Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/11/2016 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Shared Services Initiative - Department of Administration | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 11, 2016
1:34 p.m.
1:34:29 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Neuman called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Sheldon Fisher, Commissioner, Department of Administration;
Everett Ross, Consultant, Alaska Shared Services.
SUMMARY
^PRESENTATION: SHARED SERVICES INITIATIVE - DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION
1:35:14 PM
SHELDON FISHER, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION,
explained that shared services was a historically different
approach to savings that involved centralizing functions,
but as part of the centralization there was a focus on
streamlining and driving efficiencies. He said that the
efforts would be ongoing to continue to make improvements
with a focus on customer services. He introduced the
PowerPoint Presentation: "State of Alaska Department of
Administration: Shared Services Overview."
Commissioner Fisher shared the genesis of the department's
relationship with Everett Ross. He relayed that the
administration felt the initiative was right for the state
and that Mr. Ross had private sector experience that would
prove useful for the implementation of the Integrated
Resource Information System (IRIS).
1:38:32 PM
Commissioner Fisher turned to Slide 1: "Table of Contents":
· Iris Overview
· Shared Services Overview
· Public Sector Examples
· Scope Of Shared Services Model
· Client Migration Approach and Timeframe
· Governance
· Key Performance Indicators and Independent
Verification and Validation
· Expected Challenges and Resolutions
· Project Status Dashboard
· Cross Departmental Efficiencies Background
Commissioner Fisher turned to Slide 2: "IRIS Schedule". He
stated that the state had launched the financial and
procurement components of IRIS in July 2015, and was now in
the stage of stabilizing and optimizing the environment. He
said that the human resources module would be launched at
the end of 2016. He continued to Slide 3, "Change
Management and 'Managing Change'". He said that the
department was in the process of adding data to the system
and that the capabilities of the system were increasing
daily. He estimated that most state departments were
between hope and acceptance. He added that some departments
were behind schedule, but that work was being done to catch
up.
1:40:12 PM
Commissioner Fisher scrolled to Slide 4: "Looking Forward:
The Promise of IRIS":
Reengineering Financial Business and Decision-Making
Processes
· Real-time access to complete information
· Ability to search by session reference -
legislative bill source for an appropriation
· Expense budgets linked to revenue budgets
for better compliance controls
· Accounting corrections tied directly to original
transaction
· Budget structures control and enforce
budgets for projects and grants
· Expedite annual close-out activities that
normally occur over two month period
· Easier Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR) development
Reengineer Purchasing for Improved Savings
· Vendor Self-Serve - empowers vendors to be
custodians of business opportunities available
through state procurement
· Over 100 solicitations posted to VSS since
Go-Live (44 RFQ, 20 RFP, 19 ITB, 15 IRFP and
2 RFI)
· 20 solicitations have had electronic
responses from 33 vendors
· Vendors have submitted 86 electronic
invoices, ranging from $1.50 to $88,500
· Greater Transparency
· Vendors and members of the general public
can track the prices paid per NIGP unit per
commodity code
Workflow Reengineering
· Approvals and workflow are integrated and
inseparable
· Workflow - routing of the document to "team"
work lists
· Email notification when an event occurs
· Serve as internal controls - provide central
control and monitoring of transactions
· Specific department and managerial
requirements
· Significantly reduce elapsed time for document
approval processing - eliminate routing of paper
files
· Three-way-match - integrating procurement and
financial processes
· Purchase Order using Punch-Out E-commerce
capability / Vendor ships / Receiving
Confirms / AP processes….all tied together
in an automated process
Commissioner Fisher expressed excitement with the
possibilities for efficiencies that the system would bring,
but stressed that processes needed to be built around
collected data in order to facilitate those possibilities.
1:42:45 PM
Co-Chair Neuman queried the original proposed cost of IRIS.
Commissioner Fisher stated that the department had budgeted
$85 million to $90 million and expected to stay on budget.
Co-Chair Neuman thought $90 million had been originally
appropriated for the initiative.
Commissioner Fisher agreed.
1:43:23 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked that the acronyms in the
presentation be identified as the conversation progressed.
