Enterprise & Digital Architecture (EA & DA) Capability Assessment

Tender description

Summary of the work Assessment of the current state and maturity of the HMCTS enterprise and digital architecture, including an examination of the existing architecture alignment and contribution to the overall management of risk. Engage and collaborate stakeholder groups to recommend capability improvement plans in-line with leading/best Enterprise and Delivery Architecture practices. Expected Contract Length 26 Weeks Latest start date Monday 8 January 2018 Budget Range Bidders to suggest budget based on requirements. Bidders are expected to propose team make-up and cost structure in proposal stage. Why the Work is Being Done HMCTS is executing a set of cross-judiciary transformation programmes under the digital transformation agenda and is based on Micro-Services architecture through Continuous Integration and Deployment process to build secure digital services. Currently, Program and BAU Architecture capabilities are operated with minimal enterprise level coordination. Hence the need to review of current state and maturity assessment of HMCTS enterprise & digital architecture function including a review of the quality and alignment of the existing architecture processes Problem to Be Solved Outcome based Plan of Action that aligns/improves the EA & DA capabilities and increases the effectiveness of Digital Architecture function to support the wider-department, business-as-usual and transformation initiatives. Key aspects of assessments including: Enterprise&Digital Architecture Maturity Assessment Baseline current architecture structure, processes, roles & responsibilities, skills and stakeholders’ expectations Architecture Portfolio Review -Department wide fact-base and relevant services -Review of Program architecture fact-base Plan of Action/Recommendations linked to business outcomes/department objectives -Contextualise enterprise &digital architecture for HMCTS -future architecture capability and operating Model appropriate architecture governance & assurance processes Architecture engagements on current projects as specified by Statement of Work Who Are the Users Key stakeholders including but not limited to, HMCTS Senior Management Team, Digital Change & Customer Directorate, Cyber Security (part of architecture function, but out-of-scope for assessment) Program Teams, Cross-departments and other internal functions Early Market Engagement No early market engagement Work Already Done Not applicable Existing Team HMCTS digital architecture and cyber security staff (2); existing Programme and BAU architecture staff (25+); sourced through incumbent suppliers Current Phase Not applicable Skills & Experience • Demonstrable experience of assessments of Enterprise and Digital Architecture capabilities in public sector/large scale transformations (3%) • Provide relevant examples of such assessments leading on to capability improvement plan of action and execution (3%) • Demonstrable evidence of actionable remediation plans with quick-wins, metrics/measures, team and other resources to meet the agreed capability improvement objectives (3%) • Demonstrable evidence of conducting such assessments in a time-boxed, agile fashion with effective outcomes (3%) • Demonstrable evidence of such assessments resulting in effective architecture function and governance for successful digital change (3%) • Demonstrable evidence of strong stakeholder management showing staff with experience of managing expectations and collaborating with a wide range of internal departmental and cross-Government stakeholders, including those at senior level(3%) • Evidence of consumable deliverables/artefacts, tools and methodology approach for portfolio discovery and assessment (3%) • Demonstrable experience of supporting digital transformation using enterprise architecture or other appropriate methodologies (3%) • Ability to resource engagements to challenging time scales. Evidence of process is required. (3%) Nice to Haves • Demonstrable experience of assessments of Enterprise and Digital Architecture Capabilities in Legal or Publishing sectors (1%) • Evidence of delivering architecture as a service/outcome, supporting the creation of an internal capability for longer term (1%) • Demonstrable evidence of appropriate architecture governance structure/artefacts for digital transformation initiatives (1%) • Evidence of typical pain-points/challenges for architecture function in supporting large scale change programmes in public-sector (1%) • Demonstrable evidence of innovation in bridging traditional & digital architecture capabilities (1%) • Demonstrable experience of implementing Enterprise Architecture models based on Scaled Agile (SAFe) or similar agile frameworks (1%) Work Location Assessment will be based at - 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ (with possible occasional travel to below/other UK locations): - Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS - Southern House, Wellesley Grove, Croydon, CR0 1XG Working Arrangments Engagement with team and project rituals as defined in each engagement is expected. An initial SoW will define the discovery exercise and additional SoWs will be issued for any project or extension work. Security Clearance BPSS Clearance as minimum, higher security clearance will be identified as necessary in specific SoWs Additional T&Cs Standard DOS2 Terms and Conditions will apply. No. of Suppliers to Evaluate 5 Proposal Criteria • Provide architecture discovery and methodology with an objective to support digital transformation agendas (4%) • Evidence of architecture assessments leading to identify the right topic-areas/themes