaningful measurements of business process outcomes. There is simply no substitute for this. The following paragraphs explain the benefits realization management activities shown in the figure. The management of UC modernization benefits realization begins by taking a number of preparatory steps before the new system deploys. These steps will only be performed once and include:



Select the targeted benefits to be realized from the new system capabilities. This step has been completed at the draft stage. Indentify the processes that will be improved to produce the benefits. The business processes related to the target benefits will be analyzed and validated in conjunction with key UC program staff. Select key activities from each business process that may serve as indicators of process improvement. The relevant business processes will be broken into smaller sub-processes and activities in order to facilitate discussions and analysis of current costs and opportunities for improvement using the new system’s capabilities. Estimated cost elements for each sub-process will be assembled into a UC Modernization Project Benefits Realization Workbook. This will produce a large number of cost elements, which will be impractical to routinely track. Therefore, the values for a few key activities should be chosen as meaningful measurements of process improvement and cost reduction. Develop a plan to measure these key activities (e.g. labor, duration, resources, quantity, quality, etc.). The plan should include what is to be measured and by whom and should fully describe the method for taking the measurements so that different individuals would obtain the same results. Measure baseline values for key processes activities before the new UC system is deployed. The measurement plan should be carried out until it is understood by all participants. Then baseline measurements should be taken before system deployment occurs so that before-and-after comparisons may be made. Set process outcome improvement goals based upon the estimated system benefits. The cost reduction benefits from using the new system have been conservatively estimated. Once the estimated benefits are being realized, outcome improvement goals may be revised to obtain even greater benefits. The benefits realization management cycle can be employed as part of on-going continuous process improvement activities. After implementation of the new UC system, benefits realization management will consist of recurring cycles of the following actions:

1. Use the new system’s capabilities to improve business process outcomes (e.g. lower cost, higher output, improved quality, etc.)

2. Measure the actual process outcomes

3. Compare the actual outcomes to the goal outcomes

4. Compute actual benefits realization

5. Make changes to system user processes or procedures, to the measurement plan, or to

the process outcome goals – based upon the actual measurement results

6. Review and update the key process outcomes measurement plan, as required



7. Review and update process outcomes improvement goals, as required

3.4.4 Benefits Realization Table The following table describes the benefits from the UC modernization project, including the attributes of each as specified in the Schedule IV-B Feasibility Study Guidelines for FY 2009-10. Values computed for tangible benefits are included. The benefits listed in this table have an estimated annually recurring value of $43,102,294.



Benefits Realization Table

Description of Benefit Tangible or

Intangible Who receives benefit?

How is benefit realized?

How will realization of the benefit be measured?

Realization Date (MM/YY)

1 Enhanced customer self-service and streamlined claims processing creates system efficiency gains resulting in a reduction in the # of calls Other states that have implemented new UC benefits system have experienced efficiency gains that allow for resources to be re-allocated away from low value, high volume tasks to higher value, lower volume tasks. Utah and Ohio have experienced efficiency gains ranging from 10-17%; and Pennsylvania (based on an in-depth analysis in advance of implementing a new system) projects a 16-18% gain. This savings estimate assumes a 15% gain in efficiency. Applying a 15% gain to what FL presently spends for initial and continuing claims processing ($19,452,142) generates $2,917,821 annually that can be re-allocated. This is a conservative estimate given that the $19,452,142 in annual costs is used to project all future years’ spending (it does not factor in volume growth).

Tangible FL employers /taxpayers

Claimants AWI UC US DOL

The UC modernization project will create system efficiency gains by the following: - Reduced adjudication cycle (key facilitator is doc imaging/mgmt and workflow) - Reduced appeals cycle (key facilitator is doc imaging/mgmt and workflow) - Online overpayment collections - Improved data accuracy - Improved electronic cross-matching - Improved Internet claims interface (ease of use) - Enhanced marketing & messaging program - Improved self-service capabilities - Improved IVR - Improved business logic - Improved filtering of non-claims - Improved accuracy of initial claims

AWI tracks spending on operating costs annually and therefore for FY 2012-13 (the 1st year during which the new system becomes fully implemented), AWI will compare the current spend on initial and continuing claims to the prior year’s spend on initial and continuing claims to determine the change (see Section 3.4.3 - Benefits Realization Strategy for process details)

Full benefit realization by 1/13 due to full system implementation









2 Enhanced customer self-service and streamlined claims processing improving the quality/accuracy of claimant info resulting in fewer non-monetary determinations Other states that have implemented new UC benefits system have experienced efficiency gains that allow for resources to be re-allocated away from low value, high volume tasks to higher value, lower volume tasks. Utah and Ohio have experienced efficiency gains ranging from 10-17%; and Pennsylvania (based on an in-depth analysis in advance of implementing a new system) projects a 16-18% gain. This savings estimate assumes a 15% gain in efficiency. Applying a 15% gain to what FL presently spends for non-mon. determinations processing ($11,793,706) generates $1,769,056 annually for re-allocating. This is a conservative estimate given that the $11,793,706 in annual costs is used to project all future years’ spending (it does not factor in volume growth).



The UC modernization project will support reduced trust fund disbursements by the following: - Reduced adjudication cycle (key facilitator is doc imaging/mgmt and workflow) - Reduced appeals cycle (key facilitator is doc imaging/mgmt and workflow) - Improved data accuracy - Improved electronic cross-matching - Improved Internet claims interface (ease of use) - Enhanced marketing & messaging program - Improved self-service capabilities - Improved IVR - Improved business logic - Improved filtering of non-claims - Improved accuracy of initial claims

AWI tracks spending on operating costs annually and therefore for FY 2009-10 (the 1st year of new business processes being implemented), AWI will compare the current spend on non-monetary determinations to the prior year’s spend on non-monetary determinations to determine the change (see Section 3.4.3 - Benefits Realization Strategy for process details)

Partial (limited) benefit realization in FY 2009-10 due to business process improvement efforts; full benefit realization by 7/13 due to full system implementation









3 Enhanced customer self-service and streamlined claims processing improving the quality/accuracy of claimant info resulting in a reduced # of appeals Other states that have implemented new UC benefits system have experienced efficiency gains that allow for resources to be re-allocated away from low value, high volume tasks to higher value, lower volume tasks. Utah and Ohio have experienced efficiency gains ranging from 10-17%; and Pennsylvania (based on an in-depth analysis in advance of implementing a new system) projects a 16-18% gain. This savings estimate assumes a 15% gain in efficiency. Applying a 15% gain to what FL presently spends for appeals activities ($10,288,662) generates $1,543,299 annually for re-allocating. This is a conservative estimate given that the $10,288,662 in annual costs is used to project all future years’ spending (it does not factor in volume growth).



The UC modernization project will support reduced trust fund disbursements by the following: - Reduced adjudication cycle (key facilitator is doc imaging/mgmt and workflow) - Reduced appeals cycle (key facilitator is doc imaging/mgmt and workflow) - Improved data accuracy - Improved electronic cross-matching - Improved Internet claims interface (ease of use) - Enhanced marketing & messaging program - Improved self-service capabilities - Improved IVR - Improved business logic - Improved filtering of non-claims - Improved accuracy of initial claims

AWI tracks spending on operating costs annually and therefore for FY 2009-10 (the 1st year of new business processes being implemented), AWI will compare the current spend on appeals activities to the prior year’s spend on appeals activities to determine the change (see Section 3.4.3 - Benefits Realization Strategy for process details)

Partial (limited) benefit realization in FY 2009-10 due to business process improvement efforts; full benefit realization by 7/13 due to full system implementation









4 Reduced non-fraud overpayments, which results in a higher UC Trust Fund balance being maintained Since implementing its new UC benefits system, Ohio has experienced an 11.1% reduction in the rate of benefit overpayments (from 2005–2007). Compared to other states, Florida does a good job of limiting overpayments. However, benefits paid each year are such a large amount ($1.4B in FY ’07-08) that even small improvements produce significant savings. Applying Ohio’s rate of improvement in reducing overpayments since implementing their new UC system to Florida’s situation generates $4,827,514 annually in reduced trust fund disbursements. This is a conservative estimate given that the $4,827,514 annual reduction in trust fund disbursements is based on historical cost and volume data without considering expected claim volume growth.

Tangible FL employers/ taxpayers

AWI UC US DOL

The UC modernization project will support reduced overpayments by the following: - Reduced adjudication cycle (key facilitator is document imaging/mgmt and workflow) - Reduced appeals cycle (key facilitator is document imaging/mgmt and workflow) - Online overpayment collections - Improved data accuracy - Improved electronic cross-matching

AWI tracks benefit overpayments annually and therefore in FY 2012-13 (the 1st year of full system implementation), AWI will compare the current rate of overpayment to historical overpayment rates to monitor for changes (see Section 3.4.3 - Benefits Realization Strategy for process details)










5 Increased interest revenue due to reduced trust fund disbursements The total annual reduction in trust fund disbursements earning 4.7% produces over $874,841 per year in additional interest revenue. The 4.7% Rate of Return is as of 9/30/08 and is from AWI's UI Trust Fund Quarterly Yields file. This is a conservative estimate given that the total annual reduction in trust fund disbursements is based on historical cost and volume data that should be lower than what is experienced in future years.


AWI UC US DOL

The UC modernization project will support reduced trust fund disbursements by the following: - Reduced adjudication cycle (key facilitator is document imaging/mgmt and workflow) - Reduced appeals cycle (key facilitator is document imaging/mgmt and workflow) - Online overpayment collections - Improved data accuracy - Improved electronic cross-matching - Improved Internet claims interface (ease of use) - Enhanced marketing & messaging program - Improved self-service capabilities - Improved IVR - Improved business logic - Improved filtering of ineligible claims - Improved accuracy of initial claim data

AWI tracks UC Trust Fund disbursements and interest earned on the UC Trust Fund annually. In FY 2012-13 (the 1st year of full system implementation), AWI will calculate the additional interest revenue associated with the reduced trust fund disbursements; this will be repeated annually (see Section 3.4.3 - Benefits Realization Strategy for process details)










6a Reduced average claim duration due to faster re-employment resulting in reduced trust fund disbursements Research indicates the value of re-employment activities such as claimant profiling to promote faster re-employment and subsequently reduce claim length. If the functionality of the new UC system facilitates faster re-employment by 1 week for only 15.0% of the 49.55% of claimants who exhaust their benefits, economic value of $9,035,611 per year (net of $500,000 per year in re-allocated resources) will be realized based on a weekly claim amount of $236.12 (FLAIR report from AWI Financial Mgmt. as of 11/3/08) and annual paid claims volume of 543,351. This is a conservative estimate given that the $236.12 weekly claim payment amount in FY '08-09 is used in the calculation for future years; also paid claims volume is based on an average of FY '06-07, FY '07-08 and FY '08-09, which should understate future claims volume.



The UC modernization project will support re-employment activities by the following: Significant reduction in manual processing effort due to UC system modernization (improved Internet claims interface (ease of use), enhanced marketing & messaging program, improved self-service capabilities, improved IVR, improved business logic, improved filtering of non-claims, improved accuracy of initial claims) facilitates resource re-allocation that can be applied to valuable re-employment related activities such as claimant profiling Integrating Workforce functionality (such as job matching, etc.) on the front-end of the initial claims application process to promote faster claimant re-employment

AWI tracks UC Trust Fund disbursements annually; in FY 2012-13 (the 1st year during which the new system becomes fully implemented), AWI will compare current and average claim length for changes in claim length due to (faster) re-employment (see Section 3.4.3 - Benefits Realization Strategy for process details)










6b Reduced average claim duration resulting in reduced trust fund disbursements The Urban Institute's research indicates that claim length can be reduced through intensified administrative efforts (for ex., eligibility reviews). If the functionality of the new UC system facilitates a reduction in claim length by 1 week for only 10.0% of all claimants, economic value of $12,329,615 per year (net of $500,000 per year in re-allocated resources) will be realized based on a weekly claim amount of $236.12 (FLAIR report from AWI Financial Mgmt. as of 11/3/08) and annual paid claims volume of 543,351. This is a conservative estimate given that the $236.12 weekly claim pmt. amt. is from FY '08-09 but is used as the claim pmt. in all future years; also paid claims vol. is based on an avg. of FY '06-07, FY '07-08 and FY '08-09, which should understate future claims volume.


AWI UC US DOL

The UC modernization project will support reduced claim duration by the following: Significant reduction in manual processing effort due to UC system modernization (improved Internet claims interface (ease of use), enhanced marketing & messaging program, improved self-service capabilities, improved IVR, improved business logic, improved filtering of non-claims, improved accuracy of initial claims) facilitates resource re-allocation that can support critical administrative activities such as eligibility reviews that can contribute to reduced claim duration

AWI tracks UC Trust Fund disbursements annually; in FY 2012-13 (the 1st year during which the new system becomes fully implemented), AWI will compare current and historical average claim length for changes in claim length (see Section 3.4.3 - Benefits Realization Strategy for process details)

Full benefit realization by 1/13 with full system implementation









7 Reduced postage, handling & printing costs resulting from increased use of electronic correspondence States that have modernized their UC systems have significantly reduced their reliance on regular mail and now rely substantially on electronic correspondence. Using an average claims volume for ’06-07, ’07-08 and ’08-09, an average of 10 pages of correspondence per claim per year, a percentage of claims using electronic correspondence of 60%, and a cost estimate of $.12 per page generates annual savings of $796,894. This is a conservative estimate given that the $796,894 annual reduction in postage-related costs is based on historical cost and correspondence volume data.

Tangible Claimants

AWI UC US DOL

The UC modernization project will support significantly reducing correspondence via regular mail through the use of the following: - Improved Internet claims interface (ease of use) - Enhanced marketing & messaging program - Improved self-service capabilities - Extensive use of electronic correspondence

AWI presently does not track the total amount of correspondence each year and therefore needs to begin tracking this metric; once that is initiated, AWI will compare the current (reduced) use of regular mail to historical regular mail usage to determine changes (see Section 3.4.3 - Benefits Realization Strategy for process details)

Partial benefit realization in FY 2009-10 due to business process improvement efforts; full benefit realization by 7/13 with full system implementation









8 Reduced trust fund disbursements resulting from resolving JAVA claims currently on the PIT list due to high processing volumes (i.e., high value vs. low value tasks) UC system modernizations in Utah and Ohio have reduced claims processing effort by 10% or more and Pennsylvania projects it will save between 16-18% in effort once their system is fully implemented. Such savings allow for resources to be re-allocated to higher value tasks such as processing JAVA claims. As of 11/30/08, a review indicated that 46.37% of the 17,704 JAVA claims were likely to be denied. Assuming that one third of these claims are on the PIT list awaiting a non-monetary determination, annual trust fund disbursements could be reduced by $9,007,642 per year once resources are freed up. The savings are net of $1,000,000 in re-allocated resources and use a $236.12 avg. weekly claim amt. and a 15.25 week avg. claim length.


AWI UC US DOL

Re-allocation of now available resources from lower value processing tasks to higher value adjudication-related tasks such as the JAVA claims on the PIT list is made possible through specific aspects of the UC modernization project, such as: - Improved Internet claims interface (ease of use) - Enhanced marketing & messaging program - Improved self-service capabilities - Improved IVR - Improved business logic - Improved filtering of non-claims - Improved accuracy of initial claims

For FY 2009-10 (the 1st year of business process improvement work), AWI will compare current numbers of JAVA claims awaiting processing on the PIT list to historical JAVA claim numbers (such as the 8,209 as of 11/30/08) to monitor for changes in the number of JAVA claims being paid while awaiting a non-monetary determination (see Section 3.4.3 - Benefits Realization Strategy for process details)

Partial benefit realization in FY 2009-10 due to business process improvement efforts; full benefit realization by 7/13 with full system implementation



3.4.5 Nature of the Tangible Benefits The benefits resulting from the UC modernization project are presented on a conservative case basis. Across the nine identified benefits producing savings, the criteria to determine the conservative nature of the estimate is whether the level of performance necessary to realize the estimated benefit should be reasonably exceeded under normal business conditions. For example, the benefits associated with re-employing claimants more quickly (thereby reducing trust fund disbursements) are driven by assuming that 15.0% of claimants receiving benefits could have their claims shortened by one week. The majority of the benefits identified in this cost benefit analysis are in the form of reduced UC Trust Fund disbursements. The group benefiting most from reduced trust fund disbursements is Florida’s employers, by virtue of limiting Unemployment Tax increases. Of the over $43 million in estimated annual savings resulting from UC system modernization, over $35 million is reduced trust fund disbursements. That is conservatively over $350 million over a 10-year operating period. UC program operations benefit greatly from system modernization as well, but this analysis does not quantify those savings in the form of reduced headcount. Given the significant pressures on the UC system, and that much of the program’s institutional knowledge is held by many veteran staff who will likely retire in the next five to ten years, reducing headcount is not the appropriate strategy for promoting the long-term health of Florida’s UC program. Automating costly, time-consuming manual processes and introducing complimentary business process improvements will allow for existing resources to be re-allocated to high value tasks that are currently impossible due to workload. Additional resources are required to address these backlogged high value tasks that, when addressed, lead to significant reductions in trust fund disbursements. These additional resources can come from either (1) adding staff; or (2) implementing a modern UC system that allows for staff re-allocation into high-value activities. The benefit of system modernization is that the new technology can be leveraged over the years to limit the need for additional staff to process growing claims volume (as Florida’s population and economy grow over time). The downside to simply adding resources is that this will have to be repeated as volume growth pressures persist. In addition, the real threat of infrastructure (technology) failure grows as claims volume grows. Other states have experienced program efficiencies as a result of implementing new UC benefits systems. This analysis references some of these impacts and uses them to create estimates of the benefits that Florida could realize as a result of system modernization. Examples of efficiency gains include Utah experiencing a 10% improvement, Ohio has experienced gains in the 16-17% range, and Pennsylvania anticipates improvements in the 17-18% range based on an in-depth examination of projected system impacts. 3.4.6 Tangible Changes in Operating Cost This section describes the cost elements that make up the tangible changes in the operating cost as AWI transitions to the new UC system. The cost information provided was obtained using the cost estimating software package Cost Xpert and represents one cost-scenario, based on the assumption that Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) software will be capable of delivering up to 70% of required functionality,



including custom configuration of existing framework, with 30% functionality to be met by custom development. These numbers represent an estimate, to be used for budgetary planning purposes only, with the acknowledgement that actual project costs could vary by as much as plus or minus 20%. However, if a vendor’s products require more than 30% custom development, the cost could increase proportionately resulting in cost overruns as much as 80%. As such, the degree of “fit” is an important cost factor to consider. The cost by year is based on tasks and level of effort as described in the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) but may change based on the final contract negotiations with the selected implementation vendor.

Figure 3-4 below contains cost information estimated using the Cost Xpert software application. The software costs will be split between COTS and custom components. For UC applications, the term COTS can be misleading; there are no COTS products that can “plug-and-play” without configuration and customization in order to meet unique business rules and operational preferences of specific UC programs. The cost estimate generated by Cost Xpert totals $68.25 million.