1:43:43 PM
EVERETT ROSS, CONSULTANT, ALASKA SHARED SERVICES, began
with Slide 5: "Business Model Compare":
Shared Services Model vs. Centralized
Decentralized Model
· Federated support model of varying processes &
systems within the agencies.
· Focus on responsiveness and customer service.
Centralized Model 5% - 15% Savings
· Processes and systems consolidated into a
single cost center.
· Standardized processes with a single technology
platform.
Shared Services Model 30% Savings / 50% Hybrid
· Centralized, standardized, simplified.
· Profit center driven to create efficient
service delivery & meet customer needs.
Mr. Ross related that the savings associated with the
Centralized Model was short-term; the savings went away
because the focus was on information technology (IT), and
staff, and not business process reengineering or
standardization. He said that the Shared Services Model
focused on centralizing technology, standardizing the
business process, training staff, using customer data, and
delivering value based on those factors. He asserted that
the model constantly focused on process standardization,
reducing cost, increasing efficiencies, and delivering
higher quality service to the customer.
1:47:27 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler understood that the Centralized Model
would yield only short-term savings, and the Shared
Services Model centralized IT while maintaining a focus on
business process.
Mr. Ross replied that the Centralized Model was a business
process that was supported by a technology platform which
were all centralized. He stated that the initial savings
was because staff was being reduced and the process was
coming before one entity; savings eroded because there was
not a constant focus on business process, standardization,
and staff training. He offered the example that the state
had 13 different cabinet agencies, with 13 different ways
of doing accounts payable; all 13 variant models would need
to be standardized in order to move them to one platform
without losing cost savings.
1:48:58 PM
Mr. Ross explained Slide 6: "Shared Services Overview",
which offered an illustration of Decentralized Services
versus the Shared Services Model. He asserted that the
Shared Services Model was a "win on both sides." He
explained that the core mission of the Shared Services
organization was to deliver high quality back-office
functions, with efficiency, and at a low cost. Meeting
customer needs cheaply and efficiently would free up budget
and staff in the agencies to focus on core mission
activates.
Mr. Ross continued to Slide 7: "Shared Services Overview":
Shared Services Foundation
Mission
· Provide back-office support of common
administrative transactions to allow agencies to
use budget and staff to focus on core mission
responsibilities.
Mr. Ross explained that if an organization wanted to expand
into a new service offering, customer data would need to be
collected in order to assess need.
Structure
· Strong data-centric organization focused on Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs).
Mr. Ross stated that the KPIs were metrics around quality,
cost, efficiency, and staff associated with each service
offering, and were reviewed with clients monthly.
· Use of Lean Methodologies to drive continuous
improvement (reduce costs, improve quality,
reduce cycle-times).
· Service Level Agreements (SLAs) established with
each client / service.
Mr. Ross shared that if accounts payable were provided to a
client, the client would request that drivers be measured,
which was part of a Service Level Agreement. He elucidated
that SLAs were two-way: the service delivery on the shared
services organization side, but was also on the client
commitment to change. He asserted that in order to fully
leverage the technology investment, or the investment in
the new business process, there were certain actions were
required of the client.
· Strong governance and controls of spend while
supporting adoption of enterprise investments.
Benefits
· Shared Services Models targets 30% - 50%
reduction in costs.
· Increased quality and service delivery.
· Increased speed delivery.
· Increased client satisfaction.
Strong leadership is required to support and mandate
the use of a shared services model.
Mr. Ross advanced to Slide 8: "Business Model Compare -
Accounts Payable":
Before Shared Services
· Manual Volume: 1.5M Transactions
· FTE: 219
· Cycle Time: 30 + Days
· Transaction Rate: $56
· Annual Cost: $13.5M
After Shared Services
· Manual Volume: 150K Transactions
· FTE: 45
· Cycle Time: 1.4 Days
· Transaction Rate: $0.00 - $12
· Annual Cost: $2.7M
The slide contained an example of actual data form the
state of Ohio Accounts Payable service offering before a
shared services approach and after implementation of a
shared services model. The shared services approach allowed
the state to realize reductions in: manual volume, full-
time equivalents (FTE), cycle time, transaction rate, and
annual cost. Reduction in cycle times from 30 plus days to
1.4 days allowed the state to leverage additional savings
with prompt-pay discounts (2/10 net 30), with a total
opportunity of $150 million.
