Review of payroll and

rostering solutions
Queensland Health
September 2010
In March, 2010, Queensland Health went live
with a new payroll and rostering solution for all
staff in every location across the state.
Queensland Health engaged Ernst & Young in
August 2010 to conduct a review of the payroll
and rostering systems.
Contents
Executive summary 2

Introduction and scope 7

Current state assessment 10

Vendor analysis 15

Peer analysis overview 19

Solution options assessment 21

Findings 28

Conclusion 32

Appendix A: Detailed solution options assessment 34

Our report may be relied upon by Queensland Health for the purpose of the review
on its rostering and payroll solution only pursuant to the terms of our engagement
letter dated 2 July 2010. We disclaim all responsibility to any other party for any
loss or liability that the other party may suffer or incur arising from or relating to or
in any way connected with the contents of our report, the provision of our report to
any other party or the reliance upon our report by any other party.
 1. Executive summary
In July, 2010, Queensland Health engaged Ernst & Young to conduct a review of its payroll
and rostering systems to establish their ongoing suitability for Queensland Health, and to
ascertain what potential options are available to resolve the recently experienced payroll
problems.

Ernst & Young did not undertake a review of the root causes of the problems being
experienced. However, the review was undertaken cognisant of the origins of these
problems. To inform our findings, we undertook:

► Extensive consultation and engagement with a broad range of Queensland Health staff
stakeholder groups and all 13 Queensland Health unions to gain a comprehensive
understanding of the issues and their origins. Specifically, Ernst & Young listened,
observed and spoke with staff in 8 payroll processing locations across regional and
remote Queensland during the duration of the review

► A vendor analysis to understand systems solution options , their suitability for

Queensland Health’s ongoing and future requirements, the commercial conditions
necessary for a successful implementation and maintenance of an ongoing business
relationship

► A peer review of other health care organisations, locally and internationally, to

understand the approach and systems utilised elsewhere

Our extensive consultations with staff identified ongoing people, process and technology
issues with the current solution. These issues are currently managed through the Payroll
Improvement Program “PIP”, however, their complexity means this approach is not
sustainable in the long term without ongoing and significant additional resource
investment. Further, we consider that the solution in its current state is not able to
effectively respond to the National Health Reform Agenda, the introduction of Local Health
and Hospitals Network1 and the need for integrated workforce information.

Our vendor analysis across the payroll and rostering software market found that:

1. SAP can provide an appropriate payroll solution for Queensland Health. This is
because SAP has a:

► Large local, national and global skill base that exists to support the SAP Payroll
solution

► Mature presence in both the national and global healthcare industry

► Significant local, national and global implementations that exist for the SAP
Payroll solution in related industries

► Demonstrated commitment to ongoing investment in its healthcare solution

SAP is also currently being used by Queensland Health for its Finance solution,
minimising potential integration impacts.

1
The Council of Australian Governments (excluding Western Australia) recently announced major reform to how
health and hospital services will be managed into the future. These reforms will be delivered through the National
Health and Hospitals Network, with each State working closely with their Commonwealth counterparts to
understand the specific impacts of the reforms.

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  2
 2. There is no clear market leader of rostering products used in the Australian or
international health care sector. Rather, there are several “like” products currently
being used. Further, there is no dominant payroll and rostering solution which is
specifically designed to work together for the health care sector, although some
product owners certify their products operate successfully together

3. Whilst recognising and understanding the current issues in the existing rostering
system, Workbrain, the analysis indicates that these problems should be able to be
fixed and the solution improved to adequately meet the needs of Queensland Health’s
rostering requirements

4. The replacement of the Workbrain system component of the solution with an

alternative software product would place additional burden on staff and require
significant effort and investment from Queensland Health. For example, this effort
would include additional reconfiguring, testing and staff training over and above fixing
the Workbrain solution. This would result in additional burden to staff on top of their
daily duties, potential further delay in resolving award interpretation for staff and
risking a continued loss of confidence in Queensland Health’s ability to resolve the
situation

Central to the findings of this report is the need for comprehensive support for any
subsequent project activities conducted by Queensland Health. This support will be
required in the form of change management, training planning and execution to support
staff and minimise negative impacts, create consistent and broadly disseminated
communication, and effective, targeted training and education. This would include
refresher training for all staff participating in the implementation of payroll and rostering
processes.