FY FY FY FY FY TOTAL

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14State FTEs (Salaries & Benefits) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Contractors (Costs) $2,000,000 $18,465,707 $18,877,686 $7,203,687 $0 $46,547,080

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Major Project Tasks $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Hardware $0 $3,957,023 $2,638,015 $0 $0 $6,595,038COTS Software $0 $0 $0 $2,800,000 $0 $2,800,000Misc. Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Other Project Costs $0 $3,455,692 $4,090,718 $2,453,590 $0 $10,000,000

$0 $923,305 $923,305 $461,653 $0 $2,308,263TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (*) $2,000,000 $26,801,727 $26,529,725 $12,918,929 $0 $68,250,382

$2,000,000 $28,801,727 $55,331,452 $68,250,382 $68,250,382CUMULATIVE PROJECT COSTS

Specify

SpecifyPMO, Training

IV&V

PROJECT COST TABLE -- CBAForm 2APROJECT COST ELEMENTS

OPS FTEs (Salaries)

Deliverables

Figure 3-4 Estimated UC Modernization Project Costs

Detailed cost estimating reports provided by Cost Xpert are available in the appendix to this document. Input parameters were based on Source Lines of Codes (SLOC), by module with a project start date of July 1, 2009. Additional costs were added for training, PMO, security and IV&V. Experience with UC modernization projects in other states has illustrated that vendor products claiming to be COTS products often require a substantial amount of customization or new development ranging anywhere from 30% to 90%. UC modernization projects can be plagued with disagreement between end users on desired functionality, which can stall development and implementation efforts, resulting in cost overruns and failed projects. Therefore, the recommendation is to focus on defining detailed

The costs for the proposed UC modernization project have been allocated in accordance with the schedule shown in the figure below. This schedule is for planning and estimating purposes only and may vary based upon the actual project start date and the specific details proposed by the selected system integrator vendor.



requirements and building consensus among stakeholders and end users to reduce overall project risk. The clear identification of requirements allows the AWI’s proposal review team to better evaluate the degree of fit of vendor products in order to choose a vendor and total product solution that will deliver a quality product within the established budget and schedule while meeting or exceeding expectations. Other UC modernization projects across the country have achieved mixed results. Listed below are some examples of UC modernization budgets in other states. It is important to note that all of the projects listed have exceeded their anticipated budgets by 20% to 80% and several are not considered "successful".

The participation of a competent Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) vendor could add as much as 5-12% to the overall project budget but may also help to avoid cost overruns as high as 50-80% and reduce overall project risk. There appears to be significant cost difference between larger and smaller states, which is likely due not only to processing volume differences but also due to variances in budgets and funding allocations. Examples of state UC modernization budgets: • Minnesota: $47M for tax and benefits; • Ohio: $46M for benefits; • Colorado: $40M for tax and benefits (failed project, cancelled contract); • Indiana: $24M for tax and benefits; • Nebraska: $8M for benefits (limited scope); • Wisconsin: $23M for benefits (Phase I - workflow and imaging completed before project cancelled for cost and schedule overruns); • New Jersey: $40M for benefits; • New York: $38M to develop, test and deploy the UC Benefits Application; IBM came back with a price of just under $45M (the state spent more than $20M on system design and then "killed" the project); and • Connecticut: $50M budget planned for modernization ($10M/year for 5 years) for tax and benefits.

Requests were made to large system integration vendors for high level cost estimates to develop and implement a new UC benefit system for AWI. As would be expected, the range of estimates received was large – from $40 million to $80 million. The Cost Xpert generated estimate of $68.25 million falls well within this range.

A lesson learned from these experiences is that their original budgets were too low due to underestimation of product fit, unclear requirements and/or underestimation of project scope.



3.5 CBA FORMS This section contains the completed CBA Forms provided in the Schedule IV-B Feasibility Study Guidelines for FY 2009-10. An electronic copy of the complete file used to develop this cost estimate is imbedded in this document here:

D--CBAFORMS_FY09-10.xls



CBA Forms 1A and 1B - Net Tangible Benefits CBAForm 1 - Net Tangible Benefits Agency Project

Net Tangible Benefits - Operational Cost Changes (Costs of Current Operations versus Proposed Operations as a Result of the Project) and Additional Tangible Benefits -- CBAForm 1AAgency

(a) (b) (c) = (a)+(b) (a) (b) (c) = (a) + (b) (a) (b) (c) = (a) + (b) (a) (b) (c) = (a) + (b) (a) (b) (c) = (a) + (b)Existing Operational New Program Existing Operational New Program Existing Operational New Program Existing Operational New Program Existing Operational New ProgramProgram Cost Change Costs resulting Program Cost Change Costs resulting Program Cost Change Costs resulting Program Cost Change Costs resulting Program Cost Change Costs resultingCosts from Proposed Costs from Proposed Costs from Proposed Costs from Proposed Costs from Proposed

Project Project Project Project Project

$40,050,195 ($160,201) $39,889,994 $40,050,195 ($320,402) $39,729,793 $40,050,195 ($320,402) $39,729,793 $40,050,195 ($4,005,019) $36,045,175 $40,050,195 ($5,006,274) $35,043,920

A.b Total FTE 863.00 (3.45) 859.55 863.00 (6.90) 856.10 863.00 (6.90) 856.10 863.00 (86.30) 776.70 863.00 (107.88) 755.13A-1.a. State FTEs (Salaries & Benefits) $24,586,938 ($98,348) $24,488,591 $24,586,938 ($196,696) $24,390,243 $24,586,938 ($196,696) $24,390,243 $24,586,938 ($2,458,694) $22,128,245 $24,586,938 ($3,073,367) $21,513,571A-1.b. State FTEs (# FTEs) 553.00 (2.21) 550.79 553.00 (4.42) 548.58 553.00 (4.42) 548.58 553.00 (55.30) 497.70 553.00 (69.13) 483.88A-2.a. OPS FTEs (Salaries) $6,374,472 ($25,498) $6,348,974 $6,374,472 ($50,996) $6,323,476 $6,374,472 ($50,996) $6,323,476 $6,374,472 ($637,447) $5,737,025 $6,374,472 ($796,809) $5,577,663A-2.b. OPS FTEs (# FTEs) 100.00 (0.40) 99.60 100.00 (0.80) 99.20 100.00 (0.80) 99.20 100.00 (10.00) 90.00 100.00 (12.50) 87.50

$9,088,784 ($36,355) $9,052,429 $9,088,784 ($72,710) $9,016,074 $9,088,784 ($72,710) $9,016,074 $9,088,784 ($908,878) $8,179,906 $9,088,784 ($1,136,098) $7,952,686 210.00 (0.84) 209.16 210.00 (1.68) 208.32 210.00 (1.68) 208.32 210.00 (21.00) 189.00 210.00 (26.25) 183.75

B. Data Processing -- Costs $2,723,613 ($10,894) $2,712,719 $2,723,613 ($21,789) $2,701,824 $2,723,613 ($21,789) $2,701,824 $2,723,613 ($272,361) $2,451,252 $2,723,613 ($340,452) $2,383,161B-1. Hardware $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0B-2. Software $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0B-3. Other $2,723,613 ($10,894) $2,712,719 $2,723,613 ($21,789) $2,701,824 $2,723,613 ($21,789) $2,701,824 $2,723,613 ($272,361) $2,451,252 $2,723,613 ($340,452) $2,383,161C. External Service Provider -- Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0C-1. Consultant Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0C-2. Maintenance & Support Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0C-3. Network / Hosting Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0C-4. Data Communications Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0C-5. Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0D. Plant & Facility -- Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0E. Others -- Costs $12,931,763 ($34,368) $12,897,395 $12,931,763 ($68,734) $12,863,029 $12,931,763 ($274,197) $12,657,566 $12,931,763 ($992,921) $11,938,842 $12,931,763 ($1,680,345) $11,251,418E-1. Training $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0E-2. Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0E-3. Other $12,931,763 ($34,368) $12,897,395 $12,931,763 ($68,734) $12,863,029 $12,931,763 ($274,197) $12,657,566 $12,931,763 ($992,921) $11,938,842 $12,931,763 ($1,680,345) $11,251,418

$55,705,571 ($205,463) $55,500,108 $55,705,571 ($410,925) $55,294,646 $55,705,571 ($616,388) $55,089,183 $55,705,571 ($5,270,302) $50,435,269 $55,705,571 ($7,027,071) $48,678,500

F. Additional Tangible Benefits:

$450,382 $900,764 $1,351,146 $27,056,417 $36,075,223

F-1. $0 $0 $0 $19,644,555 $26,192,740F-2. $450,382 $900,764 $1,351,146 $6,755,731 $9,007,642F-3. $0 $0 $0 $656,131 $874,841Total Net Tangible Benefits:

$655,845 $1,311,689 $1,967,534 $32,326,720 $43,102,294

Enter % (+/-)20%

Reduced Trust Fund Disb.

FY 2011-12FY 2010-11

UC System Feasibility Study

Specify

Total of Operational Costs ( Rows A through E)

Expenses

Order of Magnitude Confidence Level

Choose Type

Resource Re-Allocation

Estimate Confidence

Add'l Interest Revenue

Placeholder Confidence Level

FL AWI

Detailed/Rigorous Confidence Level

A-3.b. Staff Augmentation (# of Contract FTEs)

Data Processing

SPECIFY CHARACTER OF PROJECT BENEFIT ESTIMATE -- CBAForm 1B

FY 2013-14(Operations Only -- No Project Costs)

A-3.a. Staff Augmentation (Contract Cost)

A. Personnel -- Total FTE Costs (Salaries & Benefits)

FY 2012-13FY 2009-10



CBA Forms 2A and 2B – Project Costs CBAForm 2 - Project Cost Analysis Agency Project


2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14State FTEs (Salaries & Benefits) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Contractors (Costs) $2,000,000 $18,465,707 $18,877,686 $7,203,687 $0 $46,547,080

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Major Project Tasks $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Hardware $0 $3,957,023 $2,638,015 $0 $0 $6,595,038COTS Software $0 $0 $0 $2,800,000 $0 $2,800,000Misc. Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Other Project Costs $0 $3,455,692 $4,090,718 $2,453,590 $0 $10,000,000

$0 $923,305 $923,305 $461,653 $0 $2,308,263TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (*) $2,000,000 $26,801,727 $26,529,725 $12,918,929 $0 $68,250,382

$2,000,000 $28,801,727 $55,331,452 $68,250,382 $68,250,382


2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$2,000,000 $26,801,727 $26,529,725 $12,918,929 $0 $68,250,382$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0TOTAL INVESTMENT (*) $2,000,000 $26,801,727 $26,529,725 $12,918,929 $0 $68,250,382

$2,000,000 $28,801,727 $55,331,452 $68,250,382 $68,250,382(*) Total Costs and Investments are carried forward to CBAForm3 Project Investment Summary worksheet.

Enter % (+/-)20%

Character of Project Costs Estimate - CBAForm 2BChoose Type Estimate Confidence

Order of Magnitude Confidence LevelPlaceholder Confidence Level

Detailed/Rigorous

Specify

General Revenue

PROJECT COST TABLE -- CBAForm 2A

IV&V

CUMULATIVE INVESTMENT (*)

Confidence Level

Federal MatchGrants

OPS FTEs (Salaries)

UC System Feasibility StudyFL AWI

Trust Fund

CUMULATIVE PROJECT COSTS

INVESTMENT SUMMARY

Specify

SpecifyPMO, Training

Deliverables

PROJECT COST ELEMENTS



CBA Forms 3A, 3B and 3C - Project Investment Summary

CBAForm 3 - Project Investment Summary Agency Project

FY FY FY FY FY2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 TOTAL

Project Cost $2,000,000 $26,801,727 $26,529,725 $12,918,929 $0 $68,250,382Net Tangible Benefits $655,845 $1,311,689 $1,967,534 $32,326,720 $43,102,294 $79,364,082Return on Investment ($1,344,155) ($25,490,038) ($24,562,191) $19,407,790 $43,102,294 $11,113,700

Year to Year Change in Program Staffing (3) (7) (7) (86) (108)

Payback Period (years) 4 3/4 Payback Period is the time required to recover the investment costs of the project.Breakeven Fiscal Year 2013-14 Fiscal Year during which the project's investment costs are recovered.Net Present Value (NPV) $4,530,927 NPV is the present-day value of the project's benefits less costs over the project's lifecycle.Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 9.13% IRR is the project's rate of return.

Fiscal FY FY FY FY FYYear 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Cost of Capital 4.65% 4.65% 4.65% 4.65% 4.65%

Treasurer's Investment Interest Earning Yield -- CBAForm 3C

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS -- CBAForm 3A

RETURN ON INVESTMENT ANALYSIS -- CBAForm 3B

FL AWI UC System Feasibility Study




3.4.7 Expanded Return on Investment Analysis The $68.25 million investment required to build and implement the UC modernization project is a fraction of the resources expended by the UC program annually. The graphic below reveals the cost of the project relative to the overall program expenditures.

Using the five year analysis period required by the CBA Forms produces a Return on Investment amount of $11,113,700, which does not reflect the true long-term value of the UC modernization effort. The reason for this is that the first four of the five years are development and implementation years. There is some benefit gained during the first four years due to productivity gains from extensive business process improvement work preceding and accompanying the new system; also, the new system is fully implemented during the last six months of year four. In addition to the five year amount, a ten year benefit amount is provided below. *At full implementation. Estimated savings at full system implementation for ten years better indicates the investment and business value of the UC modernization project. Over $431 million in savings, much of it in the form of reduced UC Trust Fund disbursements will greatly benefit Florida’s citizens – both claimants and employers.

$43,102,294 10 Years = x $431,022,940

Annual Benefit* Length Total Savings




3.5 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS RESULTS

The UC modernization target benefits described in this analysis will be the result of replacing out-dated, inefficient technology in combination with improvements in UC business processes and enhanced integration with and support of re-employment activities. The tangible benefits are a mix of operating cost savings and reduced UC Trust Fund disbursements. The operating costs savings result from system efficiency gains and business process improvements; the reduced trust fund disbursements come from two sources – 1) better integration with and strengthened emphasis on re-employment activities that lead to faster and better employment outcomes for claimants and 2) a shift from low-value, high-volume processing tasks to high-value tasks that resolve issues and prevent overpayments from the UC Trust Fund. Together these two components can impact the effectiveness of the UC program significantly more than the operating cost reductions due to efficiency gains driven by the UC modernization project. The new UC system is estimated to deliver the following annually recurring tangible benefits of $43 million to Florida’s UC program stakeholders: $ Amount Benefit Description

$6.2 Million Cost savings from reduced call volume, fewer non-monetary determinations and a reduced number of appeals if the new system creates efficiency gains similar to what other states have experienced (15%).

$4.8 Million Reduced benefit overpayments if the new system facilitates the rate of improvement in overpayment reduction experienced by Ohio following the introduction of their new benefits system.

$0.9 Million Additional interest revenue due to reduced UC Trust Fund disbursements if the new system creates the projected efficiencies and improvements observed elsewhere.

$9.0 Million Reduced UC Trust Fund disbursements if the system facilitates faster re-employment for claimants based on better Workforce integration and an emphasis on re-employment activities such as claimant profiling.

$12.3 Million Reduced UC Trust Fund disbursements if the system facilitates resource re-allocation away from low value, high volume processing tasks to high value administrative tasks such as eligibility reviews that can contribute to shortened claim length.

$0.8 Million Benefits from increased use of electronic correspondence.

The UC Modernization project is estimated to deliver $41.0 million per year in recurring tangible benefits.




$ Amount Benefit Description

$9.0 Million Reduced UC Trust Fund disbursements if the system facilitates resource re-allocation away from low value, high volume processing tasks to high value tasks such processing JAVA claims that are on the PIT list awaiting a non-monetary determination.

$43.1 Million Total

3.5.1.1 Project Costs

The estimated total cost of implementing the UC modernization project is $68.3 million over a 3.5 year period.

FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12 FY12-13 3.5 Year Total $2,000,000 $26,801,728 $26,529,725 $12,918,929 $68,250,382

Table 3-4 UC Modernization Project Cost by Fiscal Year The hidden costs of not using technology to enable AWI UC to modernize its system and processes to make essential improvements to operating capabilities far exceed this recommended investment. The agency has computed the following values the UC modernization project project (from CBA Form 3):

Investment Term Computed Value 8. Total Cost $68.3M distributed over three fiscal years. 9. Tangible Benefits $43.1M per year in recurring benefits. 10. Net Tangible Benefits $79.4M over five years 11. Return on Investment $ 11.1M over five years 12. Payback Period 4 Years and 9 months from the start of the project

(FY2013-14 - within 1.5 years of deployment) 13. Net Present Value $4.5M 14. Internal Rate of

Return 9.1%

UC program stakeholders are requesting, for less than a penny on a dollar of the Total UC Trust Fund, to implement the UC modernization project and improve their ability to effectively and efficiently deliver services to Florida’s unemployed workers.




5. The breakeven year is FY 2013-14, the year after the UC modernization project will deploy. A breakeven or “payback” period of 5-to-10 years indicates a good investment. A payback period that ends the year after the investment is completed is an excellent investment.

6. The net present value (NPV) is $4.5 million. Any positive value for NPV is a good investment. By this measure the UC modernization project is an excellent investment.

7. The internal rate of return (IRR) is 9.1%. The Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) estimates the cost of capital for investment analysis purposes to be 4.65% for the foreseeable future. The IRR for the UC modernization project is almost twice the cost of capital. The UC modernization project is an excellent investment.

8. The $68.3 million total investment for the UC modernization project comes to less than 1% of the total projected expenditures (as of 10/31/08) from the UC Trust Fund for FY 2008-09.

The following graph displays the cumulative discounted cash flow from the UC modernization projects costs and benefits over the five fiscal years. This figure depicts the superior performance of the UC modernization project as an investment.

Figure 3-5 Cumulative Discounted Cash Flow

AWI recommends that this proposed UC modernization project be approved and authorized to proceed with procurement, and that required funding be requested by the Executive Office of the Governor and approved the Legislature.




4 RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL Purpose: To provide an initial high-level assessment of overall risk incurred by the project to enable appropriate risk mitigation and oversight to improve the likelihood of project success.

An in-depth risk assessment of the UC Modernization project was performed using the risk assessment tool provided by the Technology Review Workgroup. The tool involves answering 86 questions about the project being considered, divided into eight assessment categories. The results of the assessment are summarized below. The completed risk assessment tool is imbedded in this document here:

AWI_UC_RiskAssessment_FY09-10.xls




4.2 RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY Purpose: To identify the overall level of risk associated with the project and provide an assessment of the project’s alignment with business objectives.

Figure 4-1 is a graphical representation of the results computed by the risk assessment tool. It shows that the UC Modernization project is on its way to achieving solid business strategy alignment; but as would be expected at this early stage, the project still carries high risk. It is expected that overall project risk will diminish significantly by the conclusion of Phase 2 when low-level project requirements have been documented and a technology solution selected. The results of this risk assessment are discussed in detail in Section 6.8 along with the Agency’s plan to continually identify, assess, and mitigate risk throughout the life of the project.

Figure 4-1 Project Risk Assessment Summary




Figure 4-2 illustrates the risk assessment areas that were evaluated and the breakdown of the risk exposure assessed in each area. The results of this risk assessment are discussed in detail in Section 6.8 along with the Agency’s plan to continually identify, assess, and mitigate risk throughout the life of the project.

Figure 4-2 Project Risk Assessment Summary Table




5 TECHNOLOGY PLANNING COMPONENT

5.1 CURRENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENT There are several factors driving the need for the UI modernization efforts throughout the country. These can be used to help define the criteria used in selecting the overall approach to modernization of UI technical and business systems and provide the initial justification for moving forward with the next steps in the FL AWI modernization project. They are: • Increased customer expectations – In the age of the internet, both claimants and

employers have come to expect increasingly automated self-service through multiple contact points (phone, email, IVR, web). Along with self-service options, customers of UI systems (internal users, claimants, employers, related state and federal agencies) expect systems to provide an improved level of service through increased functionality, faster response times and automated rather than manual processes. It is not possible to meet these expectations for improved / expanded services with the older technologies currently in use at FL AWI.