1:52:58 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether the cost line for annual
transactions included both automated and manual
transactions.
Mr. Ross said that was correct.
Vice-Chair Saddler assumed that much of the remaining cost
was because of the manual transactions.
Mr. Ross agreed that most of the annual transaction cost
was due to manual transactions.
Vice-Chair Saddler posited that the transaction rate on the
slide of $12, was the average for both the automated and
the manual.
Mr. Ross relayed that the number was a point in time;
October 1, 2015, and was an average rate.
He shared that reducing cycle times had presented other
opportunities in other procurement areas For example,
prompt pay discounts, which were standard in most
contracts, often resulted in a 2 percent reduction of the
overall invoice.
Representative Gara asked whether Alaska was receiving the
2 percent, prompt pay discounts for prompt pay.
Mr. Ross clarified that his information was limited to the
experience of the state of Ohio.
Commissioner Fisher interjected that the administration was
in the process of modifying its contractual terms in an
effort to lock in the 2/10 net 30 terms.
Representative Gara asked why a company would want to offer
a 2 percent reduction for paying a bill 30 days early.
Mr. Ross stated that the time value of money was important
to most business and it was not unusual in business to
receive a 2 percent discount for prompt payment.
Co-Chair Neuman thought that the prompt payment discount
made business sense. He felt that the idea of making
payments, electronically in to IRIS, rather than manually
entering them, had value.
Representative Gattis thought that being paid back on a
timely basis when borrowing at higher than 2 percent was
significant. She stated that the discount was common.
Co-Chair Thompson commented that as a vendor he had
experienced the benefits of the 2 percent discount, and
added that it was a common business practice across the
United States. He shared that the discount created faster
turn around and financial savings.
2:00:54 PM
Representative Munoz asked whether the Medicaid management
system would benefit from the IRIS.
Commissioner Fisher believed that the Medicaid management
system was a "different can of worms."
Representative Gara deduced that 2 percent, for 30 days,
was equal to 24 percent per year, which was a surprisingly
high number.
2:01:45 PM
Mr. Ross turned to slide 9: "Business Model Compare -
Travel & Expense":
Before Shared Services
· Annual Transactions: 28,000 - 30,000
· Avg. Cycle Time: 32.5 days
· Cost: $267.21 per transaction
· FTE: 129
· Annual Cost: $7.75M
After Shared Services
· Annual Transactions: 28,000 - 30,000
· Avg. Cycle Time: .8 days
· Cost: $6.42 per transaction
· FTE: 3.1
· Annual Cost: $285K
The slide reflected the difference before shared services
and after shared services using the same drivers as the
previous slide. Travel & Expense processes supported by 26
Agencies were migrated to Ohio Shares Services from 2009-
2010. Ove the next 24 months several re-engineering and
standardization efforts resulted in reduced costs, reduced
FTE support, increased compliance, higher quality, and
faster cycle times. Changes in policy, process, and fully
leveraging existing technology resulted in a $7.4 million
savings annually. Mr. Ross noted that the changes were
experienced over 3 years, and that gains were constant.
Co-Chair Neuman wondered how many transactions Alaska
handled annually.
Commissioner Fisher responded that the Ohio numbers were
comparable to Alaska.
2:04:30 PM
Co-Chair Neuman queried the total of all of the
transactions in every department.
Commissioner Fisher said that he would get back to the
committee with the information.
Representative Edgmon thought that it would be interesting
to apply the before and after scenarios to Alaska's
operations.
Commissioner Fisher believed that the magnitude of the
change could differ between Alaska and Ohio, but expected
that, directionally, there would be similarities. He
anticipated the savings to the state would be between 30
and 50 percent.
Co-Chair Neuman asked how much the state spent per year in
purchasing.
Commissioner Fisher lamented that he did not have the
numbers but that the department was working toward
establishing those benchmarks.
Co-Chair Neuman asked how much the state spent in FY16 in
purchasing transactions.
Commissioner Fisher stated that the total spend, some
funded by the federal government, and was approximately
$1.5 billion for procurement of goods and services.
Co-Chair Neuman asked how much of a percentage of savings
on that total the state could expect with the new system.
Commissioner Fisher said that the main focus of shared
services was to drive the efficiency of the organization
that was managing purchasing, accounts payable, and travel.