leading to valuable hypothesis and recommendations. Include references to frameworks, tools/methods used for discovery through to remediation (4%) • Provide evidences on the types of issues/risks and dependencies Identified for EA & DA improvements in such large scale digital/DevOps based transformation (4%) • Demonstrate the delivery approach of the assessment, time-frames, team structure, review of gaps to performance and the final recommendations (4%) • Innovative approach to expedite discovery through to remediation (4%) • Evidence of defined future state architecture capability/models and delivered a comparable EA/DA architecture operating-model (4%) • Evidence of architecture assessment defined and conducted, with results for improving architecture governance especially in DevOps and Agile based transformations/organisations (4%) • Proposed team make-up and cost structure (4%) Cultural Fit Criteria • Explain your approach for capability assessment with multi-vendor teams across both programmes in multiple projects at different locations (2.5%) • Explain how you will collaborate at all levels of the enterprise, projects/programmes and Live Operations for an effective capability assessment Give examples of where you have taken this approach (2.5%) Payment Approach Time and materials Evaluation Weighting Technical competence 65% Cultural fit 5% Price 30% Questions from Suppliers 1. Can the buyer confirm if they believe this task falls within the scope of IR35 HMCTS expects the Supplier to provide adequate skilled resources to meet the outcomes for this requirement. The requirement is that of a service, rather than that of a resource. To that end if the Key Personnel make themselves unavailable the HMCTS expects the Supplier to ensure that the outcome or deliverable is still met.The Supplier can decide if substitution is the most appropriate method of fulfilling their obligations. HMCTS is happy to accept substitution of resources; any security clearances and payment for the security clearances is the responsibility of the Supplier. 2. Does are business case already exist for this project? If so, can you please share the anticipated benefits overview? This is an assessment/discovery project with anticipated benefits of establishing work-plans to improve consistency and effective governance to assure the digital change programme and manage risk around BAU portfolio 3. Please advise if an official project plan is available with indicative timescales for delivery? No it's a fixed term, fixed outcome requirement, so expectation is that an outline plan will form part of the supplier submission.The contracts length is expected to be 26 weeks; this requirement references the first statements of work time-boxed to 8-10 weeks, should there be any additional requirements or further discovery required as part of this requirement, subsequent statements of work will be issued under this contract. 4. As part of this process, will we be allowed to meet HMCTS stakeholders to understand what key decision makers see as a successful outcome for this engagement and how to best approach the project – both technically and commercially? The five suppliers who make it through the initial shortlist may have an opportunity to meet the HMCTS stakeholders to explore these issues with them at that time. 5. Has the process, resources (internal and external) and timescales been agreed with HMCTS stakeholders at this stage? Yes. The stakeholders are aware that the requirement has been posted and are ready to begin engaging when necessary.The contracts length is expected to be 26 weeks; this requirement references the first statements of work time-boxed to 8-10 weeks, should there be any additional requirements or further discovery required as part of this requirement, subsequent statements of work will be issued under this contract. 6. Has a specific investment budget been allocated based on the estimated total value of the engagement? There has been no specific investment budget allocated for this requirement. 7. In your experience, what makes one external partner more successful than another? How can we add value when working with HMCTS above and beyond delivering technical skills? e.g. drivers for innovation, shared-risk model, knowledge transfer as organisation moves to self-sufficiency, leveraging investment as a new revenue stream etc. The nature of this requirement is for a specific time-boxed exercise. Suppliers can value add initially by fulfilling the nice to have criteria. Anything above and beyond the requirements to assist the business will value add. 8. Has any work been done to improve the current process architecture? For example, has HMCTS implemented or have plans to implement process improvement techniques such as Lean Six Sigma? Not in scope of this exercise. Business process is being addressed as part the wider HMCTS Reform programme. 9. What level of experience do HMCTS stakeholders have with business process management methodologies and technologies? For example, is the differentiation between workflow automation and benefits offered by more mature business process management suites clear, or is this an opportunity for us to help clarify HMCTS requirements to ensure best choice of technology prior to investment? Not in scope of this exercise. Business process is being addressed as part the wider HMCTS Reform programme. 10. Is there an agreed enterprise/digital architecture available for HMCTS that we can review? The successful supplier will be given access to this information following contract award. The purpose of this requirement is to review the architecture operating model and assess its maturity. 