• Reduced or static operational funding levels – Budget pressures are forcing most government agencies to increase levels of efficiency and “do more with less”. Staff resources are often reduced while at the same time, an increase in service is mandated. One way to meet this challenge is through the careful planning, design and implementation of modern technologies.

• Loss of technical skills and resources – Typically agencies are facing the challenge of trying to compensate for an aging and retiring workforce. Resources with skills in older technologies are increasingly difficult to find. Training and support for these technologies are often no longer available or prohibitively expensive to acquire.

• Aging hardware and software – States are supporting the UI business with IT systems that were built decades ago that were never designed to handle the demands of their current (and future) business needs. This outmoded and inflexible technology has become increasingly difficult to maintain and enhance to support new functionality. As agencies become more and more dependent on automated systems to perform their business functions, defining a long-term technical strategy based on modern architecture, infrastructure and hardware / software components is not an option to any UI operation.

• The key criteria for determining and evaluating the Alternative Analysis options discussed below includes the capability of meeting the strategic goals referenced from the previous sections of this Feasibility Study report.

• Integrating new technology systems into the overall modernization effort will automate most of the business functions of Unemployment Compensation claims processing and would boast numerous advancements, including:




o Reduction in operating costs o Elimination of many manual business processes o Better customer service o Flexible platform to accommodate legislative and policy changes o Real time processing of payments, adjustments and overpayments o System-driven workload balancing o Benefit payment control (BPC) case management will be fully integrated with the

adjudication program and collection system to enable fraud detection and establish overpayments

o Higher employee productivity through increased process automation and enterprise-wide access to information

5.1.1 Current System Description Overview The major areas of Unemployment Compensation (UC) identified as part of the Feasibility Study are: • Claims Intake • Certification Process • Inquiry • Adjudication • Call Center • Reengineering • Wage Determination • Special Payments • Employer Charges • Benefit Payment Control • Appeals • Quality Improvement/Federal Reporting

The claims and benefits functionality is the core of Florida’s UC system. The areas above process requests for UC benefits, produce benefits checks, perform adjudication (fact-finding of issues), process claim determinations, process appeals from both employers and claimants and perform benefit payment control. Automation of the UC business processes shown in Figure 6-1 began around 1972. Initially this automation was achieved utilizing applications written primarily in IBM COBOL (both batch and CICS) with most of its data stored in Virtual Sequential Access Method (VSAM) files, DB2 tables and sequential files on an IBM mainframe. As time progressed and technological advancements continued to expand consumer access to the Agency, on-line applications claims filing process of FLUID and IVR were developed.




During this period of expanding technology, it was found that certain functionality desired by the Agency, such as Appeals tracking and Payment Control management, could not be satisfied by the Mainframe. This lead to additional development of applications outside of, but connected to, the Mainframe. These applications included newer technologies such as PowerBuilder, Classic ASP, .NET, and Visual Basic. This now leaves the Agency with a complex series of interfaces between multiple platforms and technologies that are challenging to maintain. There are number of major internal and external interfaces that support the multiple applications that comprise the UC System. Internal Interfaces include: • FLUID (Florida Unemployment Internet Direct) / FLCCID (Florida Continued Claim

Internet Directory) • IVR (Interactive Voice Response) • BOSS (Benefit Overpayment Screening System) Internal Application • IAP ( Internet Appeals)

External Interfaces include: • DFS (Department of Financial Services) • DCF (Department of Children and Families) • IRS • Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles • OBIS (Department of Corrections) • SSA (Social Security Administration) • USDOL (US Dept of Labor) • ONE STOP CENTER (EFM) Employee Florida Marketplace • DOR Tax And • ICON Interstate Claims Online Network

The following diagram depicts the high level architecture of the UC system:




Figure 5-1 High Level Architecture




As depicted in the preceding diagram there are also a number of client server applications used to support the core UC Claims and Benefit mainframe system including: FLUID (Florida Unemployment Internet Direct) FLUID is a front-end Internet Claims Filing system that was implemented by the Agency in July of 2001. One of the primary functions of FLUID is to allow claimants to certify for continued claims weeks. It allows claimants to file an initial claim or a continued claim (in English or Spanish) from any Internet access point, whether it is public or private (Claims may still be filed in any of the 176 ONE-STOP Career Centers in Florida). FLUID handles 55% of the claims traffic. The claimant logs into the FLUID application on the Internet using their AWI provided user ID and password. This password is authenticated and the claimant is allowed to enter information to set up their Initial Clam or claim their weeks for Continued Claims. The data is accessed from the Mainframe and presented back to the claimant to assist them in filing their claim. • FLUID is built on a classic ASP with VB script and the database platform used is SQL

server. • The FLCCID interacts mainly with the legacy applications residing in CICS / COBOL

programs on the IBM mainframe. The Internet application integrates with the IBM mainframe technology using application integration technology combined with web based presentation technology to connect mainframe data structures with Web-based forms. This allows claimants to fill out the forms and file their unemployment claims and certification of weeks claimed over the Internet.

A claimant filing an Internet Claim enters their claim data using the provided forms and submits the claim. The data is stored to the SQL server database residing on an NT Server cluster. The data is transferred to the mainframe every 15 minutes, unless the mainframe is unavailable, in which case it is queued for the next available time and transferred. The FLUID continued claims process FLCCID writes directly to a mainframe VSAM by using middleware to connect to CICS file in real time at the time of the claim completion. It accesses and updates a DB2 PIN table and a DB2 VPS log table that is batch processed during the day (1:00 PM). IVR Claimants using the IVR (Interactive Voice Response) have the capability of using touch-tone telephones to file Initial or Continued Claims. After choosing their preferred language (English, Spanish or Creole), the callers are presented with a self-service menu which allows them to choose the functionality they require. The claimant authenticates to the IVR, which accesses the mainframe using a combination of CICS commands and screen scraping technology to provide the appropriate responses to the claimant. This information is used to guide the caller through the questions to process their Initial or Continued Claims. At the completion of the questions, the caller is either transferred to a CSR to complete the claim or if complete information has been provided, the claim is automatically processed.




• IVR claims account for approximately 40% of the total claims received by AWI. • The IVR accesses the mainframe application upon authentication of the caller. The data

is retrieved from the mainframe via a CICS command and is processed using screen scraping technology where the retrieved data is loaded into the Tele-claims database, which is a SQL database.

• The completed claim is saved to the Tele- Claims database. There is a nightly sweep of this database, which transfers all new claims to the mainframe and processes the claims as new and reopened claims.

• Continued Claims - The callers are provided with a self-service menu, which allows them to input identifying information, which then accesses the agency mainframe and provides a response, which is accessed by the IVR using a screen scrape method. This information is used to guide the caller through the questions to complete their continued claims. The caller can complete two weeks of claims during one call and can complete these with no worker intervention. In the event the claimant needs help or has a question, they are transferred to the Orlando Call Center for assistance. The continued-claims IVR has approximately seven prompts, which the claimant has to respond to in order to process their continued claim. The claimant can process their continued claims for the two available weeks in approximately 5 minutes.

The following figure shows the Technical Architecture for the Tele-claims system in which the IVR operates:

FY 2008-09 SCHEDULE IV-B FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION MODERNIZATION


Figure 5-2 IVR & TeleClaims




The “Inquiry” option on the IVR directs the calls to an agent in the Orlando call center who manually accesses the mainframe and responds to their questions. BOSS (Benefit Overpayment Screening System) BOSS is responsible for the activities involved in the detection, determination, establishment and collection of Overpayments of Unemployment Compensation Benefits. • BOSS is a front end Graphical User Interface (GUI), built using PowerBuilder,

which interfaces with the Benefit Overpayment system and the Claims and Benefits system that run on the IBM Mainframe.

• Some of the Overpayment activities are directly input into the mainframe applications and BOSS has a two-way interface to pass information to and from the GUI application to update the mainframe VSAM and DB2 data.

APPEALS The UC appeal is supported by five disparate applications. UC Internet Appeals Program (IAP): Allows claimants or the employers to appeal if dissatisfied with the UC agency’s monetary or non-monetary eligibility decision. IAP is built using ASP 3.0 / VB6.0, COM+, XML XSLT in a distributed configuration on application and web servers. The application accesses data on the mainframe stored on an SQL server and DB2 database. • UC Appeals Intranet Application: Used by the AWI appeals bureau to process

appeals and track all information associated to the appeal. UC appeals Intranet application is built using ASP.Net 2.0.

• UC Appeals Tracking Application: Used to monitor pending appeals and re-hearings, manage print jobs, run reports and manage case assignment. UC appeals tracking application is built using ASP 3.0 / VB6.0 and COM+ installed on the IAP’s application server. It accesses IAP’s SQL server database.

• UC Appeals Research Tool: Used to look up statutes for UC. UC appeals research tool is built using ASP3.0 and uses an Access database.

• Digital Recording System: This system accesses the mainframe and presents the contact information for all participants involved with the appeal. The hearing is digitally recorded using an application developed using Interactive Intelligence software and contacts and digitally record all hearings to a database. These hearings are indexed, retrievable and searchable and have the ability to be transferred to a CD. DRS is built on VB6.0




Current System Resource Requirements Application System

No. of Users

Hardware Platform

Operating System

Database Software

Programming Language FLUID Public Windows

2003 Windows NT

SQL2K ASP w/ Vbscript as code behind

BOSS 99 Windows 2003

Windows NT

DB2 PowerBuilder Internet Appeals

300-600

Windows 2003

Windows NT

SQL2K ASP/VB Intranet Appeals

35 Windows 2003

Windows NT

SQL2K ASP/ VB Claims & Benefit

600 IBM Mainframe

Z/OS VSAM CICS / COBOL IVR Public AccessNet/

i3 Call Center

Windows XP SQL2K VB 6.0

Table 5-1 Current System Performance Due to the decentralized nature of the current UC application, there are no current system wide performance metrics. 5.1.2 Strategic Information Technology Direction The Agency has developed a number of internal applications to cope up with changes in technology, policy and legislation. Each application has its own database, GUI, and interfaces to the Mainframe. To support changes in technology, policy and legislation, the UC system has been updated, enhanced and modified. There has been a significant increase in outages due to additional points of contact between these various platforms. Since the application systems are decentralized in nature, they operate as a series of independent batch silos, which cause serious data integrity problems, due to data duplication. The old design also constrains AWI’s options for automating business processes and providing internet-enabled capabilities to certain functionality. The feasibility study recommendation is to integrate the disparate UC Systems by replacing it using a combination of COTS and CUSTOM software, where necessary, and the most effective relational database management system (RDBMS). Implementing an integrated new system will automate more of the business functions of Unemployment Compensation claims processing and realize numerous benefits including: • Automation of business processes • Better customer service • Flexible platform to accommodate legislative and policy changes • Real time processing of payments, adjustments and overpayments • System-driven workload balancing




• Benefit payment control (BPC) case management will be fully integrated with the adjudication program and collection system to enable fraud detection and establish overpayments

• Higher employee productivity through increased process automation and agency-wide access to information

• The Appeals Recording application will be modernized to allow the recording application to be accessible via a web interface and will have the capability to interface with the case management, customer relationship management system and the Imaging application. This will allow the Appeals officer to have all required information at their workstation which will save time by allowing the officer to immediately access information related to the hearing at any point it is needed

All applications interacting with the mainframe unit will be replaced with a single web- oriented N-Tier architectural framework application that will use table driven structures to provide the flexibility to respond to the changes in the system. The database management system VSAM will be replaced with RDBMS, a more effective and flexible data base management system. The proposed new system will provide a single Unemployment Compensation system that will be operated according to automated business rule technology, commonly referred to as a rules engine. The state-of-the-art integrated system will assist staff to respond to claimants consistently and with quality. The case management software will bring together case activities relating to a client or group of clients into an electronic case folder, helping the organization improve productivity and reduce costs through increased efficiency. Due to the centralized nature of the case folder, redundancy will be eliminated and changes will be reflected throughout the system. Automated Workflow will allow user productivity to improve and help decrease training time for new employees. Achieving a lower cost of system integration coupled with lower cost of operations and maintenance will ensure that the Unemployment Compensation system remains low cost through out its life. 5.1.3 Information Technology Standards A list of high-level technical requirements and standards for the proposed system is documented in Appendix B. A more detailed technical requirements analysis is recommended to be completed during the next phase of this project, Phase 2 – Requirements Definition and Procurement Support. The high-level technical requirements listed in Appendix B are broken down into the following categories: • Claims Intake • Certification Process • Inquiry • Adjudication • Call Center




• Reengineering • Wage Determination • Special Payments • Employer Charges • Benefit Payment Control • Appeals • Data Interchange • Data Processing • Queries and Reports • Performance • Transaction Audit • System Usability and Maintainability • Internet • General • Security • Architecture

5.2 PROPOSED SOLUTION DESCRIPTION The proposed solution has not yet been defined. High level business and technical requirements can be found in the appendix. Architecture decisions will be based upon the solution selected and the findings of the Requirements Definition and Procurement Support phase. Resource and Summary Level Funding Requirements for Proposed System Because the proposed system has not yet been defined, summary level funding requirements are not available at this time, more information will be available after requirements gathering is complete. 5.3 CAPACITY PLANNING Capacity Planning involves planning, measuring and monitoring of system capacity in support of delivering a service. When implemented correctly, a well-maintained Capacity Plan allows an enterprise to manage system costs tightly by capitalizing on the just-in-time availability of hardware. Given that there is both a business and end-user focus to capacity planning, once implemented the process delivers the following primary benefits: • Improved customer satisfaction




• Better validation and justification of spending Avoidance of incorrect capacity sizing, which results in: • Appropriate use of resources • Sufficient capacity available in time to meet production workload needs

Other benefits include: • Improved alignment between business needs and resources by deriving service

and capacity requirements from specified business requirements • Recognition and correction of shortfalls in the provision of the required levels of

capacity and performance All applications built for UC should address current project scope for the future. For example, during the detailed UC System design and development, all data models and business rules involving Internet Initial Claims, claim certification, Adjudication, IVR and eligibility should be accounted for to address current needs, plus create placeholders for anticipated future functionality. Future systems designed for the UC Program should be built for maximum flexibility and ability for expansion, modification or extension with minimal rework and short turn-around times for: • Initial claims intake • Responding to questions from customers • Claim Certification • Adjudication needs • Other UC needs as they arise

5.4 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES This section describes the analysis of alternative approaches considered for implementing a replacement for the current UC system. Three options are presented: Status Quo, Custom Development, and a Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS)/Transfer solution. To conduct the alternatives analysis the following steps were performed: Identified and defined a list of potential alternative system implementation methods. • Developed high-level business and technical requirements that the new system

must be capable of addressing. • Established a set of uniform evaluation criteria against which each alternative

was measured. • Evaluated each of the alternatives through the application of the evaluation

criteria. • Determined the best alternative for the Agency.




Alternative 1 – Status Quo (Not Recommended) Execute the current processes with the existing systems and paper-centric approach. No changes or possible improvements to the existing business processes would be implemented. Maintenance and ad-hoc development support of the application would be provided going forward. Key Findings Legacy systems must rely on a shrinking pool of practitioners for operation and maintenance. Alternative 1 would be the least costly option in the short term. However, there is a cost for maintaining “status quo” from a functionality stand point. Of real importance is the potential risk of failure and the fact that doing business “as usual” eliminates the opportunity to realize tangible cost savings that represent $43.1Million each year. The costs to keep the system viable, the costs associated with maintaining an aging system, the costs associated with attracting and retaining trained development personnel, and the lost opportunity to realize significant cost savings make Alternative 1 an undesirable option for the long term. Alternative 2 – Custom Development (Not Recommended) The goal for this alternative is to meet all the recently documented requirements and provide an application that maps directly to the way in which the Agency wants to do business. This would require the Agency to take the following steps to develop the new system: Procure a vendor to design, develop, and deploy a system “from scratch”. OR Engage in an in-house development effort using existing (or new) Agency resources. Key Findings Custom development can be designed to meet specific needs but is typically a more difficult project with a higher risk level and longer implementation times. The design phase alone can take an inordinate amount or effort with the output of this phase documentation only (no working product). Custom development also assumes a large commitment of internal resources (SMEs) for design sessions and design validation. Often these are also the key operational resources for ongoing UI business making their scheduling and availability difficult. Custom development is typically the most costly approach and the most difficult to accurately estimate a budget. There are more variables to be considered and even the most experienced vendors will adjust their cost / schedule estimates to allow for delays. Forrester states, “in a massive custom development project … the costs might escalate significantly over original estimates, given the track record of large projects in the public sector.” 10 Overall, Custom development projects have the highest risk of project failure and require strong project and risk management planning. 10 Forrester’s Risk in IT Decisions, By Duncan Ellis, May 13, 2003




Custom development should be selected when there are no acceptable COTS or Transferable products available and preferably should be developed and implemented in smaller more manageable component projects. Alternative 3 – Procure COTS/Transfer System (Recommended) The goal for this alternative is to address the current and future information needs of the Agency while limiting the risk associated with undertaking a custom development project. This would require the Agency to take the following steps in developing the new system: • Select a state transfer system or procure a vendor solution matching most, if not

all, of the functional and non-functional requirements for the UC system. • Hire/contract with a vendor to configure and deploy a customized

COTS/Transfer solution.

Key Findings This solution allows for competitive procurement of a state transfer/COTS solution that will fit the functional and technical requirements of a UC system. A COTS solution presents higher initial costs than custom development due to the outlay associated with the product license, but the availability of a state transfer solution might negate the licensing costs. Forrester recommends “buying commodity functionality when you can”11 and both COTS and transfer solutions allow the Agency to mitigate the risks associated with custom development and takes advantage of “best practices” in the industry. 5.4.1 Assessment Process Seven evaluation criteria were used to evaluate the alternatives, based on key objectives for AWI and on common industry models. The following sections outline the evaluation criteria, criteria weighting, and criteria scoring used to determine the “best business solution alternative” for the development of the UC system.

5.4.1.1 Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Criteria Definition Factors

11 Forrester’s Got Legacy? Migration Options for Legacy Applications, By Phil Murphy, September 12, 2006




Evaluation Criteria Criteria Definition Factors 1. User

Enablement The solution meets or exceeds current and projected requirements for ease of use, productivity, training, and growth.

• Usability – the system is intuitive and adheres to familiar GUI constructs.

• Adaptability – few barriers to preclude immediate use without extensive training.

• Productivity – increases throughput, consistency, and overall work quality.

• Accessibility – web-based access for any authorized user from any authorized location.

• Workflow – structured, system-guided work processes.

• Training – on-line Help, tutorials, context sensitive assistance.




Evaluation Criteria Criteria Definition Factors 2. UC Service

Delivery The solution supports the AWI’s mandate to provide and manage UC program services. The system directly addresses and provides the required capability

• Functionality – meets or exceeds the requirements to capture and access information about UC service delivery.

• Manageability – provides an ability to effectively manage the “business” of UC service delivery (e.g., intake, eligibility, enrollment, attendance, scheduling, outcomes, reporting, tracking, auditing, etc.).

• Configurability – allows UC administrators to control and modify pre-defined rules and edits in accordance with changing legislative and/or UC guidelines without technical staff support.

• Consistency – ensures all activities are accomplished in the same manner, regardless of physical location.

• Decision Support – the system prompts the user to follow defined procedures based on legal requirements and standard practices.