He said that savings would be realized by finding
efficiencies in personnel and related costs associated with
personnel.
Co-Chair Neuman worried that smaller companies would not
offer the state the 2 percent, prompt pay discount, and
those that did would not have the high average of Ohio. He
reiterated his request for a spreadsheet with all of the
state's transactions.
Commissioner Fisher agreed to provide a document that could
give the committee greater insight, He indicated that the
administration would be developing a specific set of goals
and targets for savings.
Co-Chair Neuman asserted that the state needed to have
accountability for IRIS, he felt that the administration
should already have transaction and spending numbers. He
opined that Alaska had fewer contractors for hire than
Ohio.
2:09:23 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked if there was an interagency
aspect to the shared services organization.
Commissioner Fisher replied that he would address the
question further in the presentation.
2:10:12 PM
Representative Gara wondered whether companies would
inflate prices by 2 percent in anticipation of the prompt
payment discount.
Commissioner Fisher responded that there was value to being
paid promptly. He reiterated that the term was a business
standard and did not believe that companies would be
increasing their prices in a competitive market. He said
that cash flow was one of the hardest things for small
businesses to manage, which increased the value of prompt
payment.
Co-Chair Thompson added that the majority of companies
offered the prompt payment discount for commodities and not
services rendered.
Mr. Ross replied that, in Ohio, service contracts were a
little different, but small consulting firms and services
gravitated toward the 2 percent discount. He said that
discounts were commonly given for commodities, but there
had been some crossover into services.
Co-Chair Thompson thought that some companied even offered
up to a 5 percent discount.
2:12:49 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether the shares services model
had already been integrated into the IRIS system.
Commissioner Fisher replied that the presentation was on
how the IRIS system could be leveraged and expanded. He
said that the system provided the capability to enable
shred services, but the expansion would take the
disciplined and sustained effort of the state.
Vice-Chair Saddler wanted clarification on what could be
added to the system.
Commissioner Fisher explained that IRIS needed to expand
and evolve in order for the state to benefit, otherwise it
might as well be working under the old system.
Vice-Chair Saddler understood that the administration was
endorsing the additional capacity of IRIS in the
presentation.
Commissioner Fisher indicated that the agency was already
utilizing the system and proceeding forward with the
development of shared services.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that he had been surprised when
he learned how much of the state's systems were under the
old mainframe. He wondered how departments with the older
systems would be handled and how they would interact with
IRIS. He opined that the coding would be out of date, which
would lead to problems.
Commissioner Fisher agreed that there were a number of
programs supported under the mainframe. He offered that
many departments were working to migrating to other systems
off of the mainframe and that many would be off within the
next 3 years.
Co-Chair Thompson asked whether there was interactions
between the old mainframe systems and IRIS.
Commissioner Fisher responded that some systems interacted
with IRIS and some did not depending on the functionality
of the system involved.
2:16:52 PM
Representative Wilson asked if it would take legislation in
order for there to be only one system.
Commissioner Fisher clarified that IRIS was the state's
financial system and all departments were using it, there
is no alternative. He explained that there were a variety
of applications on the mainframe that IRIS did not provide,
and had not been intended to be replaced.
2:18:36 PM
Representative Wilson understood that moving to the shared
services organization could result in greater efficiencies
throughout all departments.
Commissioner Fisher agreed. He said that one of the
challenges for the administration would be that each agency
processes and invoice slightly differently. He related that
the state would need to move to a common management process
for accounts payable as the result of moving to a shared
service model.
2:21:16 PM
Representative Wilson surmised that a shared services model
would allow departments to share information and eliminate
redundancy.
Commissioner Fisher replied that the essence of shared
services was pulling departments together and then working
with them to meet their needs in a standard and consistent
way.
Mr. Ross turned to Slide 10, which presented a table
charting the scope of Ohio Shared Services, with color
indicators of: Original Scope for Ohio Shared Services,
Most frequently in Shared Services, Typically in IT Centric
Shared Services. He relayed that when he arrived in Ohio in
2011, 8 of the 26 cabinet agencies were on board with the
shared services program. He said that once an independent
audit was performed the reduction in costs was validated,
client demand rose, and the shared services program proved
successful for the state.
