IPTD-357
SimpliGov - Initial IT Procurement form and workflow
Description
Build a workflow and smart forms with maximum embedded guidance to deliver the highest possible accuracy of info needed to execute a purchase order. Route users to informational off-ramps where they are not prepared or cannot answer needed questions. Streamline any return loops that are maintained to allow for proceeding where deficiencies exist.
Project Justification
All programs must make IT purchases, including for now, all their own laptop and PC requests owing to identification and provision of varied funds and accounts they expect to utilize. Procurement is frequently identified as a pain point by IT leads due to lack of visibility. The single DOIT lead (Grace Yuan as of this writing) faces frequent overload and backlog of purchase requests, especially seasonally as the fiscal year ends. Once a backlog of demand forms, it is difficult to escape as inquiries into status flood the same email as all initial requests.
Attachments
Linked work items
Activity
Show:
see link to final product and training here: IT Procurement – NJ DEP | Division of Information Technology
3/5/2025 meeting summary:
The testing phase concluded on March 5, with no major issues identified. Several minor issues were resolved throughout the testing period. The only reported problems involved missing accounts, but updated data has been provided, and the data sources will be updated in the coming week. Although we have provided additional time until March 12 for the B&F staff to continue testing to ensure all cases are thoroughly covered, we are now moving ahead to production launch and training for all stakeholders. Training is tentatively scheduled for March 27, with a 1.5-hour session planned for customers and a 1-hour session for B&F staff. Two-hour time slots have been tentatively reserved for both training sessions on this date.
Recording of 2/12 weekly meeting: IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20250212_143258-Meeting Recording.mp4
In the meeting, a demo was shown of the new multi-BFY functionality to the customers, B&F team, and DOIT managers who were able to attend. The discussion included an overview of the testing plan, outlining the steps necessary for moving towards production. During the demo, a bug was mentioned that surfaced exclusively in the testing environment, which is delaying the start of testing for the multi-BFY functionality.
Original Testing Plan: Testing to start on 2/12, complete on 2/21
Updated Testing Plan: Will adjust dates once the testing environment issue is resolved. Plan to allow one full week for testing.
Testing Environment Issue Update (as of 2/18): A SimpliGov support ticket was created on 2/12 (https://simpligov.atlassian.net/servicedesk/customer/portal/161/NJDEPSD-30). As of 2/18 the status is "Awaiting PreProd Deployment".
Recording of 2/5 meeting: IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20250205_143413-Meeting Recording.mp4
The meeting focused on the progress of implementing support for multiple budget fiscal years. The components from the mockups have been successfully implemented. The team is currently working on incorporating totals per year and making consistent progress without encountering anything blocking progress. The goal is have this functionality complete and ready to demo by Wednesday, February 12, with testing expected to commence shortly thereafter.
Recording of 1/22 meeting: IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20250122_143202-Meeting Recording.mp4
This meeting involved discussion of a new solution for incorporating multiple budget fiscal years into the workflow. On 1/27 DOIT met with B&F staff to discuss this solution and got agreement to implement it. A summary of the changes in this solution to allow multiple budget fiscal years:
1. New Question: We'll add a yes/no question: "Are you using accounts across multiple budget fiscal years?"
2. Account Specification: If the request involves multiple fiscal years, the requester will need to specify which account is used for each item in the purchase.
3. NJSTART Documentation Requirement: For each fiscal year in the request, the procurement lead must provide:
• The budget fiscal year
• Requisition Number
• Purchase Order Number
• An attached PDF of the Purchase Order
Time estimate to implement: 1-2 weeks
Recording of 1/15 meeting: IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20250115_143245-Meeting Recording.mp4
In the meeting, the B&F team was invited to discuss solutions related to the impact of incorporating multiple budget fiscal years. The team reached a consensus on simplifying the NJSTART Stage, while the impact of incorporating multiple budget fiscal years was explored. Concerns about impacts to the underlying data were minimal, however, a demo revealed potential complications in form field changes for customers and IT procurement staff. Another solution was discussed about maintaining separate flows by year while adding fields to display related flows to approvers. A final decision on the multiple budget fiscal year problem still needs to be reached. Connor was tasked with creating quick mockups of the proposed solution.
Recording of 1/8 meeting: IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20250108_143239-Meeting Recording.mp4
This meeting summarized the decisions made with B&F staff on January 7th. This led to discussions about workflow changes to the NJSTART stages, resulting in the proposal of an alternative solution to simplify the NJSTART stages. The decision was made to adopt this simplified NJSTART solution. A demonstration of the new solution is scheduled for the weekly meeting on 1/15 with B&F staff invited.
Additional changes to the overall workflow were also decided:
Remove BAM/FF Review stage at Program Fiscal level
Remove OMB Pre-Approval stages (OMB Liason Review, Confirm OMB Pre-Approval)
Add optional AO / RA # field
Recording of 12/20 meeting: IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20241218_143210-Meeting Recording.mp4
The meeting covered minor form improvements, the current testing status, and the technical impact of upcoming B&F decisions. The goal is to meet with B&F on January 7th to finalize decisions on proposed changes. This will be followed by two weeks of testing for B&F staff and in customer training at the end of January. If no major changes arise from the B&F meeting and testing, it is realistic to expect a production launch at the beginning of February.
Recording of 12/11 meeting: IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20241211_143347-Meeting Recording.mp4
The meeting focused on the current status of testing and identified open issues requiring further discussion. Customer representatives have until December 18th to test the latest version of the workflow. The next weekly meeting on December 18th will address any issues identified during this recent testing phase.