• Validation and business rules – the system automatically checks for pre-defined inconsistencies or errors.

• Reporting – enables users to define standard and ad-hoc reports to provide real-time access to information in the system.




Evaluation Criteria Criteria Definition Factors 3. Operational

Effectiveness The solution supports existing or planned AWI technology-related policies, procedures, and guidelines for application support.

• Maintainability – adheres to common industry practices for application and database management such as backup and recovery capabilities.

• Scalability – will allow the addition of users and storage to meet increased staffing and record storage requirements.

• Availability – system up-time is in accordance with AWI needs.

• Supportability – aligned with standard operations and practices.

• Recoverability – no data loss due to environmental impacts or user induced errors.

• Portability – the underlying technology and data can be migrated to other platforms as dictated by AWI needs.

• Performance – the solution delivers acceptable operational throughput and response times over the full spectrum of system load.

• Security – provides a complete audit trail to address security concerns surrounding customer privacy and financial transactions.




Evaluation Criteria Criteria Definition Factors 4. Data

Management The solution adheres to accepted data storage and exchange protocols, provides significant protections for sensitive information, and allows for future growth.

• Data Integrity – enforces system data edits and formats and, if applicable, referential integrity and other data related controls.

• Security – the underlying data architecture provides native data security to protect sensitive information.

• Scalability – facilitates increasing data storage requirements in response to a growing number of customers.

• Data Sharing – provides industry standard interface methodologies (e.g., ODBC).

• Data Standards – adheres to industry standard data exchange formats.

• Centralized Data Repository – data is maintained in a central location.

5. Support The solution is built on industry standard platforms and supports a wide variety of utilities to facilitate implementation, modification, and maintenance.

• Open Architecture. • Relational Data Model. • User Configurable. • Common Graphical User Interface. • User-maintained rules engine that controls

application behavior. • Compatible with commercially available

reporting tools. • Resource availability.




Evaluation Criteria Criteria Definition Factors 6. Risk Project

implementation constraints

• Cost – potential that the project will exceed defined budgetary constraints.

• Schedule – potential that the project timeline will be exceeded.

• Resources – potential that necessary staff will not be available or may be reassigned after project initiation.

• Scope – potential that the baseline project requirements will be exceeded.

• Technology – potential that the chosen technology platform will become obsolete or unsupported prior to the solution achieving its desired results.

• Organizational – potential that the project will not receive internal/external support to the extent necessary to achieve a successful outcome.

• Goals – potential that the project will not achieve its stated purposes.

• Resistance – potential that the solution will be unacceptable to the end users.

7. Cost Project implementation costs

• Project costs. • Affordability. • Feasibility. • Expected changes in operations and

maintenance costs. • Benefits, ROI and payback period.

Table 5-2 Evaluation Criteria




5.4.1.2 Evaluation Weighting Criteria Each of the seven criteria was weighted for overall strategic importance to AWI. The justification and weighting can be found in the table below. Criteria Weighting Factors Criteria Weighting Factors 1. User

Enablement 10 AWI desires to deliver consistent, quality solutions

to its clients and users. 2. UC Service

Delivery 25 AWI is responsible for the administration of the

UC program. 3. Operational

Effectiveness 15 The system supports the UC service delivery

model, enable improvements in outcomes, and achieve reductions in operating costs.

4. Data Management

10 The underlying data structure is manageable and scalable to meet current and future growth. In addition, child data sensitive so data must be protected from disclosure.

5. Support 10 The system adheres to common industry structures and practices which facilitate administration and management of the application and its associated data repository.

6. Risk 15 The extent to which the alternative mitigates the perceived risks associated with the UC system implementation effort.

7. Cost 15 The overall costs associated with procurement, application preparation (whether enhancement, development, or configuration), deployment, operations, and maintenance.

Table 5-3 Weighting Criteria




5.4.1.3 Evaluation Scoring Criteria A four-point scale was used to score each of the alternatives. Categorical scores for each alternative were determined by multiplying the evaluation scoring and the weighting factor to derive a total score for each criterion. Scoring Scale Score Criteria

0 The alternative does not enable or add value to AWI. No benefits will be received in this category.

1 The alternative will provide some small value to AWI. 2 The alternative will provide significant value and benefit to AWI. 3 The alternative will provide maximum value and benefits to AWI.

Table 5-4 Scoring Criteria 5.4.2 Scoring Results for the Three Alternatives (General) Each of the category scores (evaluation criterion) were added together to determine a final, overall score for each alternative. The results are shown below.

Alternative 1 Status Quo

Alternative 2 Custom Develop

Alternative 3 Purchase COTS/State Transfer

Categories Weight Score Total Score Total Score Total 1. User Enablement 10 1 10 3 30 3 30 2. UC Service

Delivery 25 2 50 3 75 3 75 3. Operational

Effectiveness 15 1 15 3 45 3 45 4. Data

Management 10 1 10 3 30 3 30 5. Support 10 1 10 3 30 3 30 6. Risk 15 0 0 0 0 2 30 7. Cost 15 0 0 1 15 2 30 Total Weighted Score 100 6 95 16 225 19 270

Table 5-5 Alternative Scoring Results Summary




5.4.3 Scoring Results Explained The detailed evaluation expands on the weighted scoring system by providing justification and rationale of the scores assigned to each criterion. Rationale for each score is provided for each alternative below. Alternative Scoring Explanations – Status Quo Alternative 1 – Status Quo Criteria Score Rationale 1. User

Enablement 1 • Users define the current system as difficult to use.

• It does not reflect the current business processes. • Does not provide a graphical user interface for all

functions. • The system is not intuitive and requires users to

access multiple applications for single tasks negatively impacting productivity

• Requires extensive training for proficiency. • System does not provide much in the way of online

help 2. UC Service

Delivery 2 • Does not meet all of the data capture needs of the UC

program. • Business rules are not documented and are hidden

within the code. Frequent law and policy changes require extensive programming in the system.

• Does not enable users to define standard and ad-hoc reports to provide real-time access to information in the system.

• The current process is paper-based and cumbersome. • Help and decision support is not available from the

systems 3. Operational

Effectiveness 1 • Too many screens are required to complete processes,

creating operational inefficiencies. • There are processes that need more automation • Data is sometimes lost or inaccessible due to

dependence on paper. • UC system is, for many core business functions, able

only to record results obtained by labor-intensive manual processes.




Alternative 1 – Status Quo Criteria Score Rationale 4. Data

Management 1 • The current system does not allow for the appropriate

level of data validation at the database level. • Reporting processes are inefficient. • Ad-hoc analysis capabilities are lacking due to the

database structure (VSAM). • The current system provides very limited data entry

validation • Reporting processes are inefficient • Ad-hoc analysis capabilities are slow, expensive and

limited 5. Support 1 • The Department is not positioned well for competitive

development and sole sourcing due to the aging technology and the highly customized nature of the system.

• Extensibility and scalability of the current system is limited and financially impractical.

• Multiple installations duplicate operation and maintenance costs at each site

6. Risk 0 • Increasing risk of failure as workload continues to climb (increase in claims etc.).

• Risk of losing key personnel who are the sole owners of UC system expertise (no documentation)

• UC system support costs will continue to rise as the systems continues to age.

• Risk of not being able to attract and retain development resources.

7. Cost 0 • Valuable benefits from enabling UC business process with a modern system will go unrealized.

• Over time maintenance costs will continue to increase as technology ages.

Table 5-6 Alternative 1 Scoring Results




Alternative Scoring Explanations – Custom Development Alternative 2 – Develop a Custom Solution Criteria Score Rational 1. User

Enablement 3 • Custom development is the best alternative to

precisely achieve all project goals and implement most, if not all, system functional requirements

2. UC Service Delivery

3 • Would directly address and achieve most, if not all, improvement to UC business capabilities

3. Operational Effectiveness

3 • Depending on the technology and infrastructure chosen, would support all aspects of operation effectiveness

4. Data Management

3 • Would encompass all facets of data management best practices

5. Support 3 • Application would align very closely with desired business processes

6. Risk 0 • High risk associated with custom development projects. Too many variables and unknowns

• Risk is very high due to complexity of requirements • Lack of staff availability to support detailed design

sessions. 7. Cost 1 • Large development projects are notorious for cost

overruns and an inability to adhere to defined schedule milestones and deliverables

• Supports the eliminating or reducing the current dependency on paper forms; significant tangible and intangible benefits to AWI.





Alternative Scoring Explanations – COTS Alternative 3 – Purchase COTS Criteria Score Rational 1. User

Enablement 3 • Would achieve all stated goals and encompass most,

if not all, system requirements 2. UC Service

Delivery 3 • Would directly address and achieve most, if not all,

required business functionality 3. Operational

Effectiveness 3 • Would support all aspects of operation effectiveness

4. Data Management

3 • Would encompass all facets of data management best practices

5. Support 3 • Application would align very closely with desired business processes

• Vendor support would cover the initial implementation period with options for follow-on maintenance

6. Risk 2 • AWI may have to adapt current business processes conform with the selected COTS applications “native” capabilities in order to avoid the substantial cost and schedule risk that would result modifying the applications code

• Vendor solutions use proprietary data formats and/or implementation conventions

• AWI must plan, execute, and manage a full competitive procurement cycle, which will increase cost and may delay the start of the implementation

• A firm, fixed price contract with a vendor will significantly reduce AWI’s exposure to cost overruns

7. Cost 2 • A COTS implementation avoids much of the risk and shortens the time for implementation when compared to a custom development. However, these benefits can be quickly erased if extensive modifications to the core application are undertaken





5.4.4 Technology Recommendation The Feasibility Study process has concluded that it is in the best interest of AWI to proceed with the replacement of the aging mainframe based Unemployment Compensation System through the procurement of a COTS/State Transfer System. This approach will maximize technical and business process benefits and provide the flexibility and scalability needed for the future. This option will also reduce overall project risks and ensure that the resulting application can be supported in the future. The additional costs, resources, complexities, and risks associated with either doing nothing or developing a new system from scratch are prohibitive. Additional advantages of a COTS/State Transfer Approach: • A COTS solution provides a configurable application and data architecture that

provides the most flexibility in meeting complex rules/requirements, and flexibility to change as conditions/rules change.

• A COTS solution offers numerous tools and interfacing capabilities not currently in place to enhance Agency performance and compliance such as workflow, scripting, help capabilities, quality/integrity maintenance tools, complex reporting tools, etc.

• A COTS solution will require a larger initial investment to implement than the status quo. The savings in process efficiencies, ongoing maintenance costs, the availability of tools and resources to maintain the system and improvement in data quality will bring significant value to the Department.

• Many COTS solutions have a built-in analytical reporting capability. This could have a significant improvement on the method and frequency of reporting to the State. It would also serve the needs of other agencies that may need to be able to receive reports from the UC system in the future.

• The “core code” of the COTS solution can be customized by the vendor to close any gaps with the current capabilities of the UC system.

• A COTS solution provides for a shorter implementation timeframe and less risk of cost or schedule overruns than a custom development alternative.

• Pre-built COTS components such as workflow, scripting, and standard interfaces reduce development, support, and system integration efforts versus custom development alternative.

• A modern COTS solution greatly reduces the risk of technical obsolescence that exists in the legacy UC system today.

• A custom development or COTS/State Transfer solution will achieve a majority of the AWI objectives from a functional perspective. Both solutions directly support elimination or reduction of the dependence on paper.




6 PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLANNING COMPONENT

6.1 PROJECT CHARTER Purpose: To document the formal authorization of the project by the Project Sponsor. It is an agreement between a project’s customers, the project team, and key management stakeholders regarding the scope and schedule for the project used to determine the project’s success when it has been completed. The Project Charter is the underlying foundation for all project related decisions.

Project Name This project is referred to as the Unemployment Compensation (UC) Modernization Project. Project Purpose The purpose of the project is to replace the outdated and non-integrated systems currently supporting the UC program with a single, modern, integrated, web-based information system that will support the entire AWI UC organization and its customers well into the future. Project Objectives This project will meet the following objectives: • Create a modern, integrated, web-based business system that supports the

Agency’s UC processes using modern technology • Automate manual, paper-based processes to increase workflow efficiencies and

reduce operational costs • Facilitate improved communication within the Agency as well as between the

Agency, its consumers and employers • Provide Agency staff with timely access to information necessary for

performance measurement and quality management • Provide better access to data through searching and reporting capability • Employ project management best practices throughout the life of the project • Complete the project within agreed budget and timeframes




Project Phases The UC modernization project will consist of three phases as illustrated in Figure 6-1.

Figure 6-1 UC Modernization Project Phases

Project Management The primary project management methodology used by AWI is TenStep©; however, other project management best practices, such as the Project Management Institute’s Project Management Framework, may be used. An appropriate project management methodology will be agreed upon by the AWI Project Manager and the implementation vendor(s). Changes to the methodology may be considered at any phase of the project, as deemed appropriate by the Project Director or Project Sponsor. Regardless of the specific project management methodology employed, certain management and control mechanisms will be relevant to all phases of this project, including: • Project Charter that clearly conveys what will be accomplished by the project,

signed and authorized by the Project Executive Sponsor • Project contract(s) • Project Management Plan • Baselined project schedule • Executive Steering Committee • Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) • Change Control Register • Project Issues Register • Project Risk Register

The use of the project control framework indicated above, together with application of the Project Management Plan, will assist both the Project Manager and Project Sponsor




in planning, executing, managing, administering and controlling all phases of the project. Control activities will include, but may not be limited to:

• Monitoring project progress; identifying, documenting, evaluating and resolving project related problems that may arise

• Reviewing, evaluating and making decisions with regard to proposed changes; Changes to project scope will be tightly controlled according to a documented change request, review and approval process agreed to by all stakeholders.

• Monitoring and taking appropriate actions with regard to risks as required by the risk management plan

• Monitoring and tracking issues as required by a documented issue reporting and management process

• Monitoring the quality of project deliverables and taking appropriate actions with regard to any project deliverables that are deficient in quality

Project Scope The scope of this project will include a significant business process analysis and requirements development effort as well as the design, development, testing, user training and state-wide implementation of a new business system that supports the following UC functions:

• Claims and Adjudications • Customer Support • Benefit Operations, including:

o Wage Determinations o Special Payments o Employer Charges o Special Programs

• Benefit Payment Control • UC Reengineering • UC Appeals • Quality Improvement and Federal Reporting

The project scope will include development of the following customized interfaces: • Online claimant portal • Online employer portal • Workforce services interface

Also Included in the Project Scope • Establishment of a Project Management Office




• Organizational Change Management • Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) • Data conversion and migration • Data warehouse design and development • Statewide system implementation • Content development for training materials and system help screens • End-user training • Operations and maintenance planning • Reporting functions

Out of Scope • Unemployment Tax collection and regulation • General ledger financial management functions • Budget appropriations, releases, and allotment functions • AWI human resource functions • Anything not included in the Project Scope section of this document

Project Timeline A preliminary, high-level project timeline is shown in the Figure 6-2. The actual project timeline will be highly dependent upon the technology solution selected by AWI.

Figure 6-2 Proposed Project Timeline

Phase 1 of the UC modernization project includes the development of this Feasibility Study and its associated Legislative Budget Request as well as the development of a procurement vehicle for Phase 2. Phase 2, Requirements Gathering and Procurement Support, will include the following:




Activity Description Business Process Analysis and Improvement

This activity will include low-level business process analysis to document the current state of UC business processes, followed by business process improvement planning focused around the program’s core strategic goals.

Requirements Gathering

This activity will include documenting the functional and technical system requirements necessary to support the improved business processes. The Phase 2 vendor will work with Agency staff to evaluate solutions that align with the documented requirements.

Procurement Support

In this activity, the Phase 2 vendor will work with the Agency project management team to develop procurement documents and organize procurement related activities.

Table 6-1 Phase 2 Activities Phase 3, System Development and Implementation, will include the following: Activity Description

Analysis The Analysis phase will include validation of the system requirements collected during previous business process improvement and requirements gathering efforts.

Design The Design phase will include Joint Application Design sessions with end users, functional and technical design documentation and user interface prototyping.

Build The Build phase will include application configuration and system development, database development, data conversion, data migration, data warehouse development, unit testing, creation of help screens and development of an online user tutorial.

Test The Test phase will include the creation of a test plan and test cases, and the performance of integration testing, system testing, user acceptance testing, and regression testing.

Deploy The Deployment phase will include implementation planning and the deployment of the new system to a production environment.

Operations Operations phase will begin during the system implementation phase. The emphasis of this phase will be to ensure that the necessary equipment, staff, and procedures are in place to meet the needs of end users and ensure that the system will continue to perform as specified.

Table 6-2 Phase 3 Activities




Project Deliverables The following table contains a preliminary list of project deliverables. The final deliverables list, which will include acceptance criteria, will be developed in conjunction with the selected implementation vendor and will be appropriate to the technology solution chosen. Name Phase Deliverable Description Project Management Status Reports

2&3 (Ongoing)

Includes weekly status reports to project management team and monthly progress reports to the Project Steering Committee.

Risk and Issue Registers 2&3 (Ongoing)

Prioritized lists of risks and issues identified and reviewed during the course of the project.

Meeting Minutes 2&3 (Ongoing)

Record of decisions, action items, issues, and risks identified during formal stakeholder meetings.

Project Charter 2&3 (Ongoing)

A document issued by the Project Sponsor that formally authorizes the existence of the project and provides the Project Manager with the authority to apply organizational resources to project activities.

Project Management Plan

2&3 (Ongoing)

May include the following documents as required by the AWI Project Director and/or the PMO: • Work Breakdown Structure • Resource Loaded Project Schedule • Change Management Plan • Communication Plan • Document Management Plan • Scope Management Plan • Quality Management Plan • Risk Management Plan • Risk Response Plan • Issue Management Plan • Resource Management Plan • Conflict Resolution Plan • Baseline Project Budget

As-Is Business Process Flows

2

Complete and accurate representation of the current state of all UC business processes, to be developed using standard business process notation. This document should include narrative descriptions of key activities, including owners, inputs and outputs.




Name Phase Deliverable Description To-Be Business Process Flows

2 Complete and accurate representation of the future state of all UC business processes, as reengineered by the vendor in conjunction with AWI subject matter experts. To be developed using standard business process notation. This document should include narrative descriptions of key activities, including owners, inputs and outputs.

UC System Requirements Document

2 This deliverable shall include, at a minimum: • Unique identification of each requirement • A clear description of the functional and non-

functional requirements for the system • A traceability matrix to include: requirement

ID, requirement type, process, activity, requirement description, priority, and source


2 Updated Schedule IV-B Feasibility Study incorporating information collected during Phase 2, to be submitted with the Agency’s Legislative Budget Request for Phase 3 funding.

Procurement Documents

2 TBD. Shall include the procurement vehicle selected (ITN or RFP) and any supporting documentation.

Knowledge Transfer Plan

2 Based on a gap analysis, this plan will detail the steps taken to adequately transfer knowledge about the system to the resources that ultimately will be responsible for implementation.

Lessons Learned 2 Documents obstacles navigated Phase 2 and associated best practices.

Organizational Change Management (OCM) Plan

3 Describes the overall objectives and approach for managing organizational change during the project, including the methodologies and deliverables that will be used to implement OCM for the project.

OCM Status Reports 3 Includes weekly status reports to project management team and monthly progress reports to the Project Steering Committee.

Stakeholder Analysis 3 Identification of the groups impacted by the change, the type and degree of impact, group attitude toward the change and related change management needs.