11. Is there a clear IT roadmap for products that HMCTS want to work with e.g. defined solutions covering document management, self-service portal, integration, digital services such as artificial intelligence and robotics? Assessment of collateral in the area should form part of the overall assessment. 12. Is HMCTS open to vendors potentially providing solutions on a fixed-price or alternative basis that will reduce the total cost of ownership over the life of the project? Suppliers should provide costs as per the advertised opportunity as this will enable us to evaluate proposals on a like for like basis. HMCTS may consider an alternative pricing solution with the successful supplier 13. Please confirm who from the HMCTS (roles, job titles) will review the bids so we can tailor content accordingly. The evaluation tem will be made up of subject matter experts from the digital architecture team supported by commercial who will be reviewing the requirements. 14. Have existing third party suppliers been working with HMCTS to help shape HMCTS's thinking on EA & DA capabilities? If so, who has been involved to date? There is an existing architecture function within HMCTS is supported by a number of suppliers. This information will be shared with the successful supplier 15. Is there a dedicated Product Owner for this project? Yes. We can confirm that HMCTS has assigned a dedicated Product Owner for this project 16. In our experience, lots of suppliers tend to sub-contract and use contractors to deliver projects like this. Does the HMCTS have a strong preference for permanent staff vs. contractors, who may fall within IR35? HMCTS expects the Supplier to provide adequate skilled resources to meet the outcomes for this requirement. The requirement is that of a service, rather than that of a resource. To that end if the Key Personnel make themselves unavailable the HMCTS expects the Supplier to ensure that the outcome or deliverable is still met.The Supplier can decide if substitution is the most appropriate method of fulfilling their obligations. HMCTS is happy to accept substitution of resources; any security clearances and payment for the security clearances is the responsibility of the Supplier. 17. Can you please outline steps and dates in the procurement timetable, up to and including supplier award, i.e. proposal or presentation dates? Proposals are expected to be requested on or around the 15th November.it is likely that supplier presentations will fall in/around the week commencing 4th December.The timeline is highly dependent on evaluations and internal processes being completed, and the availability of HMCTS colleagues. 18. You have indicated that the latest acceptable start date is Monday 8 January 2018. If there is an opportunity to start work before January, is this achievable from HMCTS perspective? The latest date is the 8th Jan. We would happily accept the work starting earlier than this date. However, HMCTS reform workstream will be on hold for two weeks from 23 December to 3 Jan. We have identified the 8th as a potential and latest start date, as we expect to have the contract fully in place by the 23rd. 19. Can you please outline who HMCTS considers to be its customer for the digital services i.e. internal HMCTS stakeholders, wider MOJ departments / courts, citizens? There are a range of customers, with the Citizens being the primary end-customer 20. Is it HMCTS intention to seek Voice of the Customer / Voice of the Business input into the role of digital services or is this information readily accessible today? The development of HMCTS digital services follows the approach laid out in the GOV.UK Service Manual. 21. What is HMCTS preference when working with large suppliers vs SME's? HMCTS has no preference. Our interest is in securing an organisation to with the capability to deliver on our requirements to a good standard. 22. What, in your opinion based on what we know today, is the biggest risk faced by this project?  What could stop this project from moving forward? HMCTS have to ensure access to people and materials, else the supplier cannot perform the assessment.Expectation is that supplier will mobilise resources as they see fit to complete the exercise, so the HMCTS risk is that internal resources are not available to the supplier immediately. 23. Is this competition open to any of the existing 3rd party architecture suppliers across HMCTS? The competition is open to all suppliers on the framework. 24. AMENDED ANSWER FOR QUESTION 6. Has a specific investment budget been allocated based on the estimated total value of the engagement? AMENDED ANSWER FOR QUESTION 6: There has been a specific investment budget allocated for the 8 - 10 week discovery piece. There is currently no budget for the subsequent SoWs as these will be defined from the initial 8-10 weeks. 25. 1. Is there an Enterprise Architecture Practice in place within HMCTS? If yes, where does the head of the practice reports? 1. The Enterprise Architecture practice is federated and the ownership is shared. 26. 2. Is there an architectural framework currently being used (e.g. Zachman, TOGAF, etc.)? 2. TOGAF is preferred - but this needs to be reviewed in context 27. 3. Is there an appetite to use the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) within HMCTS? 3. SAFe appetite - This is to be reviewed as part of the assessment 28. 4. In regard to the assessment required, EA and DA are mentioned. The term EA sometimes is used to describe different domains. What domains should be included in the assessment (i.e. only IT, including application and infrastructure)? 