grp pc strategy

8/10/2019 GRP PC Strategy

1/30

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

e-Government Program (Yesser)

:

)GRP(


2/30

GRP Project

GRP National Strategy Approach & Alternatives


3/30

Copyright e-Government Program (Yesser) 3

GRP National Approach Alternatives & OptionsGRP National Approach Alternatives & Options

Architecture Alternatives

Development &

ImplementationAlternatives

Application Alternatives

Management and

Supportive Alternatives

1

3

2

4


4/30Copyright e-Government Program (Yesser) 4

GRP National Approach AlternativesGRP National Approach Alternatives

Application

Alternatives

2

Management &Supportive

Alternatives

4Development &

Implementation

Alternatives

3

Architecture Alternatives

A. Centralized GRP Model

B. Decentralized GRP Model

C. Hybrid GRP Model

1



Architecture AlternativesArchitecture Alternatives

Non ofthe five

Countries

A. Centralized Architecture

This alternative suggests a centralized architecture for all GRP

applications with shared ownership of the solution management.

Advantages: Government agencies can concentrate on their core business applications.

One-time investment in a unified infrastructure.

Centralized control.

Unified business model among all ministries.

Integrated workflow across government agencies.

Reduced duplication of effort, resources, and expertise.

Disadvantages: The need for robust communications infrastructure.

System Failure Risk: system failure will affect ALL government agencies.

Time: Longer setup time.

Slower response time (low performance).

Longer time to implement new user requirements/needs/changes.

High initial cost. More bureaucracy and inflexibility.

Requires major changes in most of the organizations and their processes to implement.

Persistence: not all government agencies are willing to cooperate (transparency, privacy).

Features on the wish list might not be present in the solution so it might not find thatenthusiasm for acceptance.

High probability of implementation failure if ALL GRP applications are centralized.



AlternativesAlternatives

Canada

JordanEgypt

Denmark

B. Decentralized Architecture

The decentralized architecture is when government agencies proceed to

conduct separate implementations of different GRP packages

government wide (as is the current situation).

Advantages:

Open market model, which allows reaping the benefits of competitiveness. Innovation is encouraged due to lower bureaucracy.

Easier integration with core business applications within the government agency.

Various agencies already have GRP systems and are happy with their solutions.

Lower dependency: Government agencies prefer a highly autonomous approach.

Flexibility for customization to meet organization specific needs.

Startup costs are relatively low (considering agencies current investments).

The risk of an entire system breakdown vanishes (compared with centralized).

Disadvantages: Barriers for entry and exit to/from the market are not set in this approach.

Integrity of application across organizations is a challenge.

Duplication of effort, resources, and expertise.

Risk of a certain vendor to stop delivering a certain service or product is valid, consequentlythe government agency will be using an obsolete product.

Mobilization of resources will not be as flexible as required since this shall include trainingof resources to use a new GRP package.

Decentralized solutions have higher Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) (Gartner)


7/30


Architecture AlternativesArchitecture Alternatives

SingaporeC. Hybrid Architecture

The aim of the hybrid model is to evolve from excessive existence

of information systems and unique to each government organization.

Also to coordinate the environment in which organizations can

share the use of a minimum number of systems which are consistent

with administrative departmental needs in each organization.

Advantages: Higher probability of implementation success (vs. fully centralized architecture), since only

selected GRP applications are centralized.

Providing common tools for financial, human resources, and logistic processes.

Shared data from different agencies can be accessed centrally.

One-time investment in a unified infrastructure.

Unified business model among all agencies that are sharing the centralized model.

Disadvantages: Requires major changes in the organization and its processes to implement. Difficulty in implementing such model is due to differences in the requirements across

government organizations.

If there is a problem occurred in one or more functions in the shared application, it wouldaffect ALL government organizations that are connected to the system.


8/30



Architecture

Alternatives

1

Management &

Supportive

Alternatives

4Development &

Implementation

Alternatives

3

Application Alternatives

A. Approach:1. Single Standard GRP Package

2. Multiple Non-unified GRP Packages

B. GRP Package Alternatives:1. International GRP Packages

2. Local GRP Packages

3. Custom Developed GRP Packages4. Free Open Source Software (FOSS)

2


9/30


Application AlternativesApplication Alternatives

CanadaEgypt

DenmarkJordan

A. Approach

1. Single Standard GRP PackageAdoption of a single GRP package to be used by all government agencies.

Under this alternative, the desired GRP package shall include and address

all required features and requirements specific to Saudi organizations. It is mandatory that this package

meets all minimum specifications and business processes adopted in Saudi organizations to fulfill and

standardize operations or services delivered through GRP applications.