Training Plan 3 Defines the objectives, scope and approach for training all stakeholders who require education about the new organizational structures, processes, policies and system functionality.




Name Phase Deliverable Description Change Readiness Assessment

3 Surveys the readiness of the impacted stakeholders to “go live” with the project and identifies action plans to remedy any lack of readiness.

IV&V Project Charter 3 A document issued by the Project Sponsor that formalizes the scope, objectives, and deliverables of the IV&V effort.

IV&V Status Reports 3 Includes quarterly reports to the Executive Management Team and the Project Steering Committee.

IV&V Periodic Assessments

3 • Schedule Review Summary • Budget Review Summary • Business Alignment Summary • Risk Review Summary • Issue Review Summary • Organizational Readiness Summary • Recommended Next Steps/Actions for each of

the above areas • Milestone and Deliverable reviews (to

determine if the project is prepared to proceed to the next phase in the project work plan)

• Current scorecard of the project management disciplines

• Strengths and areas for improvement in the project management disciplines

• IV&V Next Steps/Actions IV&V Lessons Learned 3 Documents obstacles navigated during the IV&V

project and associated best practices. IV&V Contract Compliance Checklist

3 Documents that all contractual requirements have been met by vendors involved with the project.

Validated Requirements Document

3

Complete list of functional and technical requirements that have been validated by AWI stakeholders with the system integrator.

Functional Design Specification

3

Design specifications for the system to include: • System functional specifications • User Interface specifications • Reporting specifications

Technical Design Specification

3

Detailed technical design for data and information processing in the new business system to include: • Data Model/ERD • Data Dictionary • Technical Architecture (to include a hardware

usage plan)




Name Phase Deliverable Description User Interface Prototypes

3

Mock-ups of how functional requirements will be translated into screen design.

Design Demonstration 3

Review and acceptance of the system integrator’s design required before proceeding to development. Key stakeholders will experience the prototype and then a go/no-go decision will be submitted to the Project Sponsors for action.

Data Conversion Plan 3

Plan for converting data from existing systems to meet the specifications of the new database design; to include detailed data conversion mapping.

Data Migration Plan 3

Plan for migration of data from existing systems to the new database.

Test Plans 3

Detailed test plans for unit testing, system testing, load testing, and user acceptance testing.

Test Cases 3

Documented set of actions to be performed within the system to determine whether all functional requirements have been met.

Implementation Plan 3

Detailed process steps for implementing the new business system statewide.

Knowledge Transfer Plan

3

Based on a gap analysis, this plan will detail the steps taken to adequately transfer knowledge about the system to the resources that ultimately will be responsible for post-implementation support.

Functional Business System

3

Final production version of the new business system.

Lessons Learned 3

Documents obstacles navigated during the life of the project and associated best practices.

System Operation and Maintenance Plan

3

Detailed plan for how the finished system will be operated and maintained.

Table 6-3 Project Deliverables Project Milestones It is anticipated that Phases 2 and 3 of the project will be managed according to the following milestones. Go/no-go checkpoints may be added to the project schedule where appropriate based on the chosen solution. Checkpoints will require Project Sponsor sign-off prior to commencing the next activity.




Milestone Phase Deliverable(s) to Complete Phase 2 Project Kick-Off 2 • Project Charter Project Management Documents Completed

2 • Various (See deliverable list) Business Process Analysis Completed

2 • As-Is Business Process Flows • To-Be Business Process Flows

Acceptance of Functional and Technical Requirements

2 • UC System Requirements Document System Procurement 2 • Procurement Documentation Phase 2 Project Close-out 2 • Lessons Learned

• Knowledge Transfer • Contract Compliance Checklist • Project Close-out Checklist

Phase 3 Project Kick-Off 3 • Project Charter Project Management Documents Completed

3 • Various (See deliverable list) Acceptance of Validated Requirements

3 • Validated Functional Requirements Document

Acceptance of User Interface Prototypes

3 • User Interface Prototypes Acceptance of Functional and Technical Design Specifications

3 • Functional and Technical Design Specification documents

User Acceptance Testing Complete

3 • NA End User Training Complete 3 • On-site training sessions

• Training materials System Deployment 3 • Functional system released into

production Project Close-out 3 • Lessons Learned

• Knowledge Transfer • Contract Compliance Checklist • Project Close-out Checklist

Table 6-4 Project Milestones and Go/No-Go Decision Points Affected Stakeholders and Groups The Project Management Institute defines a stakeholder as “anyone who may be positively or negatively impacted by the project.” Table 6-5 identifies the project stakeholders that have been identified to-date, and summarizes how each will be affected by or will participate in the UC modernization project.




Stakeholder How They Are Affected or How They Will Participate AWI Financial Management Systems Assurance Section (FMSAS)

This area is responsible for various monitoring and compliance activities for cost allocation plans, financial monitoring and contract monitoring for AWI sub-recipients. Other related activities include providing technical assistance and training to the sub-recipients and performing research for AWI management, Workforce Florida, Inc., the Office of Early Learning or other responsible parties as needed.

AWI Office of Workforce Services

This area is responsible for providing One-Stop Program Support services (workforce program information, guidance and technical assistance) to the Regional Workforce Boards, as well as providing Labor Market Statistics information to our workforce partners and the general public. Additionally, AWI in its role as the administrative entity to Workforce Florida, Inc. (WFI) operates under a performance-based contract. The Office of Workforce Services is responsible for managing this contract, which includes specific deliverables and performance requirements in the statewide administration and coordination of workforce services.

AWI UC Management and Staff

This area is responsible for administering the unemployment compensation program and its staff represents the primary users of the UC system.

Employers Any person or organization that has paid wages to one or more employees during the current or prior calendar year. Employers are responsible for paying unemployment taxes and responding to Agency inquiries regarding unemployment claims.

Florida Department of Children and Families

Responsible for adoption and foster care programs, as well as family recovery and providing financial assistance to those families in need. Benefit and employment data is exchanged with the Department of Children and Families.

Florida Department of Education

The Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program (FETPIP) located within the Department of Education is a data collection and consumer reporting system to provide follow-up data for Florida’s workforce development system, which relies on UC administrative information for its evaluations.

Florida Department of Financial Services

This department manages the State's accounting functions, monitors the investment of State funds, and oversees the contract for debts against the State. The Department also issues unemployment warrants for the Agency.

Florida Department of Revenue

This Department manages the State's Child Support Enforcement Program, and General Tax Administration, which administers the unemployment tax program.

Florida Legislature The Florida Senate and House of Representatives are responsible for the appropriation of funds for the State of Florida. The reports generated by the UC provide crucial information needed to support UC programs and funding requests to the legislature. Analysis of the UC data is necessary to evaluate the impact of proposed statutory changes.




Stakeholder How They Are Affected or How They Will Participate Florida Technology Review Group

The Florida Technology Review Workgroup is an Agency that reports to and represents the Florida Legislature. The Florida Legislature is vested with the statutory authority to appropriate state funding for public projects. As such, the Florida Legislature is the State’s principal approval authority for this project. The TRW is charged with overseeing, evaluating, and making recommendations to the Florida Legislature and State Agencies regarding the justification, planning and performance of major or designated special interest projects. This project is one of many across all state agencies that TRW is monitoring. Project plans, proposed budgets, and justification for spending are reviewed and approved annually.

General Public A general body of people within the Florida community. The general public access information regarding Agency services, including UC services, via the Agency internet site.

Governor’s Office of Policy and Budget (OPB)

The Office of Policy and Budget (OPB) provides coordinated planning, policy development, budgeting and evaluation in support of the Governor, State agencies and State Legislature pursuant to authority under the Florida Statutes. The Information Technology Unit within OPB coordinates and develops recommendations and advises the Governor on information technology through establishing and directing the IT investment management process that supports the preparation, execution and amendment of the state budget.

Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC)

This administrative appellate body is the highest level for administrative review of contested unemployment cases decided by the Office of Appeals. The Commission is an independent body of three members appointed by the Governor.

Unemployed Floridians Any individual who has been employed in Florida and is currently unemployed or partially unemployed seeking UC services.

US Department of Labor

The Agency of the Federal government with administrative oversight for workforce programs, including unemployment compensation. USDOL provides funding, interprets Federal law, establishes performance goals, approves State plans, and monitors performance.

Pitney Bowes Pitney Bowes provides printing services for the UC program.

Collections Vendor AWI contracts for collections of delinquent overpayments. The collections vendor is dependent on the information provided by the UC system.

Image API Provides imaging services for the UC program.

Table 6-5 Stakeholders Affected by the UC Modernization project




Assumptions and Constraints The following assumptions are statements about the project or its environment that are taken to be true and, accordingly, are factored into AWI’s plans and analysis for the proposed project. • A suitable configurable business application exists which will satisfy 70% of the

business requirements, with less than 30% of the solution to be customized – ideally, no customization should be made

• The procurement process for the systems solution(s) will be timely, fair, open, competitive and without serious challenge

• AWI desires to increase process effectiveness, reduce manual steps that rely on the use of ad-hoc tools and processes

• AWI will embrace the Organizational Change Management needed to implement the recommended solution

• The project team will be adequately staffed to accomplish the project’s deliverables, milestones, and infrastructure, manage user involvement, produce necessary project planning documents, project status reporting, etc.

• The system will invest in building data interfaces with other agencies/departments rather than re-create the storing of duplicate data

• Data conversion and migration from multiple legacy systems will be required • All labor costs for the project are assumed to be for system integrator and

support contractor staff only, exclusive of state employees • Labor rates for contracted staff are assumed to be in accordance with the IT

consulting State Term Contract for staff augmentation and comparable to similar projects recently undertaken by other Florida State Agencies

Constraints Constraints are identified factors that will limit the project management team’s options, and impact the progress or success of the proposed project. • Project funding is appropriated annually and may be subject to periodic releases

throughout the year; depending upon suitable schedule and cost performance. • Approval by either the Executive Office of the Governor (in consultation with the

Legislature) or the Legislative Budget Commission is required before any appropriated funds are made available to the Agency.

• All schedules depend on the continual availability of appropriated funds. • The total time to plan for the procurement process is unknown, because the total

time from start-to-finish to complete IT fixed-price procurement varies widely. This analysis is based upon a realistic and achievable schedule.

• Information requests from external overseers and partners can be time consuming to produce and can impact the project’s timeline.




• State and/or federal statutory changes, changes in administrative rules, and AWI policy changes may impact the project.

• The software tools supporting desired capabilities will be determined based on the solution proposed by the selected system integration vendor.

• UC staff availability • Stakeholder understanding of project dynamics and impacts

General Project Approach The following activities are required to complete the UC modernization project:

1. Submit a Legislative Budget Request 2. Perform detailed business process analysis and requirements gathering 3. Develop procurement documents 4. Issue the procurement documents and score the vendor proposals when received 5. Negotiate with proposing vendors for a firm fixed price contract to design,

develop, and implement the system 6. Select a qualified vendor to perform design, development and implementation 7. Execute the project 8. Monitor and control the project 9. Design a solution that meets all mandatory functional and technical

requirements 10. Develop an integrated, relational database that supports improved data access

and integrity, data sharing between AWI, UC claimants, employers and other state and federal entities.

11. Implement a comprehensive system to automate functions currently requiring significant duplication of effort, manual handling, and limited analysis

12. Deploy the system to trained users who are fully prepared to use the new system and are supported by on-screen help

13. Conduct knowledge transfer 14. Continued operations, administration and support of the system through the

warranty period 15. Close Out the project 16. Operate and enhance the system throughout its service life.

Change Request Process Projects of this magnitude should expect change as the project progresses through the design, development and implementation phases. All change requests will be formally documented and validated by the PMO and the Change Control Board (CCB), which will be comprised of key project stakeholders according to the Change Management Plan. Once validation has occurred, the appropriate stakeholders will assess the change and determine the associated time and cost implications. Upon acceptance of the change request and its validation by the PMO, the tasks to implement the change will be incorporated into the project plan and a project change




order will be initiated. A priority will be assigned and the request will be scheduled accordingly. Figure 6-3 illustrates the proposed change request process.




Change Identified

Submit Change Request

PMO and CCBAgree

Discard Change RequestDistribute Request

Analyze Request

Distribute Findings PMO and CCBAgree

Prioritize/Schedule Request

Perform Change Request

No

Yes

No

Yes

Figure 6-3 Proposed Change Request Process




6.2 WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is generated to define, at a summary level, all work that will take place within the project. It serves as a common framework for planning, scheduling, estimating, budgeting, configuring, monitoring, reporting on, directing, implementing and controlling the entire project. Additionally, the WBS is the framework for the management structure. The WBS is used to document and form the basis for:

• Project deliverables • Effort required for creation of deliverables • Assignment of responsibility for accomplishing and coordinating the work

According to PMI standards, a WBS is structured properly if it: • Is representative of work as an activity, and this work has a tangible result • Is arranged in a hierarchical structure • Has an objective or tangible results referred to as a deliverable

A preliminary Work Breakdown Structure for the UC modernization project is presented in Figure 6-4. Note that Design, Development, and Implementation phases may change to align with the chosen solution. The WBS will be finalized by the Project Director, working closely with the selected integration vendor. Any changes will be required to conform to PMO standards.




Figure 6-4 High-Level Work Breakdown Structure




6.3 RESOURCE LOADED PROJECT SCHEDULE A preliminary project schedule has been developed for the UC modernization project. However, it should be noted that the actual project schedule will be highly dependant upon the technology solution chosen. The development of the actual project schedule will be the responsibility of the AWI project manager and selected implementation vendor(s). The MS Project file is imbedded below.

20081126 - UC Modernization Project Schedule.mpp 6.4 PROJECT BUDGET The cost information used as the basis for a preliminary project budget was generated using the cost estimating software package Cost Xpert. The results represent one cost-scenario, based on the assumption that COTS software may be capable of delivering up to 70% of required functionality, including custom configuration of existing framework, with 30% functionality to be met by custom development. These numbers represent an estimate to be used for budgetary planning purposes only, with the acknowledgement that actual project costs could vary by as much as plus or minus 20%. However, if a vendor’s products require more than 30% custom development, the cost could increase proportionately resulting in cost overruns as much as 80%12. As such, the degree of “fit” is an important cost factor to consider. The cost by year is based on tasks and level of effort as described in the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) but may change based on the final ITN Deliverable Payment Schedule and contract negotiations secured during the procurement process. The Cost Xpert Estimation Summary Report is included as Appendix D. Input parameters were based on Source Lines of Codes (SLOC), by module with a project start date of July 1, 2009. Additional cost was added for training and IV&V: Training is estimated at 4 FTE's at an hourly cost of $90, IV&V is estimated at 3.4% of total project costs. Project Budget Worksheet 1 is imbedded below.

Project Budget Worksheet 1.xls

12 Experience with UC modernization projects in other states has illustrated that vendor products claiming to be Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) products require a substantial amount of customization or new development ranging from 30% to 90%.




6.5 PROJECT ORGANIZATION Project Steering committee members will include senior AWI management staff that has demonstrated a commitment to the success of the project by their willingness to provide both oversight and advocacy for the modernization effort. One of their most important roles will be to keep the project’s charter firmly in view and assist the UC Project Director in resisting the ever-present forces that will seek to alter the project’s objectives. They will also support the Project Director in guarding against scope growth and assist him or her in responding to external changes that impact the project. During monthly steering committee meetings with the project management team, the committee will evaluate the project’s adherence to the planned schedule, scope and use of resources. Finally, the Steering Committee will act as advocates for the project whenever possible and especially when needed to bolster the confidence and resolve of other key stakeholders. The UC Project Management Team will be headed by the Project Director and will include the Vendor Project Manager, OCM Manager, and IV&V Vendor. This team will be responsible for day-to-day oversight of the project. In addition, the Project Management Team will work closely with the Technology Review Workgroup (TRW) and the Office of Policy and Budget (OPB) to ensure that sufficient external project oversight is established and maintained. For a project of this size and duration, the Agency will implement a Project Management Office (PMO) to create project management plans, monitor project issues and risks, and provide general support to the Project Director throughout the project. The PMO should be staffed with at least one Certified Project Management Professional. The project business stakeholders identified in Table 6-6 include seasoned UC staff from the program’s core business areas. These key stakeholders will be instrumental in the design, development and testing of the new business system and will assist in the review and approval of all project deliverables. Figure 6-5 shows the proposed project organization and the relationship between its components.




Figure 6-5 Proposed Project Organization

Project Steering Committee

AWI Executive Management Team

Project Business Sponsor Director - UC Project IT Sponsor

Chief Information Officer - AWI

Project Director

Project Budget Officer

Project Independent Verification and Validation Vendor

Project Management Office

System Integrator Project Manager Project Business Stakeholders

Committee

Project Deputy Director




The following table identifies, where known, the names of the people assign a role in the project organization and a summary of their responsibilities Role Name Description Assigned To Executive Management Team

• Provides executive oversight to the project;

• Supports the project vision; and • Resolves escalated issues.

TBD

IV&V Vendor • Verifies that the system is developed in accordance with validated requirements and design specifications;

• Validates that the system performs its functions satisfactorily;

• Monitors project management processes and provides feedback on any deficiencies noted;

• Reviews and provides feedback on project deliverables; and

• Presents to Executive Management team on IV&V activities.

TBD

Project Steering Committee

• Provides oversight to the project; • Contributes to the scope and strategic

direction for the project; • Establishes policies; • Identifies project risks and mitigation

strategies; • Resolves escalated issues; • Decides on project changes in terms of

scope, budget, or schedule; and • Approves all final deliverables.

Project Business Sponsor Project IT Sponsor Project Budget Officer




Role Name Description Assigned To Project Business Sponsor

• Has programmatic decision making authority;

• Champions the project within the customer’s organization;

• Provides guidance on overall strategic direction;

• Provides business resources for project success

• Has Programmatic responsibility for successful development and implementation of the project;

• Chairs the Project Steering Committee; and

• Facilitates communication with the EMT.

AWI-UC Director

Project IT Sponsor • Has programmatic decision making authority;

• Champions the project within the customer’s organization;

• Provides guidance on overall strategic direction;

• Provides IT resources for project success • Has Programmatic responsibility for

successful development and implementation of the project;

• Deputy chairs the Project Steering Committee; and

• Facilitates communication with the EMT and TRW.

AWI Chief Information Officer

Project Budget Officer • Controls project budget; • Provides budget related input into

project scope and contract change decision making process; and

• Member of the Project Steering Committee.

TBD




Role Name Description Assigned To Project Director • Has overall responsibility for the

successful development and implementation of the project;

• Oversees the development and implementation of the project;

• Oversees the Project Management Office for the project;

• Liaison with IT Sponsor for resources; • Liaison with Project Business Sponsor for

business resources and day-to-day activities; and

• Reports to the Project Steering Committee.

TBD

Project Deputy Director

• Provides overall direction and coordination of the organizational change management effort and activities related to implementation;

• Implementation of project activities; • Reports to Project Director for day-to-

day activities; and • Assumes the role and responsibilities of

Project Director in the absence of Project Director.

TBD




Role Name Description Assigned To Project Management Office

• Responsible for day-to-day project oversight;

• Provides overall guidance and direction to the System Integrator;

• Coordinates with the Project Director for resources;

• Works with System Integrator Project Manager to ensure stakeholder needs are met;

• Has daily decision making authority; • Oversees and manages project plan; • Facilitates the Business Stakeholders

Committee; • Coordinates project resources, budgets

and contract management; • Reviews and provides feedback on

project deliverables; • Responsible for project management

areas including scope, risk, quality and change control;

• Coordinates project status communications; and

• Liaison with external agencies as needed.