2:22:21 PM
Mr. Ross continued to Slide 11: "Migration Approach &
Timeline."
Uphill Stages
· LNW Horizons of Value (Vision, Launch, Growth,
Sustain)
· Service line(s) identified
· Service line launch & growth
· Increase in clients, volume, staff, costs, &
defects
Downhill Stages
· Continuous improvement cycles (Improve, Automate)
· Business process re-design
· Technology implementation / support
· Decrease in manual volume, staff, costs, &
defects
· Downhill stages are continuous as ROI permits
Mr. Ross discussed his approach for successfully launching
the shared services system in Ohio.
2:25:25 PM
Co-Chair Thompson asked how long it had taken for the State
of Ohio to realize savings.
Mr. Ross replied that the savings were immediate if the
plan was implemented correctly. He stated that often
organizations would migrate everything all at once, or
"lift and shift". He opined that the lift and shift model
was unsuccessful because of non-standard processes and
different customer expectations, coupled with the shared
services organization not being mature enough to support 13
different ways to pay a bill.
Co-Chair Thompson understood that the "customers" in this
scenario were state agencies.
Mr. Ross replied in the affirmative. He added that the lift
and shift model always failed, and that his approach had
changed into a more incremental approach. He shared that
the slower approach allowed for knowledge of client needs,
a mature shared services organization, and a
standardization of each client as they crossed over.
2:26:51 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler requested further clarification of Slide
11.
Mr. Ross responded that the 12, 24, and 36 months was an
average maturity cycle time. He explained that as the curve
on the chart grew, so did the staff, volume, and the cost
of the process for the internal service provider. He added
that defects also increased because of the number of non-
standard processes. He said that the downhill slope of the
graph indicated that continuous improvement was occurring
and automation was pushing staff and costs down.
Vice-Chair Saddler understood that the "Y" axis on the
chart represented cost and staff time.
2:28:16 PM
Mr. Ross discussed Slide 12: "Governance & Service Level
Agreements (SLAs)":
Governance Council
· Executive Council approving overall strategy.
· Address major scope expansion and investment
decisions.
Executive Council
· Approve policy recommendations submitted by
Process Council.
· Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) to
ensure value realizations.
Process Council
· Client Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) recommending
and approving process changes and policy
recommendations to Executive Council.
· Ensuring goals established by Executive Council
are delivered.
Service Level Agreements
· Driving day-to-day tactical work effort to meet
customer expectations and shared service goals.
· Client commitments defined.
2:30:07 PM
Mr. Ross reviewed Slide 13: "Independent Verification &
Validation (IV&V) & Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)."
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
· Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are the metrics
used to assess the organization's efficiency,
quality, and cost effectiveness.
· Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are established
by clients.
· Data drives course correction and continuous
improvement initiative (i.e. Lean / Continuous
Improvement Program).
· Client Scorecard reviewed with clients each month
to compare service delivery against Service Level
Agreements (SLAs) and client baseline.
Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V)
· Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V)
functions to ensure the shared services
organization delivers expected value to clients.
· Aligns agency investment with enterprise goals.
· Validates successful delivery of enterprise
strategies.
· Clients self-report data related to program
delivery.
· Builds client confidence in accuracy of data and
value of shared services model.
Mr. Ross continued to Slide 14: "Expected Challenges &
Resolutions."
Leadership & Stakeholder Support
· Resistance to change & line of business focus.
· All leaders create and "sell" the vision (Market
vs. Mandate).
Implementation Cost
· High cost of implementation / expansion.
· Utilize existing resources to execute on the
vision and drive change (i.e. Business
Integration Services).
Return on Investment
· Inability to predict when/if ROI will be
achieved.
· Align agency spend to achieve enterprise goals.
· Leverage existing investment to meet objectives
of the business.
Shared Services Process Focus (Upstream vs.
Downstream)
· Implementation focused on downstream
transactional processes.
· Upstream processes largely ignored (i.e.
procurement).
· Force upstream focus to drive greatest benefit.
Mr. Ross read from slide 15: "Cross Departmental
Efficiencies."
Background
Opportunity Review:
In May 2015, OMB Director Pat Pitney convened
commissioners, deputy commissioners, and
administrative service directors to identify
cross-department opportunities to address the
$29.8M in unallocated reductions. As a result of
this session, eleven cross-departmental
efficiencies were identified; nine align with
common shared services programs.