Different options exist to achieve a single standard GRP package (will be shown later).

Advantages: Standardized procedures and functions will be available to all government agencies.

Full integration across all agencies will be a feature in the GRP package.

No need to train employees when transferring from one agency to another.

Low cost of: Maintenance and support.

GRP package licenses.

Disadvantages:

Persistence: Forcing government agencies to implement one GRP package. Monopoly: In case it is licensed from a single vendor, the vendor will have the upper hand.

No flexibility in selecting agencys core business applications.

Any application failure (bugs) will affect all government agencies which use the GRP package.

The selected GRP package might: Exceed budget allocated for some agencies.

Not have all agencies requirements.

Contain functionalities that are not useful for some government agencies.


10/30



None ofthe fivecountries

A. Approach

2. Multiple Non-unified GRP PackagesGRP packages are adopted independently by government agencies.

Under this alternative, the desired GRP package shall address the

needs of the agency regardless if it is a local package or an international package.

Advantages: Open market model gives the benefits of competitive advantages of product and service

delivery.

Reasonable and flexible compared to the size of the government organization.

Flexibility of selecting GRP package from a vast number of providers.

Improved level of GRP quality encouraged by vendors competitiveness.

All investment of current packages shall remain valid. Customization of GRP packages is flexible and subject to each GRP implementation to meetorganization specific needs

Disadvantages: Mobilization of resources will not be as flexible as required.

The risk of a certain vendor to stop delivering a certain service or product is valid. Difficulty of integrity of applications across organizations.


11/30



Denmark

CanadaJordan

B. GRP Package Options

1. International GRP Packages

Present a standard international modular packages. These packages shall be localized and

arabized to present a ready version of the GRP package that meets Saudi government

requirements. Examples include standardizing on Oracle Business Suites, SAP,

JD Edwards, MS Great Plains, or any other package.

Advantages: Continual research and development of the product is part of the ongoing practice of those

vendors to bring the new and most up to date technologies with solutions to existing problems intechnology (i.e. web enabling, infrastructure adaptability, integrity with other complimentaryinternational solutions, etc).

These packages are built on best practices and standard procedures. There will be a complete integration between package modules, and better integration between

different packages.

Disadvantages: Total cost of ownership is very high and ongoing operations (i.e. service and support) require

a high budget as well. Ownership of the source code is controlled by international agreements which Saudi Arabia

government has no direct control over it

There is a limitation on the level of customization offered by the international vendor whichshall not offer flexibility in meeting current business processes.


12/30



Singapore

Egypt


2. Local GRP Packages

Adopted local GRP packages through the selection of vendors that are

capable of delivering and supporting the GRP packages government wide.

Advantages: There will be no more exercises regarding the localization

Local GRP packages shall meet the direct needs of the government agencies.

Local experience with government agencies is present and do not need to be created.

Ownership of the source code with the ability to customize it based on the specific needs of the

organization. Support to private sectorthrough direct interaction with local technology companies (i.e.

implementation, system integration, consultancy, etc).

There will be a complete integration between GRP modules.

Disadvantages:

Such an approach shall limit the access of international vendors to approach Saudigovernment agencies which might result of blocking access to new technologies and expertise.

Trial and error in building best practices shall be encountered.

Maturity of GRP applications might not be up to the required level.


13/30


Applications AlternativesApplications Alternatives

SingaporeEgypt


3. Custom Developed GRP Packages

This option suggests to develop and customize a local GRP package(s). While maintainingconsistency in the core application; these packages could be developed based on severalorganizational sizes and based on several standards (i.e. java, oracle based, .net, etc)

Who will develop?Different alternatives exist to achieve this option (will be shown later).

Advantages: Producing a cost effective, localized, standardized package(s) based on government

agencies needs.

There will be a complete integration between GRP modules.

Producing a GRP package(s) that serves most of government agencies.

Disadvantages: Loosing the benefit of adopting the best practices offered by local and international packages.

Limited ability to provide support and on going maintenance operations to agenciesgovernment wide

Cost structure might build up on the long term due to support, maintenance and operationsexpenses.