TBD

Project Business Stakeholders Committee (Small Group of internal and external stakeholders usually made up of Business Unit Manager(s) and Supervisor(s) from AWI and other agencies.)

• Provides input on functional requirements;

• Participates in project user group meetings and sessions;

• Provides input on project activities; • Reviews and comments on project

documents and deliverables; and • Disseminates project information and

updates to local internal/external stakeholders.

TBD




Role Name Description Assigned To Systems Integrator Project Manager

• Reports to the Project Management Office;

• Works with the Project Management Office to seek guidance and direction;

• Responsible for systems integrator project management activities;

• Leads the planning and development of project deliverables;

• Develops and manages the project schedule and associated tasks;

• Maintain all project documentation, including detailed project plan;

• Ensure adherence to the process and project management standards and guidelines;

• Responsible for project management areas including scope, risk, quality and change control;

• Prepare formal project reports and presentations;

• Ensure deliverables conform to AWI standards; and

• Facilitate project related meetings as required.

Selected Systems Integrator Vendor

Table 6-6 Project Organization Members - Roles & Descriptions




6.6 PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL Purpose: To understand project quality requirements and ensure that effective quality control processes and procedures are in place and operational in time to support the needs of the project.

The project will follow the PMO guidelines delineating timeline, budget, and quality specifications for each deliverable. Each deliverable will be assigned detailed acceptance criteria in the project contract. Quality will be monitored and controlled by the Project Management Team and deliverables will be accepted only when the acceptance criteria have been met. The PMO will provide oversight and assistance to the entire Project Team to ensure that standards are followed. Project Area Description Development Standards

If applicable, the vendor selected for design and development of the UC System will follow AWI’s programming and development standards.

Testing Management

The vendor will follow the established standards of the AWI PMO for Testing Management. This includes unit testing, integration testing, system testing, load testing and user acceptance testing.

Approval All deliverables will require individual stakeholder approval and sign-off upon completion of the final draft.

Software Configuration Management

If applicable, the vendor will follow the established standards of the AWI PMO for Software Configuration Management. This includes Stakeholder sign-off, documentation, and version control.

Contract Management

The AWI PMO will be involved in contract management. All contracts must pass executive and legal approval. In addition, external project oversight will be required for contract negotiation.

Table 6-7 Quality Standards by Project Area In addition to these formal areas of quality control, the following practices will be maintained during the life of the project. • Peer reviews of artifacts • Project team acceptance and approval • Periodic project team meetings • Project status meetings • Periodic contractor, contract manager, project manager and project team

meetings • Change control management processes, including the creation of a change

review and control board that provides representation for all affected stakeholders

• Contract manager and AWI Project Director acceptance and approval • Maintain detailed requirements definitions under configuration management • Defined test plan with standard levels of technical and acceptance testing




• Risk Management and Mitigation Quality will be monitored throughout the project by the PMO. Multiple levels of acceptance by all stakeholders will be built into the process to ensure project quality control. 6.7 EXTERNAL PROJECT OVERSIGHT

Purpose: To understand any unique oversight requirements or mechanisms required by this project.

A full-scale Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) effort will be in place throughout the life of the project. The purpose of IV&V is to provide an unbiased review and assessment of the project to help ensure it is meeting its desired goals, it adheres to internally documented or recognized industry standards and guidelines, the products or deliverables meet the requirements and are of high quality, appropriate controls are defined and utilized, and that the stakeholders in the process are effectively involved and aligned. Specific objectives of the IV&V effort for this project will include: • Providing validation that the awarded implementation vendor:

- Complies with the terms of the contract, - Performs and provides deliverables to the satisfaction of AWI, - Fulfills the technical and non-technical requirements of the contract, - Completes the project within the expected timeframe, - Demonstrates value and is committed to achieving the goals outlined by

AWI, and, - Acts in the best interests of AWI and surfaces issues in a timely and

comprehensive manner. • Providing an independent, forward looking perspective on the project by raising

key risks, issues and concerns and making actionable recommendations to address them.

• Enhancing management’s understanding of the progress, risks and concerns relating to the project and providing information to support sound business

• Provide ongoing advice and direction to the Executive Management Team, the Project Steering Committee, the Project Director and AWI Executive Leadership throughout each phase of the project.

In addition, the AWI Project Management Team will work closely with the Technology Review Workgroup (TRW) and the Office of Policy and Budget (OPB) to ensure that sufficient external project oversight is established and maintained. 6.8 RISK MANAGEMENT

Purpose: To ensure that the appropriate processes are in place to identify, assess, and mitigate major project risks that could prevent the successful completion of this project.




The purpose of risk management is to identify the risk factors for the project and establish a risk management plan to minimize the probability that the risk will negatively impact the project. The project management methodology chosen for this project will include processes, templates, and procedures for documenting and mitigating risk. Formal risk analysis, tracking and mitigation will be ongoing throughout all phases of the project. Risks are actively identified, detailed, and prioritized. Mitigation strategies are developed. Risks are tracked, mitigated and closed throughout the lifecycle. 6.8.1 Mitigation Strategies Risk mitigation involves prioritizing, evaluating and implementing the appropriate risk-reducing activities in response to the risk assessment. Risk mitigation options include: • Risk Assumption. Accept the potential risk as unavoidable, continue the project,

and implement controls to lower the risk to an acceptable level. • Risk Avoidance. Avoid the risk by eliminating the cause of the risk, the

consequence of the risk, or both (e.g. forego certain aspects of the project that are particularly risky).

• Risk Limitation. Limit risk by implementing controls that prevent the adverse impact from a particular risk or provide early detection of rising risk so that project leadership can respond to correct the risky condition.

• Risk Planning. Manage risk by developing a risk mitigation plan that prioritizes, implements, and maintains controls.

• Research and Acknowledgement. Lower the risk of adverse project impact by acknowledging the vulnerability and researching controls that can be applied to manage or eliminate it.

• Risk Transference. Transfer or share risk through options that compensate for the adverse impact, such as performance bonding and insurance.

6.8.2 Risk Management Plan All phases of the project will follow the standards defined by the Project Management Office (PMO). PMO standards include processes, templates, and procedures for documenting and mitigating risk. Formal risk analysis, tracking and mitigation will be ongoing throughout all phases of the project. Risks are actively identified, detailed, and prioritized. Mitigation strategies are developed. Risks are tracked, mitigated and closed throughout the lifecycle. A Risk Management Plan (RMP) will be developed and adhered to throughout all phases of the project. The RMP will include clear risk management procedures including standard checkpoints and mitigation strategies. Execution of a well defined RMP with clear mitigation strategies for each risk is critical to the success of the UC project. The purpose of risk management is to identify the risk factors for the project and establish a risk management plan to minimize the probability that the risk will negatively impact the project. It is recommended that the following checkpoints be followed during the project:




Task Recommendation Risk Management Plan

Have planned semi-annual reviews and updates after the submission and approval of the Risk Management Plan with the Steering Committee. More frequent or “as required” updates should be performed.

Risk Management Reviews

As part of a disciplined approach to addressing project risks, monthly Risk Meetings should be conducted during the project lifecycle.

Table 6-8 Project Risk Checkpoints




6.8.3 Project Risk and Mitigation Table The following table provides an overview of the strategies that AWI will employ to mitigate the risks identified by the risk assessment tool in Section 0.

# Risk description and Impact Probability of Occurrence

Risk Tolerance Mitigation Strategy Assigned

Owner Strategic (Medium Risk) 1 Sign-off on project objectives has not

been received by all stakeholders; lack of consensus and understanding of core objectives could erode stakeholder support

High Low • Ensure that project objectives are clearly stated in the Project Charter, and that the charter is signed by all stakeholders

• Implement a communications plan to ensure stakeholder support and involvement throughout project - positive expectations must be nurtured through regular communication and feedback.

• Executive Steering Committee and the Project Management Team will provide coordination between the project and stakeholders

• Begin Organizational Change Management prior to the project start and make it an integral, ongoing part of the project

AWI Project Sponsor; AWI Project Director

2 Necessary changes in law, rule or policy have not been identified or documented; unexpected changes could increase project budget and timeline

Low Medium • Document high-priority requirements for a business rule driven system that can easily accommodate legislative changes

• Business process improvement activities conducted in Phase 2 should include a policy analysis activity to determine if policy and rule changes will be needed

AWI Project Director; Vendor Project Manager






Owner 3 The proposed system will have

extensive external visibility; problems with accessibility or usability could lead to negative publicity for the Agency

High Low • Ensure that all Internet accessibility standards required by the state of Florida are met

• Devote sufficient time and budget to hardware and software capacity planning

• Solicit feedback and/or participation from a sample population of claimants and employers during design and user acceptance testing activities


Technology (Medium Risk) 4 Technologies have not been selected

and finalized; impact unknown Medium Medium • The project team will use State, Agency, and industry

standards to evaluate and select the technical components • The successes and failures of technologies used by other

states will be scrutinized • Detailed future-state business processes and requirements

will be developed prior to technology selection • A user interface prototype will be required at the end of

the design phase to ensure that the design of the system meets the requirements put forth by the Agency







Owner Change Management (High Risk) 5 Changes to core business processes

will be required as part of the move toward greater efficiency and away from manual processes; some users will be reluctant to these changes and negative perceptions could sabotage project efforts

High Low • A clear vision of project objectives will be defined and maintained by executive leadership throughout the life of the project in order to minimize the real or perceived impact of process changes on key stakeholders

• Organizational Change Management activities must be given top priority throughout the project in order to facilitate the transition of the Agency from its current mode of operation toward the efficiencies of a modern business system

• The Organizational Change Management Plan will address mitigation strategies associated with expected changes as they are identified

• Project communication will be actively monitored and controlled according to a comprehensive communications plan

• A well defined training strategy will be defined that includes both process training and system training

• Executive management will be proactive in listening and responding to concerns and objections from Agency staff

AWI Deputy Project Director; AWI Project Sponsor; AWI Executive Mgmt

6 Successful implementation of a modern business system will have a some impact on state agencies other than AWI; failure to anticipate, plan for and communicate these changes could result in implementation delays and negative publicity for the Agency

Medium Low • The Organizational Change Management Plan must address how changes to AWI’s interaction with other state agencies will be addressed

• Requirements development phase must include requirements for interfacing with other state agencies, and the Agency should have a representative during the requirements process

• Required changes to other state Agency’s processes must be communicated in a timely manner to the appropriate staff

AWI Deputy Project Director;






Owner Communication (High Risk) 7 Communication channels and key

messages have not yet been established; lack of effective project communication could erode project support

High Low • Develop and execute a comprehensive communication plan for providing targeted and timely communications to stakeholders

• Ensure that the communication plan promotes the collection and use of feedback from management, the project team, as well as internal and external stakeholders

• Identify and document all communication channels • Identify and document all affected stakeholders • Identify and document all key messages, message

outcomes and success measures • Identify and assign needed staff resources • Emphasize and execute proactive communication forums

for all stakeholders - positive expectations must be nurtured through regular communication and feedback.

AWI Project Director; AWI Deputy Project Director; AWI Project Sponsor; AWI Executive Mgmt

8 Communication channels will include agencies outside of AWI; failure to communicate effectively with external entities could result in implementation delays and negative publicity for the Agency

High Low • Ensure that the Communication Plan addresses communication with external agencies

• Emphasize early and frequent communication • Involve affected agencies in requirements process

AWI Project Director; AWI Project Sponsor; AWI Executive Mgmt






Owner Fiscal (High Risk) 9 Initial cost estimates were developed

prior to detailed requirements gathering; unanticipated requirements may increase the cost estimate for Phase 3

Medium Low • Initial cost estimates were developed using a standards-based estimation model; output from this model was checked against total costs incurred by other states that have undergone similar UC system modernization projects

AWI Project Director; Phase 1 Vendor Project Manager

10 Actual project costs may exceed estimates

High Low • Engage in thorough requirements gathering process to increase likelihood that final cost estimates will be accurate.

• At the conclusion of Phase 2, revise the original implementation cost estimate based on a quantitative analysis using a standards-based estimation model

• Thoroughly vet prospective implementation vendors during the procurement process

• Prevent cost overruns by executing stringent change control and scope management

AWI Project Director; Phase 2 Vendor Project Manager; Phase 3 Vendor Project Manager;






Owner Project Organization (High Risk) 11 Due to the current UC workload, AWI

subject matter experts will be dedicated 50% or less to the project

High Medium • Project managers and analysts will be as flexible as possible when scheduling meetings or JAD sessions

• All project meetings and JAD sessions will have clear and documented objectives, and should include only SMEs that are required to achieve those objectives

• Adequate time will be provided for the review and approval of project deliverables

• All training and testing activities involving SMEs will be thoroughly planned and efficiently executed

• AWI Executive Management will regularly acknowledge SMEs for their contributions to the project

AWI Project Manager; Phase 2 Vendor Project Manager; Phase 3 Vendor Project Manager; AWI Executive Mgmt

12 The Agency does not have the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities to staff the project team with in-house resources

Medium Low • The Agency will use the state’s competitive procurement process to engage qualified and reputable vendors who are able to provide the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities

AWI Project Manager; AWI Project Sponsor






Owner Project Management (Medium Risk) 13 Inadequate project management and

oversight could result in project time and cost overruns

Medium Low • An experienced, full-time AWI Project Manager will be assigned to the project

• A Project Management Office will be established for the duration of the project to ensure industry best practices in project management or employed

• Additional project oversight will include IV&V, Quality Assurance, and an Executive Steering Committee

• Well defined Risk Mitigation strategies will be developed for all identified project risks

• All project plans, risks and issues will be continuously reviewed and refined as the project progresses

• The project schedule will include multiple checks and balances to ensure the project is meeting expectations and allocated timelines

• The potential for cost overruns will be minimized by executing stringent change control and scope management practices

AWI Project Manager; Phase 2 Vendor Project Manager; Phase 3 Vendor Project Manager;






Owner Project Complexity (High Risk) 14 The fact that many stakeholders are

dispersed across the state in call centers and remote locations will make project communication more challenging; the result could be missed requirements and/or unreasonable expectations

High Low • Ensure communication plan addresses statewide communication

• Make communication among team members a priority and provide equal opportunities for remote team members to participate meaningfully

• Facilitate remote participation by employing collaborative tools such as conference calls, video-conferencing and web-enabled project management tools.

• Provide training regionally and develop a regional or local strategy for providing user support at start-up and beyond

AWI Project Manager; Phase 2 Vendor Project Manager; Phase 3 Vendor Project Manager;

15 Several external agencies could be impacted by this project; failure to communicate with these entities throughout all phases of the project could result in implementation delays and negative publicity for the Agency

High Low • Ensure that the Communication Plan addresses communication with external agencies

• Emphasize early and frequent communication • Involve affected agencies in requirements process

AWI Project Manager; Vendor Project Manager;

Table 6-9 Risk and Mitigation Table




6.9 ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT Purpose: To increase the understanding of the key requirements for managing the changes and transformation that the users and process owners will need to implement for the proposed project to be successful.

Effective Organizational Change Management (OCM) will be integral to the success of this project, and will be a critical success factor for ensuring staff participation in business process improvement, implementation and user acceptance. Significant organizational change is expected as a result of automating existing manual processes. Throughout the UC modernization project, OCM will be effectively implemented through communication, awareness, and training. AWI will adhere to the standards of the PMO for Organizational Change Management. A specific OCM methodology has not been identified at this Phase, but will be identified in the Organizational Change Management Plan created in Phase 3. At a minimum, the following will be included in the final Organizational Change Management Plan: • Description of roles, responsibilities, and communication between vendor and

customer • To-be process maps including a role oriented flowchart (swim lane view) of the

organization • Skill/Role gap analysis between the existing system and the proposed system • Training plan including platform (classroom, CBT, etc.), schedule, and

curriculum • OCM Communication Plan

The following key roles will have varying degrees of responsibility for executing the change management plan and delivering a consistent, positive message about change throughout the life of the project: • Organizational Change Manager (a member of the project management team

dedicated to OCM) • AWI Project Manager • Project Sponsor • AWI Executive Management

6.10 PROJECT COMMUNICATION

Purpose: To ensure that effective communication processes are in place to disseminate information and receive feedback from users, participants, and other project stakeholders to facilitate project success.




Phases 2 and 3 of the UC Modernization project will use communication methods proven to be effective on large-scale IT implementations, and will follow the standards developed by the PMO. These will include a communication plan, a formal project kick off meeting, status meetings, milestone reviews, adoption of methodology in defining roles, responsibilities and quality measures of deliverables, regular status reports, regular review and evaluation of project issues and risks, periodic project evaluation, regular system demonstrations and reviews, and a project artifact repository. Disseminating knowledge among stakeholders is essential to the project’s success. Project sponsors, core project team members and key stakeholders must be kept informed of the project status and how changes to the status affect them. The more people are kept informed about the progress of the project and how it will help them in the future, the more they will participate and benefit. At this phase, the specific communication needs of project stakeholders and the methods and frequency of communication have not been established. This will be done during the project planning activities in Phases 2 and 3. Generally speaking, the project communication methodology will espouse the following types of information dissemination: Top-Down It is crucial that all participants in this project sense a high degree of executive support and guidance for this effort. The executive leadership of the organization (project sponsor) needs to speak with a unified, enthusiastic voice about the project and what it holds for everyone involved. The project will require dedicated, 'hands-on' organizational change management if it is to be successful. Not only will the executives need to speak directly to all levels of the organization, they will need to listen to all levels as well. The transition from the project management practices of today to the practices envisioned for tomorrow will be driven by a sure and convinced leadership focused on a vision and guided by clearly defined, strategic, measurable goals. Bottom-Up To ensure the buy-in and confidence of the personnel involved in bringing the proposed changes to reality, it will be important to communicate the way in which the solutions were created. If the perception in the organization is that the core project team created the proposed changes in isolation, resistance is likely to occur. However, if it is understood that all participants were consulted, acceptance will be likely. Middle-Out Full support at all levels of management is important for sustainable improvement. At this level (as with all levels), there must be an effort to find and communicate the specific benefits of the changes. People need a personal stake in the success of the project management practices. A detailed Communication Plan will be completed. Certain requirements for effective communication methods will be incorporated into the vendor contract for implementation with the new system. These will include project kick off, regular status




meetings, regular status reports, regular review and evaluation of project issues and risks, milestone reporting, periodic project evaluation, regular product demonstrations and reviews, a web-based discussion board, project website, etc. It is expected that the Communication Plan will be adhered to and receive updates as applicable during the life of the project. 6.11 SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS There are no special authorization requirements for the UC modernization project.




7 APPENDICES

7.1 APPENDIX A - HIGH-LEVEL BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS Re

quire

ment

Identi

fier

Requ

ireme

nt De

script

ion

Leve

l of I

mport

ance

Requ

ireme

nt me

t by

the cu

rrent

system

(s)

General System Requirements GSR–B001 The proposed system must utilize a configurable, flexible

business rules engine that can be easily modified to adjust to changes in federal, state and Agency policies.

High No

GSR–B002 The proposed system must maintain a history of all claimant contacts regardless of the channel used to initiate the contact.

Medium No

GSR–B003 The proposed system must provide the ability to interface with the appropriate interstate and intrastate information systems.

High Partial

GSR–B004 The proposed system must integrate all benefit programs and utilize a single repository for all unemployment insurance data.

High Partial

GSR–B005 The proposed system must provide a seamless integration of the user interface between systems/modules.