Additionally, in recent weeks, several potential changes have been proposed by B&F, and a final decision needs to be made between DOIT and B&F. A meeting is scheduled for early January between both groups to finalize these potential changes.
Recording of 12/4 meeting:
IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20241204_143359-Meeting Recording.mp4
This meeting invited our customer representatives and focused on transitioning to the next phase of testing for the workflow, with the aim of confirming that previously identified issues have been resolved and ensuring no new problems have arisen from recent updates. Testing of the new workflow version will be conducted by customer reps until December 18th. Participants are asked to verify resolved issues and submit new test requests using the updated system. Below is a list of the changes in this update:
Changelog
• Non-Contract Vendor ID Field Rename: The "Non-Contract Vendor's ID" field has been renamed to "NJSTART ID / FEIN Number".
• Initial Procurement Lead Review Options Updated: Updated options include "Approved, requesting vendor quotes" and "Approved, attached quote(s) accepted".
• 2nd IT Procurement Lead Role: Added an IT Procurement Lead Backup role which is as administrator for all IT Procurement collaborative stages.
• Confirm Funds Stage Update: This stage is now designated as a collaboration stage.
• Admin Roles in FF Manager Stage: Other staff are now consistently designated as Admins during the FF Manager stage.
• Request ID Visibility: Request ID now appears at the bottom of each page for easy reference. (Issue #11)
• Hiding Empty Sections: BAM Analyst & FFA Manager sections are now properly hiding when empty. (Issues #12 and #32)
• Line-Item Details: Moved line-item details into contract/non-contract purchase detail containers for better organization. (Issue #22)
• Bill-To/Ship-To Code Issue: Resolved issues with Bill-To/Ship-To codes clearing when saving. (Issue #37)
• Data Editing Restrictions: Managers can no longer edit data when reviewing requests. (Issue #41) [Note: Users set as SimpliGov Admins are still able to edit anything at any stage]
• Procurement Lead Request Options: Added options for the Procurement Lead to send requests back to the "Finalize Initial Request" stage when quotes are revised. (Issue #42)
• IT Purchase Admin Role Permissions: IT Purchase Admin role has been created which allows them to manage and terminate workflows. Other users do not have these permissions unless they are SimpliGov Admins. (Issue #43)
• PDF Output: A combined PDF document output now includes all attachments as expected. (Issue #44)
• State Fund Field Editing: B&F stages now allow staff to edit the State Fund field. (Issue #47)
• FFA Stage Validation: Added validation to ensure reporting numbers are entered during the FFA stage. (Issue #48)
• Terminology Updates: Changed "Federal Fund" to "Federal Funds" and "BAM analyst" to "State Analyst". (Issues #49 and #50)
• Email Notifications: Federal Funds and State Funds managers will now be CC’d on notifications to analysts. (Issue #51)
Recording of 11/27 meeting:
IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20241127_120803-Meeting Recording.mp4
In the meeting, it was decided to address a bug related to the auto-fill of DOIT Bill-To/Ship-To codes by adding a tooltip instead. Plans for testing were discussed, with a change log set to be sent out next week. Customers will be invited to the meeting on December 4th, and a new version will be uploaded to the test environment before that date.
Recording of 11/20 meeting: IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20241120_143317-Meeting Recording.mp4
This meeting provided an update on the issues that need to be resolved before the production release. Several issues were found to be challenging, and workarounds were discussed. Additionally, the Budget & Finance team offered further feedback over the past week, leading to a few new changes. Below is a list of issues that have been moved to on-hold and those that remain open for completion before the production release.
Issues moves to On-Hold (to be completed in a future development phase):
(31 - Critical) Investigate saving problems for Vendor Details (request #51)
(29 - Medium) Investigate issues saving Contract Vendor Information (required fields error)
Open issues in-scope for production release (Issue Spreadsheet Row # - Priority):
(43 - Critical) Determine proper workflow permissions
(37 - Medium) Issues with Bill-To/Ship-To codes clearing when saving
(12 - Low) BAM Analyst tab is appearing in stages after with no fields shown (need condition to hide when empty)
(32 - Low) FFA Manager heading is appearing in stages after with no fields shown (need condition to hide when empty)
(40 - Low) Provide guidance on viewing/printing a summary of a request
(47 - Medium) B&F stages should allow staff to edit the State Fund field
(48 - Medium) FFA stage should have a validation to ensure reporting numbers are entered
(49 - Low) Change anywhere it says “Federal Fund” to say “Federal Funds”
(50 - Low) Change “BAM analyst” to “State Account Analyst”
(51 - Medium) Federal Funds and State Funds managers to be CC’d on notifications to the analysts
Recording of 10/30 meeting: IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20241030_143456-Meeting Recording.mp4
Recording of 11/13 meeting: IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20241113_143251-Meeting Recording.mp4
The previous two meetings focused on reviewing issues identified by testers. Development on the workflow was paused during this testing phase. During the meetings, we triaged the reported issues to determine which are in scope for the production release. The issues spreadsheet has been updated to reflect this information. We also established a goal of working in one-week sprints until the workflow is deemed ready for production. Before each future weekly meeting (Wednesdays), a new version of the workflow will be uploaded to the test environment.
Below is a summary of all in-scope issues for the production release. Any issues deemed out of scope have been assigned a status of 'On-Hold' and are not listed below. We aim to address as many issues as possible for the 11/20 version, prioritizing them accordingly.
