Sick: Queensland Health's Payroll System Implementation

System usability testing and the validation of the new processes in the business environment was not performed

In late June, the Auditor General of the Australian state of Queensland released a detailed report on the implementation by the Queensland Department of Health (Queensland Health) of its new payroll and rostering system.

The Auditor General report is an excellent summation of what all project implementations should consider in terms of systems governance and control.

***

Queensland Health pays its workforce, of approximately 78,000 people, every seond Wednesday, for all work completed and allowances owing in the fortnight ending at the midnight on the previous Sunday.

A new payroll and rostering system was implemented on 14 March 2010 and was immediately followed by claims of no payment, inaccurate payment and overpayment (or as was once described to Honestly Lay Bare ... the holy trinity of payroll management).

The report by the Auditor General (Report to Parliament No.7 for 2010 Information systems governance and control, including the Queensland Health Implementation of Continuity Project) was tabled in the Queensland Parliament.

Key findings from the audit of the system implementation included:

• The Queensland Health payroll system has complex award structures. There are 13 awards and multiple industrial agreements which provide for over 200 different allowances, and in excess of 24,000 different combinations of calculation groups and rules for Queensland Health employee.
  
  
• The governance structure for the system implementation, as it related to CorpTech, the prime contractor and Queensland Health, was not clear, causing confusion over the roles andresponsibilities of the various parties.
  
  
• There was inadequate documentation of business requirements at the commencement of the project.
  
  
• The time taken to reach Go-Live status increased from eight months to 26 months.
  
  
• The absence of a periodic review of the business needs contributed to subsequent difficultieswith system testing and the implementation of a system which did not meet the needs ofQueensland Health’s operating environment.
  
  
• System and process testing prior to Go-Live had not identified a number of significant implementation risks and therefore the extent of the potential impact on the effective operationof the payroll system had not been fully understood and quantified.
  
  
• System useability testing and the validation of the new processes in the business environmentwas not performed. As a result, Queensland Health had not determined whether systems,processes and infrastructure were in place for the effective operation of the new system.
  
  
• A number of critical business readiness activities and practices were not fully developed prior tothe implementation of the new system. This was in part a reflection of the view of QueenslandHealth staff that the project involved a ‘like for like’ replacement of the legacy system and the lack of an awareness of the full impact of the business rules configured into the new system.
  
  
• Business continuity plans were not available and able to be quickly implemented to address payroll issues as they emerged.
  
  
• Key system performance reports for use by CorpTech were not available during the completion of the initial payroll processing.
  
  
• Several changes to the payroll administration practices, such as a new fax server and are-allocation of processing duties within the Queensland Health Shared Services Provider, were introduced at the same time as the release of the SAP HR and WorkBrain systems.
  

Not surprisingly there are many lessons to be learnt for future systems implementations:

• Where possible, simplify award structures prior to implementing a new payroll system to remove complexities which will impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of the payroll process.
  
  
• Establish clear lines of accountability and roles and responsibilities at the initiation of the projectto ensure an end to end governance structure.
  
  
• Ensure the full impact of system change is assessed on the end to end business process.
  
  
• Ensure the ultimate decision to Go-Live is based on the readiness of the business and that thesystem’s application within the business is fully tested.
  
  
• Identify all project and systems risks and have in place robust contingency plans and risk management strategies to address risks in the event of unexpected system issues.

**

Honestly Lay Bare bets an empty hosptial bed that before the end of 2010 we will see another report raising the same issues about another information system implementation somewhere else.

Why is it that we are destined to always repeat the mistakes of others.