14/30


Applications AlternativesApplications Alternatives

None ofthe five

Countries


4. Free Open Source Software (FOSS)

Open source describes practices in software production and development that promote access to the endproduct's source code. This option is valid with any of the three previous options: international, local, orcustom developed packages.

On the other hand, full adoption of FOSS could be extended to open source operating systems anddesktop applications as well.

Advantages: Free open source software and applications are considered to be as a considerable asset.

TCO of the adoption is identified to be the lowest cost among other options.

Control of the software itself and guarantee of its durability. This argument has a specialresonance in areas relating to security, such as authentication, controllability, accessibility,

integration, etc There will be a complete integration between GRP modules.

Disadvantages: Most organizations will show a massive weight of resistance to accepting the changeover to

FOSS.

It is not proven that FOSS applications deliver a certain level of required reliability and securityrelative to its cost in comparison to proprietary software

The availability of support is a major risk to address, specially that there are no enoughspecialized companies in the market that can provide support to FOSS.

GR


15/30



Architecture

Alternatives

1

Application

Alternatives

2

Management &

Supportive

Alternatives

4

Development & Implementation

Alternatives

A. Ownership/Sponsorship:1. Single Government Agency.

2. Multiple Government Agencies.

B. Methodology:1. Outsourcing to private sector

2. In-house

3. Public-Private-Partnership (PPP): Semi-

Government Company

3

D l t & I l t ti Alt tiD l t & I l t ti Alt ti


16/30


Development & Implementation AlternativesDevelopment & Implementation Alternatives

Denmark

Singapore

A. Ownership/Sponsorship

1. Single government agency

This implementation model aims to present a single central government body that owns, implements,maintains, and supports GRP packages government wide. This single central agency should beresponsible of supervising the implementation progress government wide and organizing the adoptionstrategy centrally with the cooperation of all government agencies. The practice of PMO could be investedin this approach of sponsorship to achieve the goal of central implementation reference.

Advantages: Providing common tools for implementation across agencies (i.e. forms, charts, documentation

methods, techniques, etc)

Ability to exchange and mobilize expertise (i.e. PMP, implementers, contractors) acrossagencies based on the need for experts within government agencies.

Maximize on knowledge transfer, knowledge base through a systematic approach ofimplementation knowledge management.

Seeking a standardized methodology of implementation.

Disadvantages:

Cooperation from agencies is not guaranteed. Might not address some of the needs of some agencies who have a large scale implementation.

Agencies should wait in a queue for the turn of implementation process to start.

Timing of the implementation might not be appropriate for all.

Costs of current implementations (packages) are considered sunk and irrelevant.



17/30



Jordan

EgyptCanada

A. Ownership/Sponsorship

2. Multiple government agencies

This model aims to give the flexibility to the government agencies to own,

implement, maintain, and support their GRP packages independently. Also the

decision of choosing the time to start the implementation is left for eachgovernment agency.

Advantages:

Flexibility to determine the application and the implementation methodology.

Flexibility to select the start date of the implementation and the go-live strategy (one by one orbig bang).

Ability to map most of the agencys needs and requirements independently.

Disadvantages:

Loosing the benefit of sharing the implementation experience across the government agencies.

There will be no centralized knowledge base for all problems and bugs occurred across the

government agencies.



18/30



B. Methodology

1. Outsourcing to Private Sector

GRP development and implementation will be handled by a third party private company.This may include all implementation phases such as project management, changemanagement, documentation, analysis, solution design, customization, testing, dataconversion, production, go-live, and support.

Advantages: Outsourced companys implementation experience will be very useful for the project.

Project management and implementation methodologies offered by the outsourcedcompany are key enablers towards the success of the project.

Providing Best practices in development and implementation.

This may add more business standards to the government organization.

Scope and budget will be clearly defined.

Involving outsourcing in the development & implementation to a private sector company willinsure the high level of commitment and professionalism provided.

Disadvantages:

This model requires a project team from the government organization to monitor, audit,control, and approve deliverables submitted by the outsourced company which they might lack.

Possible change of manpower might result in project delay or deliverables quality.

De elopment & Implementation Alternati esDevelopment & Implementation Alternatives


19/30



EgyptB. Methodology

2. In-house

This method suggests employing a team who have the required knowledge forGRP development and implementation. This team will be trained well to grabthe public sector knowledge in general and the Saudi government organizationsspecific business. Such team will be responsible for the development andimplementation of the GRP package.