Open issues in-scope for production release (Issue Spreadsheet Row # - Priority):
(43 - Critical) Determine proper workflow permissions
(31 - Critical) Investigate saving problems for Vendor Details (request #51)
(41 - High) Managers should not be able to edit data when reviewing
(42 - High) Add options for the Procurement Lead to send requests back to the "Finalize Initial Request" stage
(44 - High) Output a combined PDF document that includes all attachments
(22 - Medium) Move line item details into contract/non-contract purchase detail containers (10:30 in 10/30 recording)
(29 - Medium) Investigate issues saving Contract Vendor Information (required fields error)
(37 - Medium) Issues with Bill-To/Ship-To codes clearing when saving
(39 - Medium) FFA cannot edit the reporting category field
(11 - Low) Show the request ID at the top of each page
(12 - Low) BAM Analyst tab is appearing in stages after with no fields shown (need condition to hide when empty)
(32 - Low) FFA Manager heading is appearing in stages after with no fields shown (need condition to hide when empty)
(40 - Low) Provide guidance on viewing/printing a summary of a request
(45 - Low) Custom frame footer is not showing during collaboration stages
Recording of 10/23 weekly meeting IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20241023_143133-Meeting Recording.mp4
This meeting invited our customer representatives for a tutorial on accessing the test environment and creating requests. We also covered the scope of testing and addressed related questions. The workflow is now being tested by all involved roles, including customer representatives, fiscal staff, and DOIT staff. Our goal is to gather issues from now until 11/13 and determine what needs to be addressed before the production release.
Recording of 10/16 weekly meeting IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20241016_143552-Meeting Recording.mp4
This meeting focused on any issues or edge cases brought up during testing. Some items are follow up discussions from the prior week.
Covered in the meeting:
Review edge cases of State funds still going to Fed analyst
A meeting is scheduled for 10/17 with Federal Funds to discuss solutions that do not require significant workflow changes
Proposed Solution: Collaboration vs. Needs More Info
The “Need more information” approval option has been changed to “Send to requestor for editing”
Added text to indicate that the collaboration stage should be used to ask the requester questions
The team is happy with proposed solution, and it is being implemented throughout the workflow
List of open tasks
We reviewed the open tasks to ensure they are within scope for the initial production release
Saving of a PDF of the request and all attachment was discussed
Connor to follow up next week on further details of what is possible / an estimate on time commitment based on the information provided by OIT
Testing updates
A new version will be uploaded to the test environment on 10/17
Active test requests will be canceled and re-created to ensure testers are focusing on the new updates
An email will be sent out when the new version is uploaded to the test environment, including a list of major changes and a note on test requests being canceled and re-created
Recording of 10/10 weekly meeting IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20241009_143240-Meeting Recording.mp4
Note: Microsoft Teams was experiencing issues during this meeting. The screen share did not show up on a significant portion of the recording. However, the audio was recorded without issues.
This meeting focused on a number of different issues that have been brought up during testing and warranted a discussion. Below is a list of the topics discussed and the resulting decision/changes:
Parallel stage limitations, trade-offs to avoid extra work
Add a sub-header to parallel stage rejection comments to recommend contacting the other reviewers about the rejection
How to handle requests involving a new approved vendor (DPA)
The current workflow accounts for this situation, if time we will run through a demo during a future check-in/weekly meeting
Add a link to the DPA Checklist
"Finalize Initial Request" stage should be a collab stage
Non-Contract Vendor ID as optional (possible change)
Collaboration vs. Needs More Info confusion
Always show communication tab on all stages
Change the names of "Discussion / Communication" tabs in side panel (if possible)
Consider making approval stages have editable fields
Procurement always reviews last
Procurement DOIT Management Review should be outside of parallel stage (low priority task to be completed in a future phase)
Reducing the number of signatures
Remove non-mandatory signatures
If the approval allows "Other Authorized" then show the signature dynamically
Test what drawn signatures look like in the History
We did not get a chance to cover the topic "edge cases of State funds still going to Fed analyst" and plan to address this next week.
Recording of 10/2 weekly meeting IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20241002_143336-Meeting Recording.mp4
This meeting invited our customer representatives to view a demo of the refined workflow and to inform them that they will be invited to start testing in the near future. The team was pleased with the workflow, and several minor changes emerged from the meeting:
Allow the "Program Contact" (the person receiving the equipment) to view the request in the dashboard
BAM reviewer name should be "BAM/FF Reviewer" in case the program fiscal wants to ask about their federal funds account
Fix the bug where requests are rejected after the "DOIT Management" stages
In addition, an update on testing is that several test requests are being created each week. Currently the IT Procurement Lead, DOIT Management, DOIT CIO, and budget staff are all assigned to their roles within the testing environment. In the next week we plan to onboard our customer representatives to begin creating requests in the test environment. The customer representatives are the last group of users to be onboarded to the test environment.
Recording of 9/25 weekly meeting IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20240925_141926-Meeting Recording.mp4
This meeting included DOIT management and the CIO for a demonstration of the full workflow. The team was pleased with the overall workflow. Over the next week, we will create test requests for the management staff to review and test edge cases discussed during the meeting.
Recording of 9/19 weekly meeting IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20240918_143223-Meeting Recording.mp4
This meeting re-invited staff from the Budget & Finance departments. We covered an overview of the test plan, including how to log issues, bugs, and improvements. We assigned staff to each role for this testing phase and confirmed that the team is ready to start testing the workflow this week. Finally, we reviewed the project timeline, future weekly meetings, and the timeline to production.
Recording of 9/11 weekly meeting IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20240911_143402-Meeting Recording.mp4
This meeting re-invited staff from the Budget & Finance departments to address open questions regarding the stages they will be responsible for completing. Additionally, we provided a brief demonstration on logging in to the SimpliGov test environment. We plan to begin testing with Budget & Finance staff next week on 9/18.
