1. Build vs. Buy WSATA Panel Discussion
Brian Ridderbush, Senior Manager

2. Questions Assigned (Agenda)
 Vendor Understanding of Agency Requirements
 System Capacity and Expandability
Some Research for Presentation
Large Research and Consulting Organization
(2) CIO’s from Largest Tax Agencies in the U.S.
30+ Years as Vendor, Project Manager, Director

3. Question #1 Vendor Understanding of Agency Requirements
Starts with a good RFP; be detailed and ask for everything you need
Work with a Partner that understands your business
Demand Project Managers and Subject Matter Experts, BA’s, etc. that have Tax Experience
Concept of a “Tax Binder”
Every form, report, agency policy and statute
Working set of business rules brought to engagement reflective of the requirements in RFP, Contract and Tax Binder
Iterative Approach to Validating Requirements, Functionality and Testing

4. Questions Vendor Understanding of Agency Requirements
Implementation Methodology

5. Question #2 System Capacity and Expandability
Scalability is provide by fact vendor is developing for all size agencies
“Scale up” is available today by hardware, N-Tier architecture
Design, Code and Tools still need to be engineered to scale
Performance Test and Benchmark

6. Question #2 System Capacity and Expandability
Rule Management Systems
Centralizes an agency’s business rules
Flattens rule development process
Enables collaboration between users, analysts and technical personnel
Empowers changes not previously envisioned
Does not carry forward undesired business logic
Allows choices in rule construction – table, decision tree, …
Speeds deployment
Simplifies testing
Provides for simulation

7. Large Research and Consulting Firm Perspectives
Encourages Planning and Visioning as a Guiding Principle
Submits that “Plan and Vision will Dictate the Approach”
“Its about a trajectory and target goal. I want to be healthy and in shape. What does that mean? Exercise 4 times a week? Eat better?
How am I going to check on my progress? It’s the same for any business.
Vision
Expected Outcomes
Am I really ready to do it?
Its’ pervasive
How ready am I to do this?
Can I manage it?
Am I ready? Organization Readiness, for example, Do I Have a PMO?
Where am I going and how do I know when I’m there?
Custom Software = equals a lot more details, a lot of control, and staff may or may not be able
Business of government is not often skilled to do software development

8. Large State Tax Department CIO’s Perspectives
Best thing about COTS is it brings to an agency Best Practices; built around knowledge from vendors built and installed in multiple jurisdictions
Problem with Custom is “paving the cow path” over and over; build up bad practices over time
Vendor who has built the system (hopefully) is engaged on your project and advising you on the way to do things
Custom – all you get is a suite of software, a lot of ‘crap’ and having to play system integrator and make it work!
Quicker start up time with COTS, flexibility to change it, and iteritiveness (Agile-like) with some systems; changes up to last minute
Usually get a partner that really knows your business; how its done in multiple jurisdictions
Quicker implementation; COTS is more politically attractive; less risk; and less
Tremendous amount of resources that an agency simply can’t get any more

9. Large State Tax Department CIO’s Perspectives (cont’d)
Starts with requirements and functional application analysis
What is the volume of what we’re looking at? Scope? Functionality?
Is what I want to do unique? Can something existing be adapted, such as HR? Agency uses HR system from Cornerstone, benefits of large user base and features, functions of many and get what others do
Tax systems very unique and limited vendors; this agency changes systems every year
To build software is “very expensive” and often does not achieve full vision
Fortunate to have large and talented staff; not the norm in most any other state revenue agencies
Agency follows a very prescriptive requirements approach, industry methodologies, very much by the book, even with use of COTS
Emphasis on performance evaluation