Advantages: Developed package will be almost matching the government organizations requirements.

In-house team will: be available for adding the upcoming major and minor requirements.

be available for delivering training for all levels in the organization hierarchy. support the package for the day-to-day complains.

be used in future implementations (rollouts).

Disadvantages: Time is required to develop an in-house team with the required GRP implementation

knowledge and skills including recruiting and training.

In-house team may not be able to propose best practices and new technology during andafter the development and the implementation.

Some business standards might not be implemented due to lack of international experience.

Development and implementation processes are lengthy.

Not cost effective after the completion of the project.



20/30



B. Methodology

3. Public Private Partnership (PPP):(Semi-Government Company)

PPP is an agreement between a government agency and a private company to share inthe risk and rewards of a business venture involving the delivery of public services.

As compared to traditional procurement, PPP involve a larger role for the private sectorin management of services, more substantial risks (including revenue risks) and greaterresponsibility for life-cycle investment in infrastructure.

Possible services that can be provided by these company(ies): Develop GRP package appropriate for Saudi government agencies.

Responsible for implementing GRP package across agencies.

Perform PMO roles.

Advantages: Develop once, use many.

Risk sharing.

Improved levels of service or maintaining existing levels of service.

More efficient implementation.

Disadvantages: Creation of a monopoly model which may lead to higher cost & specific technology

Legal regulations and complications issues in establishing such an entity is a major challenge

Inability to benefit from competition.

Time required to establish this (PPP) company might be lengthy.


21/30

Management & Supportive AlternativesManagement & Supportive Alternatives


22/30



Singapore

Canada

Denmark

A. Management Structure

1. GRP CommitteeThe GRP committee may focus on:

Playing a role of advisory to government agencies.

Facilitating the process of adopting and implementing GRP.

Empowering employees and prudent utilization of resources, (i.e. facilitation of training and knowledgetransfer).

Encouraging the reduction of non-acceptable standard GRP packages from finding their way tomost agencies through expert recommendation and advice.

Advantages: Allows more time to focus on new GRP specific issues.

Use member expertise as guidance for government agencies to adopt and follow up on new

technologies. Encourages the private sector.

This committee would function as the reference body for GRP initiatives and projects.

Disadvantages:For this committee to be able to manage a national approach of the size and complexity; it shall

inherently face risks. Examples include: Committee scope of work, which might be changed based on the depth of involvement and

power given to this committee.

Certain level of potential resistance of cooperation is present by some agencies.



23/30



A. Management Structure

2. Program Management Office (PMO)

The PMO would be the owners of the government-wide implementation strategy to move tonational GRP adoption, support the investment and decision-making processes, providesecretariat services to the Enterprise Governance structure, monitor and ensure delivery toexpectations, and coordinate implementation across all initiatives in accordance with the

implementation strategy.

Advantages: One ownerof all implementation projects.

A consolidated project plan will be available for all projects.

Unified project management processes will be clearly defined.

Disadvantages: Resistance of government agencies is a major factor of enrolling PMO successfully.

An enormous time is needed to develop the PMO.

Difficulty in finding qualified expertise and knowledgeable resources in projectmanagement

A massive number of experts is required to extend this PMO to all agencies government wide

Denmark

Jordan



24/30



DenmarkSingapore

B. Supportive Options

1. Standardization of Business Processes Ministerial Council Decision number 40 which was issued in 27/3/2006 confirmed the The Rules of Implementing

Government Electronic Transactions. Rules 10 & 11 stated the need of PBR for all government agencies.

The standardization of business processes project should target all processes affected by the implementation ofGRP in any government organization. Key departments that own the business process across the organization shallbe the target stakeholders of such a project.

Develop Common Business Processes: to enable cost savings, improved client service, and a more flexible,nimble enterprise capable of rapid change. An integrated set of administrative processes that are simple, consistent,

web-enabled, and integrated across finance, materiel, HR, and payroll would be primarily based on the best-practiceprocess models offered within the GRP package product offerings.

Business Process Modeling (BPM) exercise will be carried out to model all common processes carried out acrossthe Saudi government agencies.