Key Topics Discussed and Agreed Upon:
Handling requests involving multiple analysts
Handling requests that use both Federal and State funds
Federal funds review when the amount is less than $250K
NJSTART Stages
Early stage BAM Review
Recording of 9/4 weekly meeting IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20240904_143109-Meeting Recording.mp4
During the meeting, updates and estimates for ongoing tasks were reviewed. It was noted that all tasks from the previous week's testing have been addressed, and a new version has been uploaded to the testing environment. Most Budget & Finance related tasks are nearly complete and are expected to be finalized by the next weekly meeting. Additionally, plans were made to invite the Budget & Fiscal team for next week's meeting to discuss decision related to Budget & Fiscal stages that require their input.
Recordings of 8/28 weekly meeting. The recordings were broken up into two parts:
Part 1 - IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20240828_143855-Meeting Recording.mp4
Part 2 - IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20240828_145519-Meeting Recording.mp4
In today's meeting, we kicked things off with some updates on testing. There's a new version available in the testing environment now with all of the improvements and fixes from prior testing included. We also went over the revamped process for requesting Adobe and Microsoft software.
Then, in the second part, we had a demo that walked us through the NJSTART stages and showed off all the tweaks and improvements made in the last few weeks.
Recording of 8/21 weekly meeting IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20240821_143411-Meeting Recording.mp4
In the meeting, we focused on the NJSTART stage changes, specifically showing the split of a single stage into separate stages for setup and approvals. Changes made since last week were demonstrated, including the new workflow for handling failed accounts in NJSTART. The team agreed on the proposed design for these stages.
In addition, we discussed the current list of open development tasks, which fall into three categories prioritized as follows:
Finalizing the NJSTART and Confirmation of Funds stages (the final group of stages in the workflow)
Addressing improvement tasks identified by the procurement team during testing.
Implementing changes to the budget and finance stages for requests over $250K.
We estimate that completing each group of tasks will take approximately one week, totaling around three weeks to close all tasks.
Recording of 8/15 weekly meeting IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20240815_143206-Meeting Recording.mp4
The team is satisfied with the recent updates to the line item details, with only a minor adjustment needed for the Adobe/Microsoft question, which will be moved above the line item details. To save time, the Bill-To/Ship-To dynamic logic is being simplified. NJSTART processes are being restructured into three stages, with a focus on setup (first stage), approval confirmation (second stage), and fund confirmation (third stage). The next weekly meeting will focus on confirming the NJSTART stage changes and finalizing the design for the fund confirmation stage.
Recording of 8/7 weekly meeting IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20240807_143358-Meeting Recording.mp4
In this meeting we focused on addressing questions that the development team had and the near term schedule. The following questions were discussed with the team:
1. Renaming of the contact information fields to be more specific.
Renaming of fields suggested by Grace.
Instead of renaming fields, text was added for role descriptions based on Monday's meeting.
Feedback from demo: Everyone is happy with this solution.
2. Improving the user experience of contract/non-contract purchase details fields
Some of the fields carried over from the paper version of this form were unclear to users during testing. Specifically, the 'Discount', 'Unit / Measure', and 'Discount Price'. We updated the fields to the following:
Description (Required - Free Text)
Unit / Measure (Optional - Free Text)
Quantity (Required - Numeric)
List Price (Optional - Currency)
Final List Price (Required - Currency)
Amount (Auto-calculated as 'Quantity x Final List Price')
Feedback from demo: Go with new version shown, team is happy with.
3. Changes to the Adobe / Microsoft software selections
Separated MS/Adobe software options in dropdown.
Microsoft: Sent to Grace after initial manager approval for purchase order determination. She will determine if this request needs to continue based on if existing licenses are available.
Adobe: Updated instructions for LTC request in SLiM.
Feedback from demo: Good to make these changes, Jim to follow up with Kurt still but these changes will most likely be agreed to/preferred.
4. Difficulties implementing a dynamic Line Items Details container due to SimpliGov limitations
More time needs to be spent discussing the potential solutions. Connor to meet with Grace to discuss further. Will follow up with the rest of the team during the next check-in/weekly meeting.
In addition, an overview of the two groups of open tasks was discussed. The team evaluated which group would be best to focus on for development and near-term demos.
Options for focus:
1. Budget & Finance Tasks
Focus on completing all budget & finance tasks.
2. Finishing Improvements (Preferred Option):
Delay budget/finance demo to 8/21 or 8/28.
Concentrate on closing as many open tasks and polishing the entire flow.
Focus on improvements from testing and next batch of detailed testing.
Summary: The team agreed that focusing on detailed testing of the entire flow and addressing the related tasks is the better path. This approach will also potentially allow for budget/finance staff to participate in testing when we present the next demo.
Recording of 7/31 weekly meeting IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20240731_143410-Meeting Recording.mp4
This meeting re-invited staff from budget & finance departments to review the changes based on the 7/18 demo. This demo involved showing the following two flows:
1. Over $250K w/ federal funds flow
2. Over $250K no federal funds flow
Together we were able to verify the workflow for requests that are over $250K and the changes made from the 7/18 demo. Several additional updates were found to make on the budget & finance stages:
Federal Fund Analyst Changes
Update all Federal Fund Analyst stages to be collaborative
Add comments field to Federal Fund Analyst stage (shown when grant not eligible)
Automate setting the Federal Fund Analyst role based on the Org-Apu Code
BAM Approval Changes
Rename BAM Approver role to BAM Analyst
Automate setting the BAM Analyst role based on the Org-Apu Code
Remove "OMB Number" field
Use the SimpliGov auto-generated request # as the unique identifier for OMB
Pre-fix the auto-generated request # with "DEP"
Pending Transfer Changes
Show the "Transfer Number" field for BAM Analyst when selecting "Approve with pending transfer"
Remove Pending Transfer stage
Recording of 7/24 weekly meeting IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20240724_143400-Meeting Recording.mp4
This meeting focused on addressing the issues found and reported by the procurement team during their testing of the workflow. Over the next week development time will be spent finalizing the updates requested by budget staff and addressing the issues found during testing.