4. The suppliers are expected to review all domains except Business Architecture - however the hand-offs/collaboration with the Business Architecture domain needs review and agreement 29. We are assuming that the evaluation criteria described apply to the whole process, with different types of submission at the different stages, rather than all at every stage - is that correct? To confirm, there are due to be three stages of the competition.Stage 1; Shortlisting evidence response which should evidence essential and nice to have criteria.Stage 2; Work proposal which should reflect the proposal criteria, as well as the essential and nice to have criteria. A briefing pack will be sent out at this stage.Stage 3; The work proposal (which should be in a presentation format), will be presented to the evaluators to further discuss how the suppliers can meet all criteria.Further stages such as interviews and references may be requested after these stages. 30. In terms of the program/project architecture we are assuming that the focus here is on people, processes/methodologies, information/artefacts, risks and issues in how the program architecture is run - is this correct? The assumption is correct. The focus is on people, processes/methodologies, information/artefacts, risks and issues in how the program architecture is run. 31. The last question in the Essential skills and experience asks about processes for resourcing projects, is this focused on the assessment or the subsequent phases? All skills and experience critertia will be relevant to all stages and statements of work related to the requirement. 32. What metrics are currently tracked to measure the effectiveness/value add of the EA/DA function, if any? Details of current approach will be provided to the chosen supplier, but the assessment should deliver proposals for a new approach 33. What challenges are you currently facing with bridging traditional and digital architecture capabilities? There are a few challenges and can be discussed in the next stage, but to give a few indicators: expected architecture atrefacts for governance; evloving target states; delivering project architecture in line with continously evloving target states etc. 34. How is the effectiveness of the Digital Architecture function being measured today? Details of current approach will be provided to the chosen supplier, but the assessment should deliver proposals for a new approach 35. Has there been an architecture capability assessment within the last 3 years? If so, can the results be shared? There has been no formal assessment in the last 3 years. 36. What percentage of strategic change projects is the Digital Architecture function actively engaged in? Digital Architecture function is engaged across all digital change projects. The assessment includes review of the current engagement to propose a new or amended approach. 37. Where does the Digital Architecture function sit within the wider Operating Model and organisational structure? The Digital Architecture function reports to the HMCTS Digital Director who reports in turn to the HMCTS Chief Execuitive. 38. What is the distinction between the Digital Architecture and Cyber Security Team and the existing Programme and BAU architecture staff? In the current operating model, the programme architecture, BAU and Cyber Security staff report into the same Digital Architecture function but with different specialisms and a few of those are dotted responsibilities. 39. Can you summarise the current governance and assurance process? This is currently under review and details will be made available to the successful bidder. 40. How many programmes and projects are within scope of this piece of work? There are 3 major programmes currently underway, a level of review is required across these programmes to assess the optimal resourcing, engagement and governance to ensure an effective architecture delivery 41. Are there any architecture governance arrangements currently in place at [a] a portfolio level; [b] programme level; [c] project level? Yes. This is currently under review and details will be made available to the successful bidder. 42. Are there client side people or capabilities you’d like the successful supplier to work with or embed in our teams as we deliver this work? We don’t anticipate any direct embedding of resources, however the supplier will need to collaborate effectively with other existing suppliers where needed. 43. What weighting of the evaluation of supplier responses will be looking architectural capability assessment vs architectural process/methodology assessment and % of each? We anticipate the effort and complexity of the process/methodology assessment to be signficantly greater than the capability assessment. However this should not be viewed as a constraint. 44. At the end of this work it is intended that there will be an outcome based Plan of Action that aligns/improves the EA & DA capabilities and increases the effectiveness of Digital Architecture function. Does the successful supplier have a role in developing this capability through the implementation of this plan? The successful supplier will have equal opportunity to bid for subsequent implementation work which will be tendered under a future contract. The assessement contract will include provision for small additional work orders where quick wins are identified to ensure momentum is maintained. 45. The questions primarily focus on architectural assessment, so how should we aim to include process/methodology areas into the responses to these questions? There are no specific constraints on how these elements are incoporated into the assessment. Shortlisted suppliers will have the opportunity to present to evaluators, where they can include further process/methodology responses.