Business Process Improvement (BPI) exercise will be carried out to customize and perform additional changesrequired by each government agencies independently; this is to make sure that the government agencys specificbusiness processes are mapped within the standard model.

Advantages: Limiting the gaps of interpreting the procedures and processes across agencies.

Minimal level of applications Customization might be needed.

It will be easier to implement GRP packages.

Disadvantages: There is a certain level of difficulty to standardize business processes.

People resist organizational changes. Resistance to business standardization change can be further differentiatedinto internal individual resistance, internal group resistance and external resistance. People affected by theorganizational change are the richest source of potential barriers.

Implementing business process standardization would be very costly and lengthy process.

This option shall take time to approve and initiate by regulatory authority


25/30



26/30



B. Supportive Options

3. Recommended Standardized GRP Packages for SaudiGovernment

Areas of standardization should apply to the following:

GRP Package

Implementer

This approach suggests that all vendors interested in selling GRP packages to government agenciesshould provide standardized approved packages and solutions that are government complaint. Thesepackages should include minimum level of integrity and specifications required by Saudi governmentagencies. Each GRP Solution shall be inspected for complying with a set of standards on the businessand the technical level; accordingly the package is added to the list of recommended GRP packages.

The process of investigating and recommending a GRP solutions could be outsourced to experiencedindependent vendors and achieve cooperation with the private sector.

Advantages:

Guarantee of quality: Quality of GRP packages and solutions shall be insured on several levelsof technology and business requirements.

Guarantee of minimum requirement standardization for government agencies:Standardization of minimum specifications shall be insured, which should make it easier forgovernment organizations to utilize those packages for better performance.

Limiting GRP package customization to the minimum.

Increasing the competitiveness between vendors in the market.

Disadvantages:

Recommendation process might be lengthy and involves additional cost.

A more expensive GRP packages could be presented by few vendors due to the excessivecustomization and standardization of GRP package.

Resistance of such recommendation process might be presented by few organizations whichhave special interest in certain packages that are not in the list of recommend GRP packages.


27/30

GRP Project

GRP National Strategy Approach

Recommended Scenario



28/30


Scenario Path

Architecture

Alternatives

A.Centralized GRP

Model

B.Decentralized GRP

Model

C.Hybrid GRP Model

Application

Alternatives

A.Approach:1.Single Standard

GRP Package

2.Multiple Non-unified GRP

Packages

B.GRP Package

Alternatives:1.International GRP

Packages

2.Local GRP

Packages

3.Custom Developed

GRP Packages

4.Free Open Source

Software (FOSS)

2 Development &Implementation

Alternatives

A.Ownership/

Sponsorship:

1.Single GovernmentAgency.

2.Multiple Government

Agencies.

B.Methodologies:1.Outsourcing to private

sector

2.In-house

3.Public-Private-

Partnership (PPP)

semi-Government

Company

431 Management &Supportive

Alternatives

A.Management

Structure:

1.ProgramManagement Office

(PMO)

2.GRP Committee

B.Supportive

Alternatives:

1.Standardization ofBusiness Processes

2.GRP KIT

3.Recommended

Standardized GRP

Solutions for Saudi

Government

Definition:

The scenario technique is used to preset the best grouped combinations of the alternatives.

Hence, a roadmap is generated based on the path of selection from each set of alternatives.



29/30


Scenario Implementation Duration: Mid Term

Scenario Objectives:To present standard Recommended GRP Solutions based on government needs in the local market.

To preserve previous investments.

To increase the learning curve which contributes of higher level of success.

To get the best experience provided by vendors, through competitiveness created through GRP

certification path

To get best-of-breed applications.

To give flexibility in implementing GRP packages to all govt agencies (budget, time, resources, etc)

To map government agencys requirements independently.

RecommendationsRecommendations


30/30


Recommendationseco e dat o s

Recommendations for a roadmap:A. Architecture Alternatives: Decentralized GRP Model

B. Application Alternatives:

1.Approach: Multiple Non-unified GRP Packages2. GRP Package: All Application Alternatives are Valid

C. Development & Implementation Alternatives:

1. Ownership/Sponsorship: Multiple Government Agencies.

2. Methodologies: All methodologies are valid

D. Management & Supportive Alternatives:

1. GRP Committee

2. Standardization of Business Processes

3. GRP KIT

4. Recommended Standardized GRP Packages for Saudi Government

grp pc strategy

Documents