This meeting included staff from budget and finance departments. The demo focused on reviewing the stages where a request is over $250K which require review from budget/financial staff or a federal fund analyst. Below is a summary of the updates discussed in the meeting for these stages.
Stage specific changes:
BFO Manager Stage Changes
Ability to select the BAM approver
Ability to select the federal funds analyst
BAM Stage Changes
Add an "Approve with pending transfer" status to BAM Approval
When a transfer is required, add a stage before OMB approval to capture the transfer number and ensure the transfer is complete
Steve Matis Stage Changes
Rename stage to "BFO Director Approval"
Mary Kelvy (OMB) Stage Changes
Build a PDF for Mary to email to OMB (include all information currently sent)
Federal Fund Analyst (>250K) Stage Changes
Add a second stage so both the analyst and manager can reveiw
General changes:
Account details should be editable for the federal funds analyst, BFO Manager, and BAM
Add amount field for each account (validate the total)
Reporting category should be four digits
We went through the financial stages and discussed what to show/ask during the upcoming weekly demo that will include financial staff on 7/17.
This weekly covered:
Update on a successful import of the workflow into the testing environment
A full demo of the entire workflow from start to completion (cut purchase order)
A plan for the following two weeks to involve financial and customer staff
Recording of check-point Monday 7/8: IT Procurement workflow check point-20240708_150417-Meeting Recording.mp4 (sharepoint.com)
Planning to share on Wed with Jim M.
Before the next weekly meeting, the plan is to set up the IT Procurement workflow in the test environment and grant the procurement team (Grace/Jim) access to begin testing the workflow.
We were joined by program reps Joe and Adriana to get feedback from a customer perspective on the workflow up to the program approval stages. No majors changes to the workflow were requested. Several minor updates on conditional fields (Ship-to, Bill-to) were requested for next week.
In addition to the minor updates. The plan for the next weekly meeting on 7/3:
Demo the remaining workflow after the program approval stages
Testing plan for the initial workflow stages
Changes from the prior week within the "Acquire Quotes" and "Account & Vendor Info" stages were the focus. We agreed on the flow of these initial stages and what information is required by each role. Several updates are planned for next week based on feedback during this meeting:
Ability to edit the Request Information during the "Account & Vendor Info" Stage
This reflects a common use-case where the requester changes quantity
Any changes will require re-approval by the procurement lead
The Request Information history should be saved (a PDF for each version)
Agency Purchase Order & DPA Package fields are expected to be filled out by the requester
The Procurement Lead can update / add additional information later
DPA Package field visibility are driven by the Agency Purchase Order selection
Removal of the "Contacted Vendors" table
Changes to the "Acquire Quotes" and "Account Info" stages were highlighted. Several updates were discussed and planned to be made for the upcoming Wednesday meeting with Jim and Grace.
Recording from 6/12 with Grace and Jim IT Procurement - status, next steps, path to beta_-20240612_150203-Meeting Recording.mp4
See working meeting recording here: SimpliGov IT Purchase Form-20240610_141548-Meeting Recording.mp4
Several updates to the initial request entry and processing were discussed. Connor aiming to make updates to show Jim and Grace Wednesday.
Design session following Pete’s input- We will forgo the direct vendor use of the forms for now and revisit later. Keep optional collab within Vendor stage for grace to get any prelim DOIT clearance.
Latest changes:
Use a single container for Items, quantity, description, unit price, etc, with conditional labeling to the unit price as described in #2 below.
Allow for Initial Request to accept quotes as attachments secured by the requester. Add a question “Do you already have quotes for this purchase?” If yes, make attaching a file a requirement, and also change the item-level price label from “Estimated/Preliminary Unit Price” to “Quoted Unit Price”
Add back the account info to Initial request but hide unless answering yes to “Do you want to indicate account info at this stage? (It will be required to be entered or confirmed later, following the selection of quotes)”. This account info is carried forward and required in a later stage for Program Account Designation.
Add selection of at least one required (added ones are optional) program leadership staff to make an initial conceptual approval
Add a preliminary program management approval stage without signature following Initial Request, before getting to Grace. Use text: “Your conceptual approval of this purchase is required to proceed. Formal quotes, DOIT and other review has yet to happen. Any account info shown here can be edited or confirmed and is mandatory in a later stage. This approval indicates your confirmation of the purchase justification ensuring further purchasing efforts are not wasted.”
At Vendor stage Grace must have fields to indicate need for a DPA package or other vendor documentation update which triggers email to requester to begin collecting needed info. Select Full DPA package and/or other info + description box. When either is checked, there must be a mandatory checkbox to confirm attachment of such info prior to CIO approval stage.
Meeting with Sam, Andrew and Knute. We called in Jim M. as well. We continued to re-work the Initial request stage to capture the actual scenarios that we have learned arise, including the pre-check with DOIT managers, the potential for programs to know the cost, provide the quotes, and have the chosen vendor, then the fact that this may trigger work on a DPA this early. We decided to capture need for, message about need, and allow/require attachment of DPA package, but to defer the creation of that package to a future workflow and the current process for now.