Medium No

GSR–B006 The proposed system must provide support for foreign language speaking claimants and employers. Public-facing screens must be available in English, Spanish and Creole.

High Partial

GSR–B007 All system-generated correspondence must be capable of being produced in English, Spanish and Creole.

High Partial

GSR–B008 The proposed system must provide the ability to print documents on demand or queue them for printing locally or remotely.

High Partial

GSR–B009 The proposed system must provide a correspondence/tracking system to track all incoming and outgoing correspondence back to a claimant, claim, and/or employer as appropriate.

Medium No

GSR–B010 The proposed system must provide the ability to interface with multiple Customer Call Centers operated by AWI.

High Partial

GSR–B011 The proposed system must reuse common business rules and logic.

Medium No

GSR–B012 The proposed system must maintain an audit trail of all data changes. At a minimum, the audit trail must consist of the user-id, date/time of transaction, along with the information that was changed.

Medium Partial

GSR–B013 The proposed system must have processes that routinely purge and archive data based on rules defined by AWI.

High Yes




Requ

ireme

nt Ide

ntifie

r

Requ

ireme

nt De

script

ion

Leve

l of I

mport

ance

Requ

ireme

nt me

t by

the cu

rrent

system

(s)

GSR–B014 The proposed system must provide answers to frequently asked questions through the IVR and internet.

High Partial

GSR–B015 The proposed system must allow outbound calling, including the capability to call claimants with a mass announcement within a targeted population.

Medium No

GSR–B016 IVR and Web interfaces must be available in the proposed system.

High No

GSR–B017 The proposed system must provide the capability to easily create and change questions and provide announcements within the IVR and internet application within one location.

High No

GSR–B018 The proposed system must have multiple search capabilities based on more than Social Security Number and allow for multiple keys.

High No

GSR–B019 Any client-server application utilized as part of the proposed system must allow for offsite (VPN) connectivity.

High Partial

GSR–B020 The proposed system must include an online training module as well as online help

Medium No

GSR–B021 The proposed system must allow participant access through the Web system to have capability to accept participant transactions through the web including scanned documents.

High No

GSR–B022 The proposed system must have conference-call capability. High Partial GSR–B023 The proposed system must have Record on Demand

availability while a worker is on the phone. High Partial

GSR–B024 The proposed system must allow Supervisor help and intervention (conferencing) as well as the “listen-in” capability for supervisors to monitor and evaluate workers.

High Partial

GSR–B025 The CRM module of the proposed system must automatically provide UC operators with a complete claims history for a caller, and include the ability to drill-down into claim details.

High No

GSR–B026 The proposed CRM product must fully integrate with the Call Center applications

High No

GSR–B027 The proposed CRM product must allow for tracking tickets, reports and supervisor monitoring

High No

GSR–B028 The proposed system must allow call recording or appeals recording to be exported to portable media capability.

High No

GSR–B029 The proposed system must allow recording indexing and user-friendly search capability.

High No

GSR–B030 The proposed system should include Agency wide telephony system integration.

Medium No




Requ

ireme

nt Ide

ntifie

r

Requ

ireme

nt De

script

ion

Leve

l of I

mport

ance

Requ

ireme

nt me

t by

the cu

rrent

system

(s)

GSR–B031 The proposed system must provide alerts when technical difficulties occur or detail application faults.

High No

GSR–B032 The proposed system should be designed to allow other states to assist in claims taking and allow AWI to assist other states in the event of a disaster.

Medium No

GSR–B033 The proposed system must have multiple data types search functionality.

High No

GSR–B034 The proposed system must have sorting functionality. High No GSR–B035 The proposed system must have user level configurable

printing functionality High No

GSR–B036 The proposed system must support the imaging of data captured via hardcopy forms and filed via the IVR.

Medium Partial

GSR–B037 The proposed system must integrate an address verification application

Medium No

Claims Intake, Certification Process, Special Payments, & Inquiry CMI–B001 The proposed system must support Internet and IVR channels

for claims intake. High Partial

CMI–B002 The IVR system must utilize modifiable scripts that gather information from the caller and the database with no agent intervention. System users with the proper security level must be able to manage scripts (add, edit, delete, and re-order) through a user-friendly interface that does not require coding.

High Partial

CMI–B003 The proposed system must allow the claimant to file an initial Florida claim through the internet without agent intervention.

High Partial

CMI–B004 The proposed system must facilitate to the greatest degree possible, the automation of all data input, including claimant address information, email address, and other related, personal information.

High Yes

CMI–B005 The proposed system must make all necessary calculations to complete claims-taking processing, given data entered by claimant and information accessed via the relational database and data warehouse.

High Partial

CMI–B006 The proposed system must maintain a history of all claims. High Partial CMI–B007 System shall provide the ability to change claim data between

the time the data is entered and when a payment is made. High Partial

CMI–B008 The proposed system must allow the selection of occupational codes via the Dictionary of Occupational titles on both IVR and internet application.

High No




Requ

ireme

nt Ide

ntifie

r

Requ

ireme

nt De

script

ion

Leve

l of I

mport

ance

Requ

ireme

nt me

t by

the cu

rrent

system

(s)

CMI–B009 The proposed system design must allow for changes to the business process flow. If the choice is made to codify the workflow, the design of the work management will account for any business process variations identified by AWI managements.

High No

CMI–B010 The proposed system must maintain a customer audit trail of transaction responses and dates of access. This information will be available to all business units.

Medium Yes

CMI–B011 The proposed system must have the ability to identify the employer number for each employer during the base period. System will continue to access the Tax database to retrieve the employer’s primary mailing address and any special UCB-12 mailing addresses needed for mail-out of employer notices, Form UCB-412.

High Partial

CMI–B012 The proposed internet system must include the Benefits Rights Information form. The customer will be required to confirm that they have read and understand the Bulletin before they continue.

High Yes

CMI–B013 The proposed system must have override capabilities to allow for the processing of claims that continue to be rejected under current existing business rules.

High No

CMI–B015 The proposed system must be accessible from all existing and future call centers with full functionality and allow CSR’s to handle any request at each site.

High No

CMI–B016 The proposed system must allow for mail or email out requests without agent intervention. This includes customer request for forms, which could be processed with no CSR intervention. System to include FAX on demand capability.

High No

CMI–B017 The proposed system must pre-populate some or all of the claimant data from historical data after successful authentication.

High Partial

CMI–B018 The proposed system must be able to change start and end employment dates on a claim.

Medium Partial

CMI–B019 The proposed system must provide the ability to change effective dates on initial, additional, and reopened claims.

Medium Partial

CMI–B020 The proposed system must provide claimants the option of having federal taxes withheld from their benefit payments.

Medium Yes

CMI–B021 The proposed system must allow claimant to cancel EFT via IVR or Web

High No

CMI–B022 The proposed system must allow users to view monetary determination online.

Medium No




Requ

ireme

nt Ide

ntifie

r

Requ

ireme

nt De

script

ion

Leve

l of I

mport

ance

Requ

ireme

nt me

t by

the cu

rrent

system

(s)

CMI–B024 The proposed system must automatically balance claim after monetary re-determinations.

High No

CMI–B025 The proposed system must control the receipt of accurate and timely wage reporting and address confirmation from employers.

Medium No

CMI–B026 The proposed system must automate all payments to claimants.

High Yes

CMI–B027 The proposed system must offer a choice between direct deposit and debit cards for benefit payments.

Medium No

CMI–B028 The proposed system must provide the ability to view payment details by check number, Trace number, or benefit week for a claimant.

Medium No

CMI–B029 The proposed system must provide the ability to do multiple payment transactions on a single business day to a claimant.

Medium Yes

CMI–B030 The proposed system must provide capability for employers to electronically file mass claims and continued weeks.

High Yes

CMI–B031 The proposed system must provide fact finding for all claim types.

High No

CMI–B032 The proposed system must automatically re-determine claim when effective date is changed or when wages on a claim are modified.

High Partial

Wage Determination WGD–B001 The proposed system must provide the flexibility to configure

business rules for the calculation of base periods, qualifying requirements, weekly benefit amount, and benefit duration.

High Partial

WGD–B002 The proposed system must enable smart work queues to handle agent workload.

High No

Reengineering REG–B001 The proposed system must improve the current process for

reporting hardware and software issues internally and externally.

High No

REG–B002 The proposed system must be equipped with an alert system to let call center staff (and beyond) know of hardware or software issues.

Medium No

REG–B003 The proposed system must provide statistics, management reporting, and call monitoring

High No

REG–B004 The proposed system must provide Ad Hoc reporting capabilities

High No

REG–B005 The proposed system must provide text to speech and voice recognition capabilities

High No




Requ

ireme

nt Ide

ntifie

r

Requ

ireme

nt De

script

ion

Leve

l of I

mport

ance

Requ

ireme

nt me

t by

the cu

rrent

system

(s)

REG–B006 The proposed system must interface with the Imaging solution High Partial Adjudication ADJ–B001 The proposed system must provide the ability to manage

issues including status, tracking, resolution, and pending documents from claimant.

High Partial

ADJ–B002 The proposed system must support automatic claimant and employer scheduling when separation issues are detected during claim filing. The proposed system must have the ability to post issues and future issues to a claim.

Medium No

ADJ–B003 The proposed system must support and automate fact-finding hearings and forms.

Medium No

ADJ–B004 The proposed system must have the ability to tie an unresolved issue to a specific date range allowing payment of unaffected benefit weeks.

High No

ADJ–B005 The proposed system must provide the ability for supervisory adjudicators to review and modify the work of other adjudicators. Non-supervisory adjudicators must have the ability to view the work of other adjudicators in read only mode.

Medium No

ADJ–B006 The proposed system must present all claimant information to the adjudicators.

High Partial

ADJ–B007 The proposed system must provide a determination-writing module that allows adjudicators to select from canned legal statements and document their findings.

High No

ADJ–B008 The proposed system must have functionality to assign cases to a worker

High No

ADJ–B009 The proposed system must have the ability to display all owned (assigned) cases, regardless of case status, for the worker which is logged into the application

High No

ADJ–B010 The proposed system must allow for appointment scheduling for adjudicators to call back claimants for fact-finding and other determination discussions.

High No

ADJ-B011 The proposed system must have the capability to automatically call participants to remind them of appointments or other events

High No

GSR–B033 The proposed system must have multiple search functionality High No GSR–B034 The proposed system must have sorting functionality High No GSR–B035 The proposed system must have user level configurable

printing functionality High Partial




Requ

ireme

nt Ide

ntifie

r

Requ

ireme

nt De

script

ion

Leve

l of I

mport

ance

Requ

ireme

nt me

t by

the cu

rrent

system

(s)

GSR-B036 The proposed system must the ability to submit cases to the imaging system.

High No

SCR–B009 The proposed system must have security level access for different user types

High No

SCR–B010 The proposed system must use a single verifiable login per user

High No

SCR–B011 The proposed system must have user role functionality

High No

Employer Charges EC–B001 The proposed system must allow 412’s to be submitted online

and possibly make this the preferred method. Medium Yes

EC–B002 The proposed system must have a method to prevent duplicates 412 forms and the ability to reconcile that data if duplicates are discovered.

High No

EC–B003 The proposed system must have a case management software to help track the 412’s

High No

EC–B004 The proposed system must be able to scan in the responses from the employer and automatically identify the reason codes that fit ERPO and auto generate those determinations

High No

EC–B005 The proposed system must have the functionality to upload attachments to the 412 responses on the internet

High No

EC–B006 The proposed system must allow fax and mail responses to be scanned and electronically reviewed determinations to be automatically generated and workflow established for those not able to be automatically determined.

High No

EC–B007 The proposed system must have the ability to receive separation information electronically in batches and/or through electronic mediums.

Medium No

EC–B008 The proposed system must have an employer homepage to allow employers to see status, submit and follow up on all their 412s

Low No

EC–B09 The proposed system must allow for establishing rules/laws that require an employer to give wage reports/412 responses/separation reasons before being allowed to pay their taxes in a consistent way

Low No

Benefit Payment Control BPC–B001 The proposed system must include integrated case

management with automated triggers and task assignment across all UC functions.

High No




Requ

ireme

nt Ide

ntifie

r

Requ

ireme

nt De

script

ion

Leve

l of I

mport

ance

Requ

ireme

nt me

t by

the cu

rrent

system

(s)

BPC–B002 The proposed system must have the ability to redeposit adjustments.

High Yes

BPC–B003 The proposed system must have the ability to issue/reissue benefit payments.

High Yes

BPC–B004 The proposed system must have the ability to redeposit benefit payments.

High Yes

BPC–B005 The proposed system must provide the ability for the FLAWI to deduct monies from a benefit payment (Pension, Social Security, wages) using different computation methods.

High Yes

BPC–B006 The proposed system must provide the FLAWI with the ability to intercept tax withholdings, overpayments, and child support from a benefit payment.

High Yes

BPC–B007 The proposed system must have the ability to flag a check that has a stop payment issued.

High Yes

BPC–B008 The proposed system must automatically detect and establish an overpayment across all programs.

High Partial

BPC–B009 The proposed system must have billing, debt recovery, collections, and repayment functionality.

High Partial

BPC–B010 The proposed system must accept payments via EFT, credit and debit card.

High Yes

BPC–B011 The proposed system must provide Overpayment Decision Control & Management capability.

High Yes

BPC–B012 The proposed system must schedule and track repayments. High Yes BPC–B013 The proposed system must provide notifications when a

scheduled payment is not collected. High Yes

BPC–B014 The proposed system must allow overpayments to be viewed by benefit week and allow repayments to reflect the overpayment to which they are credited.

High Yes

Appeals APL–B001 The proposed system must provide a mechanism to

add/change/delete appeals examiners to the proposed system without loss of historical data.

High No

APL–B002 The proposed system must provide support for reverse appeals processing at all levels.

High No

APL–B003 The proposed system must provide a determination-writing module that allows examiners to select from canned legal statements and document their findings.

High Yes

APL–B004 The proposed system must automate scheduling of hearings. Medium No




Requ

ireme

nt Ide

ntifie

r

Requ

ireme

nt De

script

ion

Leve

l of I

mport

ance

Requ

ireme

nt me

t by

the cu

rrent

system

(s)

APL–B005 The proposed system must include a digital recording system with four month retention of hearings with ability to extend retention period and archiving afterward

High Yes

APL–B006 The proposed system must include a digital recording system with the ability to capture at least 85,000 recordings per year

High Yes

APL–B007 The proposed system must include a digital recording system with in person, telephone, and mixed hearing recordings

High Yes

APL–B008 The proposed system must include a digital recording system with full featured conference calling: including muting, sequestering, adding and removing participants

High Yes

APL–B009 The proposed system must include a digital recording system with availability for seven main locations and remote sites

High Yes

APL–B010 The proposed system must include a digital recording system with post hearing follow-up and dictation

High Yes

APL–B011 The proposed system must include a digital recording system with speed control upon playback

High Yes

APL–B012 The proposed system must include a digital recording system with transcription

High Yes

APL–B013 The proposed system must include a digital recording system with remote retrieval of recordings and administration via any networked computer (VPN,WAN,LAN)

High Yes

APL–B014 The proposed system must include a digital recording system with the ability to burn recordings to a portable digital medium (i.e., CD’s, DVD’s, etc.)

High Yes

APL–B015 The proposed system must include a digital recording system with the ability for retrieval by indexed fields

High Yes

APL–B016 The proposed system must include a digital recording system with ability to assign dates for timely processing

High Yes

APL–B017 The proposed system must include a digital recording system with the ability to record 60 to 70 simultaneous hearings

High Yes

APL–B018 The proposed system must include, or fully integrate with, a digital recording system for use in the Appeals process.

High No

APL–B019 The proposed system must include a digital recording system with encrypted recordings delivered via the internet

High Yes

APL–B020 The proposed system must include a digital recording system with centralized storage of hearings possibly within case management system

High Partial

APL–B021 The proposed system must include an application that produces a packet of information that can be sent to a Mail center for mailing

High No




Requ

ireme

nt Ide

ntifie

r

Requ

ireme

nt De

script

ion

Leve

l of I

mport

ance

Requ

ireme

nt me

t by

the cu

rrent

system

(s)

APL–B022 The proposed system must allow determinations to be imaged to indicate appeals rights.

High No

APL–B023 The proposed system must provide the ability to file and track an Appeal via IVR.

High No

APL–B024 The proposed telephone system should standardize menu options when accessing deputy clerks for appeals questions regardless of location.

Medium No

APL–B025 The proposed digital recording system must allow for multiple levels of security to guard against unauthorized access of hearings.

High No

Quality Improvement and Federal Reporting FRQ–B001 The proposed system must implement a case management

system to ease the burden of gathering information surrounding a determination

High No

FRQ–B002 The proposed system must provide the capability to produce ad hoc reports.

High No

FRQ–B003 The proposed system must provide the capability to perform operational and productivity reporting.

Medium No

FRQ–B004 The proposed system must provide Federal required reports. High Yes FRQ–B005 The proposed system must provide IRS Form 1099 reporting. High Yes FRQ–B006 The proposed system must provide State required reports. High Yes FRQ–B007 The proposed system must provide the flexibility for reports

and documents to be batched or locally printed. High Yes

FRQ–B008 The proposed system must provide the capability to reprint official documents.

High Yes

FRQ–B009 The proposed system must provide the capability to produce ad hoc external reports, forms, and notices for the Legislature, Employers, or Other States.

High Yes

FRQ–B010 The proposed system must provide the capability of reports, forms, document images, and notices to be archived and for the archived documents to be viewed online and retrieved.

High Yes

Security SCR–B001 The proposed system will meet or exceed all AWI security

standards to minimize the risk of security breaches. High No

SCR–B002 The proposed system must require a login functionality that protects the privacy of its users.

High Yes

SCR–B003 The proposed system must shut out attempts to access system that cannot provide correct login information after the 3rd try.

High Yes




Requ

ireme

nt Ide

ntifie

r

Requ

ireme

nt De

script

ion

Leve

l of I

mport

ance

Requ

ireme

nt me

t by

the cu

rrent

system

(s)

SCR–B004 The proposed system must authenticate the caller and allow the caller to be able to reset their PIN’s and make address changes.

High No

SCR–B005 The proposed system must maintain statistics for all system operations and allow authorized users ad-hoc access to the statistics.

High No

SCR–B006 The proposed system will use all necessary safeguards to protect the sensitive, confidential nature of the end user’s employment information will be put in place. In order to achieve this, the system will be implemented with the most up-to-date internet security protocols available.

High No

SCR–B007 The proposed system must provide reports on intrusion detection/prevention.

High No

SCR–B008 The proposed system must determine what system role a user is assigned and restrict access accordingly.

High Yes

SCR–B009 The proposed system must have security level access for different user types

High No

SCR–B010 The proposed system must use a single verifiable login per user

High No

SCR–B011 The proposed system must have user role functionality High No IVR IVR–B001 The proposed IVR system must have unique case information

and identifiers, which attach to the call and flow forward to produce a screen pop simultaneously with call answering by the agent.

High No

IVR–B002 The proposed system must allow misdirected calls to include all existing call information gathered by the IVR with the transfer to another agent.

High No

IVR–B003 The proposed system must provide options for automatic call back to be available.

High No

IVR–B004 The proposed system must have customer satisfaction survey capability to be offered through the IVR.

High No

IVR–B005 The proposed IVR system must provide script flow options to include escape to an agent as a secondary choice.

High No

IVR–B006 The proposed IVR system must be equipped with Smart Call Routing to be automatically determined through the unique identifier with multiple options for action and direct the call to the agent with designated skills.