Cross-Departmental Initiatives:
Administrative Initiatives:
1. Train and implement process improvement
principles statewide
2. Travel process revamp
3. Renegotiate procurement/lease contracts for
10-20% savings statewide
4. Implement IRIS
5. Unify facility maintenance / management
6. Central collections office for agency fines,
debts and attachments
7. Re-examine charge back system between
departments
8. Statewide IT consolidation; call centers,
disaster recovery, helpdesk staff, and data
storage
9. Streamline billing for LAW
Next Steps:
The Departments of Administration and
Transportation are leading the administrative
efficiency initiatives. As the administrative
initiatives align with common shared services
support models, Everett Ross (former Director of
Ohio Shared Services) has been brought in for
external support.
2:34:24 PM
Commissioner Fisher referred to an earlier question from
Representative Guttenberg, noted the interagency sharing
both externally and internally.
2:34:48 PM
Representative Kawasaki shared that he had pondered in the
past why every department needed an administrative services
division. He wondered whether there were some agencies for
which combining procurement efforts could be difficult.
Mr. Ross joked that every division held the belief that it
was special and unique. He said that over time that mindset
changed, he said when he began offering zero-cost on
accounts payable invoices 90 percent of the divisions came
onboard. He shared that there were certain services that
would not fit into the shared services model; a small
percentage of services should be expected to remain being
handled solely by their agency.
2:36:45 PM
Representative Kawasaki surmised that the eventually Alaska
would not need an administrative services division in every
department.
Commissioner Fisher replied that the administrative
services within each different department had a number of
functions, some of which were specialized. He said that a
paring down would vary depending on the service provided by
the division.
Representative Kawasaki hoped that the all departments
would work to realize savings.
2:38:16 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked about the 11 cross-
department efficiencies that had been identified, 9 of
which had been aligned. He queried the 2 efficiencies that
had not aligned.
Mr. Ross believed that they were aligned with the
Department of Corrections and that the administration had
chosen not to focus on those pieces.
Commissioner Fisher interjected that one of the issues had
been improvement of prisoner transport, which had not
seemed like an appropriate fit for the shared services
model.
2:39:06 PM
Representative Wilson asked whether the shared model would
centralize procurement and lessen confusion between
agencies.
Commissioner Fisher replied that the goal was to make the
non-core mission functions that could be performed in a
shared service model, centralized and delivered in the most
efficient way possible
2:39:55 PM
Representative Wilson asked whether the budget process be
easier with the shared services.
Commissioner Fisher indicated that there would still be
examples of interagency payments for services. He thought
that it would make budgeting management and accountability
easier to track.
2:41:06 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether there was anything in
statute that would pose challenges to implementing the
shares services model.
Mr. Ross replied that every agency would have to review
policies and implement laws in order for the model to reach
full maturity. He guessed that changes would need to be
made to adopt to a new way of doing business.
Commissioner Fisher interjected that substantial
impediments had not been identified that would prevent the
change from moving forward.
2:42:36 PM
Representative Gattis thought that the transition to shared
services was a good idea. She said that the onus would be
on the administration to prove that the centralization
would benefit the state. She asked why Mr. Ross was no
longer working in Ohio.
Mr. Ross related that he worked with a lot for Harvard
University and often traveled on speaking tours. He had
met Commissioner Fisher at a presentation and had discussed
the possibilities of shared services in Alaska. He
concluded that he had done all of the work he needed to do
in Ohio and welcomed the challenge of helping Alaska.
2:45:33 PM
Representative Pruitt who was paying Mr. Ross's salary.
Mr. Ross responded that his contract was through the
Department of Administration and the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
2:46:34 PM
Representative Pruitt asked whether Mr. Ross was a vendor
who received his payments through IRIS.
Commissioner Fisher clarified that all state payments were
being process through IRIS.
Mr. Ross indicated he had gone through the vendor process
and had been paid promptly through the IRIS system.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed housekeeping.
#ADJOURNMENT
2:49:21 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:49 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Shared Services Overview.HFIN Committee 02.11.16.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2016 1:30:00 PM |