We are aiming to move everything possible up to the initial requester form, carry over to Grace’s quote-prep stage, and lift the quantity and description into a new container to be filled by vendors when needed - to be filled by Grace if sufficient quotes are already in place.
See whiteboard diagram detailing the stages up to vendor.
Knute to review with Pete for support before any re-build happens.
meeting today (5/29) looking at latest pre-approval stage where Grace will get quotes. See transcript:
Meeting from 5/23 discusses more of the selection of contract vs. non-contract. NJStart and discussion of “blankets” vs. contracts. Also how Non-Contract always requires a DPA packet. Plus, how even contract items will sometimes need updated items from within the DPA packet.
Recording 5/23 was stopped by acccident and so has two parts:
Part 1 SimpliGov Discussion-20240523_152930-Meeting Recording.mp4 (sharepoint.com)
Part 2: SimpliGov Discussion-20240523_152930-Meeting Recording 1.mp4 (sharepoint.com)
Knute is exploring with Brian at OIT whether anything is stopping us from sending the form direct to vendors for quotes. We previously identified the need for a parallel path that enables DPA processing concurrent with other approvals of the purchase.
Follow-up 3/25 recording: https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/ER-BNmgcndRCn-pnZfUQPYYBuZkwL41OmKepl1jeD415bA?referrer=Teams.TEAMS-ELECTRON&referrerScenario=MeetingChicletGetLink.view.view
We are moving some existing info into the new Pre-approval stage sending emails out for quotes to vendors, limiting info vendors will see, and indicating to the program when the purchase is non-contract (needing DPA paperwork).
We did not discuss, but probably need to explore a parallel flow with a set of mandatory checkboxes that mimic the DPA checklist, and enable DPA form attachments, with this parallel workflow only triggered by the radio-button selection for Non-contract/DPA. I say “parallel” because when it is needed, its completion should not hold up other ongoing reviews that could be made independent of gathering the dozen or so DPA forms, which are only needed at the end, when Grace actually enters the PO into NJStart . This parallel flow is probably just one collaborative stage for the program and/or the vendor to use.
Today we met (Grace, Jim M., Sam, Knute, Andrew and Rudy) to walk through the flow to-date. recording here: https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/EQH27ejNU1VOsON-t8EyKUcBG0282n6O4kKS298u4-x1-g?referrer=Teams.TEAMS-ELECTRON&referrerScenario=MeetingChicletGetLink.view.view
We uncovered a significant initially step previously overlooked since it has never had a formal form for us to model on. That step is a pre-approval collaborative stage, where early info is provided to facilitate Grace acquiring quotes. This has so far been done in email. We need to create a pre-purchase section of the form to enter a general description of the purchase (new long text field) of the purchase need and the justification text box and checkboxes (existing fields) that are already in the form. This goes to Grace who can collaborate with DOIT managers or send back to the requestor or ultimately advance with quotes (also to the requestor) for more formal entry of the full set of forms, plus any conditional new forms such as:
everything for a DPA
a special effort for a custom agreement as part of DPA,
a DOIT IT project sheet for concurrent development of an associated project (or a link to existing)
A TIP sheet to start a SAR process with NJOIT
Within the collaborative stage or at least before approving/advancing to the program, Grace is likely to be the one who enters the quantities and descriptions for the items being sought sufficient to support quotes and will identify any existing contract to be used or will indicate Delegated Purchase Authority is needed (checkbox).
She will need to be able to select or enter names and emails for at least 3 vendors who can be sent to email into an entry stage where they will get access to only the limited info needed for the quote and can get the quote form to fill out and sign. PB-119 or 120
PB-119 Form ($1,000 to $17,500)
PB-120 Form (greater than $17,500)
Program Review/Approval Stage:
Each automated email message needs to say “You are receiving this because you were identified as the Program Fiscal/LTC/Director for Purchase Order for (Request Number) + (short description - to be added to initial request form??)”
See mark up for things to hide or add in view by program approvers
This is to capture a conversation I just had with Grace who spoke with the budget folks (Steve T.).
Here are the things to do:
work toward adding more info to the initial account drop-down selectors, and build the conditional/constrained sub-selectors to help ensure the right choices are made . Adam can assist with rules when grabbing the sets to be used from either excel or direct from the Treasury universe. It sounds like Adam also has ideas for characterizing accounts that we could show to the user and to approvers like “ This account is typically used to fund x, y and z”
Ensure the approvers also see any added descriptive info possible from Adam for the accounts selected.
Put the Program Fiscal Approval section first and change Decision “Approved” to “Approved and confirmed sufficient funds in CFS”. Then add:
an option to their Decision drop down for “Approved with requested adjustments from Budget and Account Management”,
a selector for the BAM staff to receive the form next (mandatory if 3.a. is selected)
a box called “Details for adjustments requested of Budget and Account Management” (mandatory if 3.a. is selected)
If 3. a. is selected - send to a new stage for BAM review, showing the items, total and accounts selected plus the details for adjustment text from the program and who entered it. This stage should allow BAM staff to change accounts and amounts used. At the end setup signature by BAM staff that says, “As of {default today and allow to edit to past dates only} I have ensured sufficient funding as requested by the program and as reflected in CFS in the accounts indicated”. Return to Program approvals only if still needing LTC or Manager.
Work toward an API into CFS that shows real-time account balances for those selected where we can also build in checks that accounts have a total greater than the purchase total (and stop the process if not). Knute to request the API from Neal.