High No




Requ

ireme

nt Ide

ntifie

r

Requ

ireme

nt De

script

ion

Leve

l of I

mport

ance

Requ

ireme

nt me

t by

the cu

rrent

system

(s)

IVR–B007 The proposed IVR system must use Advance Automatic Speech Recognition (ARS) for all mandatory languages and dialects. ARS needs to be highly flexible have the capability of recognizing tasks of any type of conversation, from basic tasks “yes/no” to narrowing the meaning of responses to a totally open question. System to recognize values dates, and other possible key choices from pre recorded items or directories

High No

IVR–B008 The proposed IVR system must be equipped with Text-To-Speech (TTS) capabilities to return responses to the participant. TTS to be capable of handling natural and intelligent voices

High No

IVR–B009 The proposed system should have Web and IVR transactions to use common code to retrieve information. An industry standard integration tools such as VoiceXML (VXML) is strongly recommended.

High No

IVR–B010 The proposed system must allow IVR inquiries to be tracked in a tracking ticket captured by a CRM product for tracking and reporting purposes.

High No

IVR–B011 The proposed system must include a variable “timeout” period on the IVR system to provide better customer service. Rather than the current 1 minute wait period before a claimant is told to call back, allow this to be a setting that can be changed.

High No

IVR–B012 The proposed system must include a configurable message informing the caller of the approximate wait time and providing options for the caller such as leave a message or automatic callback.

High No

Table 7-1 High-Level Business Requirements




7.2 APPENDIX B - HIGH-LEVEL TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS Re

quire

ment

Identi

fier

Requ

ireme

nt De

script

ion

Leve

l of

Impo

rtanc

e

Requ

ireme

nt me

t by

the c

urren

t sys

tem(s)

Claims Intake CMI–T001 The proposed system must create a customer profile and

homepage when a claimant applies for benefits. High No

CMI–T002 The proposed system must provide each user with a home page containing, but not limited to, items such as the user’s calendar with appointments, a list of cases/tasks assigned to them, reminders for follow-up activity on cases or tasks and an area that contains broadcast messages.

High No

CMI–T003 The proposed system must bring together case activities relating to a client or group of clients into an electronic case folder.

High No

Certification Process CRT–T001 The proposed system must interface with an IVR system for

the purpose of remote claims certifications. High Yes

CRT–T002 When issues are identified during the certification process, the proposed system must image all the letters, questionnaires and incoming correspondence.

Low No

CRT–T003 The proposed system must implement rules to enable timely processing of claims and meet established policies and regulations.

Low No

Inquiry INQ–T001 The proposed system must interface with an IVR system for

the purpose of remote benefit inquiry. Low Yes

INQ–T002 The proposed system must route the IVR calls to a CSR for Inquiry according to the business rules.

Low Partial

Special Payments SPP–T001 The proposed system must enable a Claimant to request

replacement of a benefit check. Medium No

SPP–T002 The proposed system must be able to cancel authorization of a payment.

Medium No




Requ

ireme

nt Ide

ntifie

r

Requ

ireme

nt De

script

ion

Leve

l of

Impo

rtanc

e

Requ

ireme

nt me

t by

the c

urren

t sys

tem(s)

SPP–T003 The proposed system must have an option to issue check payment via Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT).

Medium Yes

Wage Determination WGD–T001 The proposed system must interface with Department of

Financial Services (DFS) and ICON to obtain employment information.

High Yes

Reengineering REG–T001 The proposed system must notify users and customers when

the function they are accessing is unavailable. High No

REG–T002 The proposed system must send meaningful notification to appropriate IT support personnel when the system determines that application exceptions have occurred.

High No

REG–T003 The proposed system must provide the capability for an authorized user to perform a transaction on behalf of a customer.

High No

REG–T004 If the database application is temporarily unavailable, the proposed system must hold the data until the database is once again available.

High No

REG–T005 The proposed system must have field level help where necessary.

Low No

Adjudication ADJ–T001 The proposed system must manage and support all activities

related to customer protests, including but not limited to filing a protest, adjudication of the issue, generating appropriate notification and triggering follow-up activities according to business rules.

Low No

ADJ–T002 The proposed system must process requests for adjudication (fact-finding of issues) from both employers and claimants.

Medium No

Table 7-2 High-Level Technical Requirements




7.3 APPENDIX C – CBA FORMS Benefit #1: Enhanced customer self-service and streamlined claims processing creates system efficiency gains resulting in a reduction in the # of calls

Benefit Drivers Data Elements Sub-Calculations Data Values Data Sources Why is it considered conservative?

The UC modernization project will create system efficiency gains by the following:

Estimate of current year total expenditures for the UC program (less DOR contract dollars)

Total expenditures est. for the current year of $82,985,538 minus the DOR contract of $24,837,021 minus the Wage Records of $2,442,946 = $55,705,571

$55,705,571 Pat Pitts

The use of current year expenditure projections for all future years should produce conservative cost savings estimates

- Reduced adjudication cycle (key facilitator is doc imaging/mgmt and workflow)

% of total UC expenditures that are applicable to initial and continuing claims

Original budget estimate of the initial and continuing claims portion of the overall UC budget estimate applied to the overall updated expenditure amount of $55,705,571

34.92% Approach confirmed by Pat Pitts NA

- Reduced appeals cycle (key facilitator is doc imaging/mgmt and workflow)

Estimate of current year expenditures for initial and continuing claims

$55,705,571 x 34.92% = $19,452,142

$19,452,142 NA


- Online overpayment collections, improved data accuracy, improved electronic cross-matching, and improved Internet claims interface (ease of use)

Utah's efficiency gains following new system implementation

None 10.00%Information collected during the research phase of the Feasibility Study update activities

NA

- Enhanced marketing & messaging program and improved self-service capabilities

Ohio's efficiency gains following new system implementation


NA

- Improved IVR and improved business logic

Pennsylvania's projected efficiency gains (range = 16 - 17%) based on in-depth analysis in advance of system implementation


NA

- Improved filtering of non-claims and improved accuracy of initial claims

Estimate of a projected efficiency gain for Florida based on efficiency gains from other states

None 15.00% NA

15.00% is less than the efficiency gains (actual or projected) for the 2 more comparable states (Ohio and Pennsylvania)

Estimated Annual Benefit $2,917,821Re-Allocated Resources $0

Net Annual Estimated Benefit $2,917,821




Benefit #2: Enhanced customer self-service and streamlined claims processing improving the quality/accuracy of claimant info resulting in fewer non-monetary determinationsBenefit Drivers Data Elements Sub-Calculations Data Values Data Sources Why is it considered conservative?




$55,705,571 Pat Pitts



% of total UC expenditures that are applicable to non-monetary determinations activities

Original budget estimate of the non-monetary determinations portion of the overall UC budget estimate applied to the overall updated expenditure amount of $55,705,571



Estimate of current year expenditures for non-monetary determination activities

$55,705,571 x 21.17% = $11,793,706

$11,793,706 NA


- Improved data accuracy, improved electronic cross-matching, and improved Internet claims interface (ease of use)



NA




NA




NA



None 15.00% NA







Benefit #3: Enhanced customer self-service and streamlined claims processing improving the quality/accuracy of claimant info resulting in a reduced # of appealsBenefit Drivers Data Elements Sub-Calculations Data Values Data Sources Why is it considered conservative?




$55,705,571 Pat Pitts



% of total UC expenditures that are applicable to the Appeals function

Original budget estimate of the Appeals portion of the overall UC budget estimate applied to the overall updated expenditure amount of $55,705,571



Estimate of current year expenditures for the Appeals function

$55,705,571 x 18.47% = $10,288,662

$10,288,662 NA


- Improved data accuracy, improved electronic cross-matching, and improved Internet claims interface (ease of use)



NA




NA




NA



None 15.00% NA







Benefit #4: Reduced dollar amount of benefit overpayments

Benefit Drivers Data Elements Sub-Calculations Data Values Data Sources Why is it considered conservative?The UC modernization project will support reduced overpayments by the following:

Total $ amount of overpayments for '07-08

None - actual amount $43,551,692Verified by Dianne Parcell on 11/4/08

NA

- Reduced adjudication cycle (key facilitator is document imaging/mgmt and workflow)

Total benefit payments for '07-08 None - actual amount $1,405,875,571FLAIR report provided by AWI Financial Mgt.

NA

- Reduced appeals cycle (key facilitator is document imaging/mgmt and workflow)

Rate of overpayments for '07-08$43,551,692 divided by

$1,405,875,5713.10% NA

Compared to other states, Florida does a good job of limiting overpayments; however, benefits paid each year are such a large amount ($1.4B in ’07-08) that even small improvements produce significant savings

- Online overpayment collections

Ohio's improvement in their rate of overpayments following implementation of their new UC benefits system

Between 2005 and 2007, Ohio experienced an 11.08% reduction (avg.) in their rate of benefit overpayments (10.58% from 2005 to 2006 and 11.59% from 2006 to 2007)

11.08%Publicly available data on nonfraud overpayments by state

NA

- Improved data accuracy and improved electronic cross-matching

Florida's new overpayment rate if improvement similar to Ohio's is experienced

Florida's 3.10% overpayment rate x 88.92% (100.00% - 11.08%) = 2.75%

2.75% Calculated

This is a conservative estimate given that the annual reduction in trust fund disbursements is based on historical overpayments data and does not factor in future growth






Benefit #5: Increased interest revenue due to reduced trust fund disbursementsBenefit Drivers Data Elements Sub-Calculations Data Values Data Sources Why is it considered conservative?

The UC modernization project will support reduced trust fund disbursements by the following:

Estimate of annual savings resulting from faster re-employment of claimants

See separate slide $ 9,535,611 NA NA


Estimate of annual savings resulting from reduced claim duration

See separate slide $ 12,829,615 NA NA


Estimate of annual savings resulting from reduced overpayments

See separate slide $4,827,514 NA NA

Estimate of annual savings resulting from re-allocating resources from lower value/high volume tasks to higher value tasks such as processing JAVA claims (limited resources are presently focused on keeping the UC program's head above water and are not able to process all backlogged tasks such as JAVA claims)

See separate slide $10,007,642 NA NA

Total estimated reduction in annual UC Trust Fund disbursements

$9,535,611 + $12,829,615 + $4,827,514 + $10,007,642 = $37,200,382

$37,200,382 NA NA

Annual Rate of Return (ROR) applied to savings to determine additional interest revenue

None 4.70%AWI's UI Trust Fund Quarterly Yields file (as of 9/30/08)

NA

A factor to multiply the saved interest revenue by to account for the flow of tax revenue into the UC Trust Fund over the 4 quarters of the tax year (i.e., revenues earn interest only for the portion of the year that they are in the trust fund)

None 50.00% NA NA

Estimated Annual Benefit $874,841

Re-Allocated Resources $0

Net Annual Estimated Benefit $874,841

- Enhanced marketing & messaging program, improved self-service capabilities, improved IVR, improved business logic, improved filtering of non-claims, and improved accuracy of initial claims

- Online overpayment collections, improved data accuracy, improved electronic cross-matching, and improved Internet claims interface (ease of use)




Benefit #6a: Faster re-employment for claimants (claims reduced by 1 week for 15.0% of the 49.55% of claimants who exhaust their benefits)Benefit Drivers Data Elements Sub-Calculations Data Values Data Sources Why is it considered conservative?

Total # of claims for '06-07 None - actual # 584,619 SAR report UBMTOTLMW32C NA


Total projected # of claims for '08-09Monthly avg. # of claims for '08-09 thru 10/31/08 of 161,706 x 12 months

1,940,472 SAR report UBMTOTLMW32C NA

Total benefit payments for '07-08 None $1,405,875,571FLAIR report provided by AWI Financial Mgt.

NA

% of total claims that are actually paid

Using avg. claim length of 15.25 weeks, avg. weekly benefit amt. of $236.12, and $1,405,875,571 in total benefit pmts. for '07-08... the rate of pmt. is 49.09%

49.09%Sandy Durrant reported that approx. 1/2 of all claims result in payment

The 49.09% is slightly less than the 50% actually experienced

Total # of PAID claims for '06-07 584,619 x 49.09% 287,002 NA NA


Total projected # of PAID claims for '08-09

1,940,472 x 49.09% 952,621 NA NA

Avg. # of paid claims for the 3 years (287,002 + 390,431 + 952,621)/3 543,351 NAPaid claims volume is based on an avg. of FY '06-07, FY '07-08 and FY '08-09, which should understate future claims volume

Avg. claim duration in weeks None 15.25 ETA-5159 report (as of 9/08) Not used in calculation

Avg. weekly claim payment amount None $236.12FLAIR report provided by AWI Financial Mgt. (verified by Sandy D. on 11/3/08)

The $236.12 weekly claim payment amount in FY '08-09 is used as the amount for future years

% of claimants exhausting claims None 49.55%A summary UC file tracking exhaustion rates since 1997 through 10/31/08

NA

% of claimants being re-employed 1 week faster

None 15.00%

Studies showing effective profiling combined with targeted Workforce services can reduce the average length of an unemployment claim by as much as 2.2 weeks and increase subsequent earnings by over $1,050

The calcuation of this benefit assumes only a 1 week decrease in claim length whereas the research found reductions of 2.2 weeks could occur; furthermore, the reduced duration is applied to only 15.00% of claimants

Estimated Annual Benefit $9,535,611Re-Allocated Resources ($500,000)


Integrating Workforce functionality (such as job matching, etc.) on the front-end of the initial claims application process to promote faster claimant re-employment

Significant reduction in manual processing effort due to UC system modernization (improved Internet claims interface (ease of use), enhanced marketing & messaging program, improved self-service capabilities, improved IVR, improved business logic, improved filtering of non-claims, improved accuracy of initial claims) facilitates resource re-allocation that can be applied to valuable re-employment related activities such as claimant profiling




Benefit #6b: Shortened claim duration (claims duration reduced by 1 week for 10.0% of all claimants)Benefit Drivers Data Elements Sub-Calculations Data Values Data Sources Why is it considered conservative?



Total projected # of claims for '08-09Monthly avg. # of claims for '08-09 thru 10/31/08 of 161,706 x 12 months


Total benefit payments for '07-08 None $1,405,875,571FLAIR report provided by AWI Financial Mgt.

NA

% of total claims that are actually paid

Using avg. claim length of 15.25 weeks, avg. weekly benefit amt. of $236.12, and $1,405,875,571 in total benefit pmts. for '07-08... the rate of pmt. is 49.09%

49.09%Sandy Durrant reported that approx. 1/2 of all claims result in payment

The 49.09% is slightly less than the 50% actually experienced



Total projected # of PAID claims for '08-09

1,940,472 x 49.09% 952,621 NA NA

Avg. # of paid claims for the 3 years (287,002 + 390,431 + 952,621)/3 543,351 NAPaid claims volume is based on an avg. of FY '06-07, FY '07-08 and FY '08-09, which should understate future claims volume

Avg. claim duration in weeks None 15.25 ETA-5159 report (as of 9/08) Not used in calculation

Avg. weekly claim payment amount None $236.12FLAIR report provided by AWI Financial Mgt. (verified by Sandy D. on 11/3/08)


% of claimants with their claim duration shortened

None 10.00%

Urban Institute's research (see Feasibility Study for detailed reference) indicates that claims can be reduced for approx. a week for 20% of claimants

Split the Urban Institute's 20% in half for conservatism

Estimated Annual Benefit $12,829,615Re-Allocated Resources ($500,000)


Significant reduction in manual processing effort due to UC system modernization (improved Internet claims interface (ease of use), enhanced marketing & messaging program, improved self-service capabilities, improved IVR, improved business logic, improved filtering of non-claims, improved accuracy of initial claims) facilitates resource re-allocation that can be applied to high value administrative activities such as eligibility reviews




Benefit #7: Reduced postage, handling & printing costs resulting from increased use of electronic correspondence

Benefit Drivers Data Elements Sub-Calculations Data Values Data Sources Why is it considered conservative?



- Improved Internet claims interface (ease of use)

Total projected # of claims for '08-09

Monthly avg. # of claims for '08-09 thru 10/31/08 of 161,706 x 12 months


- Enhanced marketing & messaging program

Avg. # of claims for the 3 years (584,619 + 795,301 + 1,940,472)/3 1,106,797 NAClaims volume is based on an avg. of FY '06-07, FY '07-08 and FY '08-09, which should understate future claims volume

Avg. amount of correpsondence mailed to an individual claimant per year (pages)

5 mailings comprised of an average of 2 pages each (5 x 2 = 10)

10.0An estimate intended to create a conservative benefit from electronic correspondence

Given that average claims length is 15.25 weeks, assuming only 5 mailings per year per claimant produces a conservative mail volume #; even if the avg. # of pages per mailing were 1, then this would equate to 10 mailings at 1 page per - still well shy of the 15.25 weeks per claim

Total pages of correspondence per year

10 pages x 1,106,797 claims 11,067,973 NA NA

% of claims that will utilize electronic correspondence

None 60.00%An estimate intended to create a reasonably conservative benefit from electronic correspondence

This estimate allows for 40% of all UC correspondence to continue using regular mail

Avg. cost per page of correspondence

None $0.12An estimate intended to create a conservative benefit from electronic correspondence

$.12 per page of mail for postage, printing AND handling produces a significantly conservative est. of the savings from electronic correspondence

Estimated Annual Benefit $796,894

Re-Allocated Resources $0 Net Annual Estimated Benefit $796,894

The UC modernization project will support significantly reducing correspondence via regular mail through the use of the following:

- Extensive use of electronic correspondence

- Improved self-service capabilities




Benefit #8: Reduced trust fund disbursements resulting from resolving JAVA claims currently on the PIT list due to high processing volumes (i.e., high value vs. low value tasks)Benefit Drivers Data Elements Sub-Calculations Data Values Data Sources Why is it considered conservative?

Re-allocation of now available resources from lower value processing tasks to higher value adjudication-related tasks such as the JAVA claims on the PIT list is made possible through specific aspects of the UC modernization project, such as:

# of JAVA-related claims on the PIT list

None 17,704Count of JAVA claims through 11/30/08 - a portion of these are NOT being worked due to limited resources

NA

- Improved Internet claims interface (ease of use) and an enhanced marketing & messaging program

Current % of JAVA claims that prove to be invalid

8,209 divided by 17,704 46.37%Count of invalid JAVA claims through 11/30/08

NA

- Improved self-service capabilities, improved IVR and improved business logic

Adjustment factor to account for the JAVA claims that UC is able to process

None 66% NAUC is able to process a large number of these claims and deny benefits once they are determined to be invalid

- Improved filtering of non-claimsEstimate of the % of JAVA claims on the PIT list awaiting processing

100% - 66% = 34% 34% NA NA

- Improved accuracy of initial claimsAvg. weekly claim payment amount

None $236.12FLAIR report provided by AWI Financial Mgt. (verified by Sandy Durrant on 11/3/08)


Avg. claim duration in weeks None 15.25 ETA-5159 report (as of 9/08)

The 15.25 average claim duration as of 9/08 is used for future years (assuming no decrease in avg. length apart from the new system being implemented)

Estimated Annual Benefit $10,007,642

Re-Allocated Resources ($1,000,000)





7.4 APPENDIX D – COST EXPERT ESTIMATION SUMMARY REPORT

Schedule IV-B Feasibility Study - Florida Department of ... · PDF fileSchedule IV-B...

Documents

Transcript of Schedule IV-B Feasibility Study - Florida Department of ... · PDF fileSchedule IV-B...