[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-167262-105":53,"doc-detail-167262-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","lessons-learned-summary-lessons-learned","Lessons Learned - Summary Lessons Learned","","Compilation of lessons learned across multiple eProcurement and eLicense-related initiatives, including the Ohio Benefits program (2013–2018), DOT OAKS onboarding (2015–2017), and Commerce Liquor Control modernization. The material documents key questions and structured responses on what worked well, what did not, surprises encountered, and whether goals were attained. It highlights upfront planning, governance, stakeholder engagement, change management, pilot testing, and release/testing practices, contrasted with challenges from policy deadlines, extensibility limits, customization fragility, and implementation governance.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":11,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/presentations/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/lessons-learned-summary-lessons-learned/167262/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/lessons-learned-summary-lessons-learned/167262.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Rhys","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document","2026-09-29","2026-08-31",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":47},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What worked well across the projects, according to the document?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The document emphasizes upfront planning, RFP development and vendor selection, strong governance, close federal partner engagement, and dedicated organizational change management. It also highlights robust stakeholder engagement and comprehensive training plus on-site county support during major releases.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What were common challenges or surprises the teams faced?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"Teams encountered tight deadlines tied to Affordable Care Act timing, frequent policy changes, and complexity in adapting county-specific systems and processes. The document also notes broad stakeholder counts requiring unique communication and engagement.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How did Liquor Control modernization improve from v1.0 to v2.0?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"v1.0 relied on heavy customizations and suffered from fragility, instability, and unstructured onboarding. v2.0 improved by driving requirements from business needs with strong staff involvement, using configuration instead of customizations, and focusing first on stabilizing core backbone capabilities before extending and refining.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},167262,1788211007,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":8,"category_name":11,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":47,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":125,"read_time":15},687207024643,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","Lessons Learned\neProcurement R1\nJanuary 2019\nNote: R1 includes p-card eCatalog.\neLicense Ohio\nSeptember 17, 2018\nThe answers to the key question below apply to the migration from CAVU to the Salesforce platform. These answers do not apply to the Irondata project. Responses were provided by the project owner.\nOhio Benefits Project (2013-2018)\nSeptember 6, 2018\nKey Questions (Responses were provided by the project owner):\nWhat worked well for this project or for the project team?\nConsiderable focus on upfront planning, RFP development and vendor selection.\nStrong HHS Governance led by the Ohio Office of Health Transformation and partnership/collaboration between the Departments of Administrative Services (DAS), Medicaid (ODM) and Job and Family Services (ODJFS).\nActive engagement and coordination with the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), our Federal partners, supporting the programs and project.\nDedicated and comprehensive organizational change management effort to support the project. Specific efforts include:\nRobust stakeholder engagement including focused effort working with the 88 Counties and building strong ties to the Ohio Job and Family Services Directors Association (OJFSDA)\nComprehensive and inclusive training strategy and execution including training in the Counties as well as web based offerings\nDedicated resources to provide on-site support to Counties during the largest releases.\nDeliberate decision to focus on quality. Strategy included:\nConducting a robust pilot program by selecting 5 Counties to pilot the new SNAP/TANF functionality prior to releasing to all 88 Counties.\nSubstantial time and effort dedicated to testing efforts, and in particular user acceptance testing.\nRelease schedule that focused on monthly or quarterly large releases but also accommodating for more frequent hot-fixes to accommodate more urgent needs.\nWhat did not work well for this project or for the project team? N/A\nWhat could have been done over or differently? N/A\nWhat surprises did the team have to deal with?\nProject began under very tight deadlines given the Affordable Care Act deadline and Ohio’s expansion of Medicaid.\nProject had to adapt and be responsive to a variety of policy changes from ODM, the most significant being the policy change from a 209B to a 1634 State.\nThe uniqueness of each of the County office in terms of structure, systems used as well as approach toward citizen engagement proved a challenge for the project team as the Counties adopted a new system and changed processes to adopt efficiencies.\nThe project had over 150 unique stakeholders across the State that required attention and unique communication and engagement needs. Many of which are strong voices and partners across the State and local community.\nWhat project circumstances were not anticipated? N/A\nWere the project goals attained? If not, what changes need to be made to meet goals in the future?\nThe Ohio Benefits project has exceeded the goals that were originally set by the Office of Health Transformation. The impact of the Ohio Benefits project extends far beyond the originally anticipated objectives. The project has become a nationally recognized program for not only its successful implementation of one of the largest and most complex projects across the nation, but furthermore, for the robust portfolio of innovative and transformative projects the project has pioneered (i.e. Enterprise EDMS, Robotics Process Automation, IVR, etc).\nOhio Department of Transportation,\nOAKS Onboarding (August 2015 to date)\nOctober 5, 2017\nDOT drivers behind decision to terminate project:\nComplex nature of DOT’s business needs\nLimited extensibility of OAKS in its current form to meet DOT’s business needs\nThe level of restructuring necessary within the existing OAKS system to meet those needs, and\nThe level of ongoing maintenance necessary due to the level of customization required.\nDOT has chosen to abandon OAKS adoption","cbCaioYg0Ymw81Z5","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaioYg0Ymw81Z5","docx",125009,34,"English","# Lessons Learned\n## Key Questions and Responses\n## Project Examples (Ohio Benefits, OAKS, Liquor Control)","[{\"question\":\"What worked well across the projects, according to the document?\",\"answer\":\"The document emphasizes upfront planning, RFP development and vendor selection, strong governance, close federal partner engagement, and dedicated organizational change management. It also highlights robust stakeholder engagement and comprehensive training plus on-site county support during major releases.\"},{\"question\":\"What were common challenges or surprises the teams faced?\",\"answer\":\"Teams encountered tight deadlines tied to Affordable Care Act timing, frequent policy changes, and complexity in adapting county-specific systems and processes. The document also notes broad stakeholder counts requiring unique communication and engagement.\"},{\"question\":\"How did Liquor Control modernization improve from v1.0 to v2.0?\",\"answer\":\"v1.0 relied on heavy customizations and suffered from fragility, instability, and unstructured onboarding. v2.0 improved by driving requirements from business needs with strong staff involvement, using configuration instead of customizations, and focusing first on stabilizing core backbone capabilities before extending and refining.\"}]","Lessons Learned - Summary Lessons Learned | DOCX"]