DPA and Waiver discussion with Toni Dubernas and Sam : https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/EfLhxLua8c5IjEZtMAbT8ekB5jYp6FOoUudA0dWdQHxhjg?referrer=Teams.TEAMS-ELECTRON&referrerScenario=MeetingChicletGetLink.view.view
We will look to adopt a drop-down of all existing contracts to pick one (can get full list from NJStart blankets), or to say No Contract (which calls for use of DPA). Toni shared part of the Custom Agreement workflow which captures all the pieces of the DPA paperwork - this could be a loop in the IT workflow for when DPA is needed.
Meeting info from 1/22/24 with Brian Janecek https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3Ameeting_YzhkMDZjMzUtODJiMS00NTE3LTkxNjQtMjIwN2VhMTVjZGM4%40thread.v2/0?context={"Tid"%3A"5076c3d1-3802-4b9f-b36a-e0a41bd642a7"%2C"Oid"%3A"a64794ae-7d41-4cc0-bc38-9544b92fd319"}
This meeting revealed that DPA forms are handled by OIT in a different workflow, which we intend to mimic. Need more specifics of how and when OIT identifies and tracks the need for DPA forms connected to an IT purchase. Knute to set time with Toni Dubernas to go over her process and ensure we can replicate (although not build the separate workflow just yet)
We concluded prior to this meeting to do away with a routing to Kurt for software and instead send the user offline to get software from Adobe or Microsoft, since neither would end in the program doing a PO. Instead DOIT procures these things and bills back through another mechanism.
1/16/24 meeting recording IT Procurement Build-20240116_150753-Meeting Recording.mp4 (sharepoint.com)
Sam to make updates to Software flow as discussed (needs count and type w/drop down) plus improved loop with Kurt and requestor.
2. Andrew to revise drop downs as discussed and add more from Adam’s sources:
3. Knute to seek guidance language from Lenore (Adobe) and Kurt (Microsoft - list of possible existing licenses, or language to say they will need to order.
Some reference data from Adam Weiss:
As requested, see the attached for a list of objects, activity codes, and job numbers. All have their corresponding description as I believe it will help users chose the correct option. I filtered the lists in the following ways:
Removed all objects relating to the salary, fringe, indirect, and also the 8XXX objects as I don’t think they will be necessary for the dropdowns
Removed activity codes last used prior to calendar year 2021
Removed job numbers last used prior to calendar year 2021
I did this in effort to supply you with the most relevant list possible. But just keep in mind that activity codes and job numbers are added to the system at request. So, we may need to update the list periodically or just when the need arises. Let me know if you have any questions or need anything further
todays meeting focused on deployment form. Agreement was to enable the existing deployment form as an attachment for hardware (consider making this required if that’s possible for attachment). For software, we need to add further clarifications to re-route Adobe purchases to a different process (language/guidance to come from Lenora), and to add a checkbox for Microsoft software. If Microsoft, we need to route the request to Kurt ot consider if we have existing licenses or not already, and if not, it can turn into a purchase order for what’s needed. If we do have it, the flow will end with no purchase order, and with Kurt using the account info to charge back. If its not adobe, (for Microsoft or any other software), add a counter for number of licenses and require a name selector from AD for the assignment of the license.
Meeting recording here: https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/EQ_UC7S3WstEl8howlYvI_0BsBMjJKOa8aYYxKnkX3eA7A?referrer=Teams.TEAMS-ELECTRON&referrerScenario=MeetingChicletGetLink.view.view
Meeting today 1/4/24 looked into the DPA/waiver process. General takeaway was the need for a pre-procurement stage of the workflow to clarify the nature of the procurement and spell out the possible added do-loops to expect. Notably we see value in questions that explore awareness of the vendor’s status, existence of a contract and the need for DPA filings or not. This likely will guide customers to a number of self-help steps to confirm a contract or not, secure quotes, identify DPA needs, most difficult of which may be the standard Terms and Conditions or custom agreement for software and SaaS. https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/EQ3ejQ9M49hCv2uAlGG-1u0BjoAKnbpSucLURtD3WjvLsA?referrer=Teams.TEAMS-ELECTRON&referrerScenario=MeetingChicletGetLink.view.view
Meeting 1/2/24 - Knute, Sam, Andrew - digging into workflow. Sam will add a few new stages as summarized at end of meeting here: https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/ERUesY5pqeBBh8ZfPBU6xO8BQAfPqt7y-dIdzpqlLVuY3g?referrer=Teams.TEAMS-ELECTRON&referrerScenario=MeetingChicletGetLink.view.view
Knute shared Vendor List for Vendor type-ahead.
Knute to chase down more reference data, via access to Treasury BO universe Adam W. was setting up.
Meeting with Jim/Grace needed on the Vendor “Approval” process. CAn we pull that out of the purchase process? Are the various documents really needed to be kept outside NJ Start and tied to the purchase?
Notes from latest full team meeting today 12/18: missing Grace and Jim, so avoided DOIT-only form discussion. recording here: https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/EdfSIj2ey3lHuMp8YDgRKPcBf9zxzi2JFFW28IjYoaursw?referrer=Teams.TEAMS-ELECTRON&referrerScenario=MeetingChicletGetLink.view.view
Sam previewed some changes including mandatory attachment for asset deployment upon selection of hardware checkbox; new removable media yes/no radio button (“yes” also enforces asset deployment); and added radio buttons for Contract/Non-Contract/Clear section at Vendor section.
We ran down all possible forms without Jim & Grace.
Revisited the DPA checklist of forms. Understood that only 4 checkboxes drive a hard stop in NJStart:
PROOF OF BUSINESS REGISTRATION
NEW JERSEY CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYEE INFORMATION REPORT
FEDERAL LETTER OF APPROVAL VERIFYING A FEDERALLY APPROVED OR SANCTIONED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM (Dated within one year of the submission)
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYEE INFORMATION REPORT (FORM AA302)
Will need to explore adding to the vendor section to guide and confirm steps by program or DOIT (Grace) for confirming all needed DPA items either by look-up in NJStart (which may be inconclusive) or by collection directly from vendor. What we collect is not required to go into NJStart, but could be kept with each PO to support any audit. The terms and conditions item demands clarity from Jim.
Next need to set DOIT-specific meetings to handle deployment (Lenora); to go over DPA; and to tackle other DOIT-only forms. Also need time for build team to focus on implementing features we captured, and to design workflow.
more notes from Full team meeting on either 11/16 or 11/27?? We only reviewed Sam’s latest edits.
We agreed on adding a new section AFTER the Type of Request for Program Contact and move name/phone/email/ship to/bill to from Vendor info to Program Contact. Hide ship to/bill to fields when the Type of Hardware is selected. Also (need to confirm with Lenore) when Hardware is selected, we probably need to make attachment of Deployment Form mandatory. May need to describe to users (added text with sub-selections pop-up) that “When selecting Hardware, it will be shipped to and deployed by DOIT- If a program needs to receive an item directly, select Type = “other” and describe the special hardware. “ This means that when Type = Service, Software or Other, the bill to/ship to fields are not just shown but mandatory. However, bill to/ship to sometimes needs to be newly created, so the mandatory drop-downs need an option for “request new” and a fill-in field for each to be completed by Central Procurement whether or not the form would be routed to them otherwise (this is a new minor workflow loop - goes to Cent. Procurement when “request new” exists. Mary can supply the existing list for both drop downs that get created by us into NJStart.
We discussed Vendor and Contract info. We know we will have a Vendor drop down of all
Mary flagged the need to change the current field “SubOrg” in Account Information to “Lower Level Org”
Working from new list of forms to try and capture all info fields first. See working list of 16 current forms with notes here: IT Procurement Forms list.xlsx 10 of first 11 covered through today, but only 5 implemented. Discovered a parallel but distinct process/workflow for approving a vendor in NJStart (form #5 DPA packet). In this scenario - NOT documented in LSS process- we need to allow for the PO to be paused and hopefully show who has what steps toward approving a vendor, and to pick up the PO steps once a vendor is approved.
Latest meeting recording: https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/EVgbdnzesVJCgxHU9Chsa-EBadiWRkWYpzgHBQDsZpeX3g
Full team meeting recording- more about the Over $250K and Fed funds paths with all approvals. https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/EXHThZpSOWZCkf0FNDx3OjABwirZWnuAvGbfOP3xHILhjw
Recording from 11/16 - https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/EZpw2MDhK1ZAlqIWnV3T5GUBNpig1onxSTLGYhFtWLm4cw
We reviewed Sam’s converted form, eliminated some values and defaulted others around funding sources. For funding source: Need a Fed/State checkbox with pop-up for FY when FED (at front), plus a Report Category value (at end). Team (Roberta, Mary and Grace) to supply values for fund drop-downs. We started to detail the workflow for more complicated paths starting with >$250k. Need to finish that and look at Fed Funds=Y. Full team recording: https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/EbvKdYu0d_BElZnjCp6gp8oBT-Uga89cHW6edzhQtNGIPw
Development meeting (Knute, Sam, Rudy and Andrew) Sam re-started out form to match NJOIT structure, with our needed fields. Called in Adrianna for input…https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/ESCk4fpHRUJNix5lS6EZ8GYBGnLJE8CxxjXHrSIEMypDpA
Full team meeting recording: https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/EdFyvyxVzIRDg96csKa_Zm0ButPqeoRLuALXlOgTjRVOIA
We agreed to 4 main stages, with 2 big collaborative stages at least for the simplest flow (less than $25k and No Fed Funds). We will need to explore the other pathways with a draft form to respond to so participants can identify all needed fields/info they need to capture or record.
Developer meeting (Semu, Rudy, Andrew and Knute) see recording here: https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/ESWyVL7j-SNGpyaTPmbAH-gBKCjXXiQtfKwO87CyRMO9fw
Full team meeting recording:
https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/EeaWvZnWqmpMmyofaR8djIUBI45UGTYY59vOQ3BBdIq5-Q
Meeting with DEP team and Brian Janacek of NJOIT to get his insights on the procurement development process:
Initial questions:
What was scope of OIT project - Assumption is just need to cutting of the PO? Yes.
How was OIT development approached? Expectations up front for delivery-timing vs. actual to release? 6 months to actual build.
how iterative, vs. requirements and build? How much documentation was employed? Need clarity for big picture. Up front effort to get requirements. but mostly agile
team make-up and size? Just Brian to develop. 3-4 to test, plus fiscal.
Team meeting or scrum cadence? weekly meeting, around latest development.
Any major twists, discoveries or breakthroughs? not really
Anything else that seems valuable to help us understand the effort? Don’t over-engineer this. This leaves things too inflexible. Also hard to make changes. Just because you can, don’t automatically do it.
Rest of session is recorded run-through of flow by Brian. https://sonj-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/knute_jensen_dep_nj_gov/ERSdhzV4CPFPrEeRx9LtUvEB8IVHvPDEg1iPzl133fegPw