A peer review highlighted the unique characteristics of Queensland Health’s rostering and
payroll structure when compared to others – Full Time Equivalent (FTE) size, large
geographic distribution and importantly, the complexity of its industrial awards. The peer
review also identified key “success themes” in implementations of similar solutions with the
major success theme being, many of the health care sector solutions have been developed
to operate on a “local“ level technology platform of around 5,000 – 15,000 staff (e.g. at
the District or Hospital level).

From the findings of the staff consultation, vendor analysis and peer review, we generated
a list of options available to Queensland Health to rectify current payroll errors:

► Option 1 – Stabilise the existing solution environment (i.e. invest in the current solution
through the fixing of existing system issues)

► Option 2 – Stabilise and optimise the existing solution environment (i.e. undertake an
“optimise” project of the current systems to resolve all current issues and improve
usability at the local level)

► Option 3 - Replace the existing rostering system whilst retaining the current payroll
system

► Option 4 - Replace all existing rostering and payroll systems

► Option 5 – Outsource the payroll function to an external organisation

► Option 6 – Do nothing (i.e. no further investment in the current systems)

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  3
 These options have been analysed and evaluated for the risk they presented to
Queensland Health in terms of:

► Successful delivery of effective payroll and rostering services to support Queensland

Health staff

► Overall impact on payroll, administrative and IT support staff

► Ability to support changes in the health care sector, both State and Federal

► Commercial risks inherent in the software vendor commercials and contracts

Based on the options assessment above (informed by the findings from our
consultation and engagement with Queensland Health staff and unions,
vendor analysis and peer review) the most effective and efficient, lowest
risk option for delivering solution outcomes in relation to removing staff
“pain” and better supporting the payroll process is:
Option 2 – Stabilise and optimise the existing solution
environment
The key components of the most effective and efficient, lowest risk option include:

1. The re-implementation of the Queensland Health solution should be conducted as a

new program with a defined and agreed vision (that also considers the Finance solution
vision), in parallel to ongoing activities of PIP. This program was established to
stabilise the current systems and implement fixes that can provide some immediate
relief to payroll operators and recipients. It should be noted that this new program will
need up to 3 years to achieve the ultimate vision and be fully rolled out to all
Queensland Health districts/divisions, however during this time there will be ongoing
issues prioritisation and fixes

2. The re-implementation of the rostering system, Workbrain, with realigned functionality

and comprehensive improvements to the underlying supporting technology platform

3. Once the majority of current stabilisation activities have been achieved, Queensland
Health should also look to transition PIP resources into the optimisation project to
allow for continuity of existing knowledge and skills

4. In response to the issues encountered with the centralised rostering and payroll
business model, Queensland Health is implementing a new payroll operating model and
is currently piloting this model in two sites, with the objective of providing improved
services at the district/hospital/divisional level. Therefore, any activities to address
current issues should be fully scoped and conducted in line with the objectives of this
new business payroll operating model

5. Urgent confirmation is required that:

a. Detailed analysis to confirm that current system issues can be resolved by the
vendor in a timely manner

b. Appropriate commercial and service level agreements and suitable contracts can
be negotiated with the system vendors, including access to locally skilled
resources

Note: If the outcome of these urgent confirmation activities drastically affects the
feasibility and increases the risk profile, Queensland Health should adopt Option 3

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  4
 - Replace the existing rostering system (whilst retaining the current payroll
system).

The recommendations that Ernst & Young make that need to be followed
for the successful implementation of the most effective and efficient, lowest
risk option include:
1. Immediately initiate the Queensland Health optimise project to confirm the
implementation roadmap and plan including the following key activities:

a. Commence development of a detailed “Program Management Plan”

b. Establish a robust governance model in alignment with the Queensland Audit

Office recommendations.

c. Incorporate and clearly identify the consideration of lessons learnt from the
current solution, both from the past and in the present, and embed into relevant
activities in the roadmap

d. Review and implement robust commercial arrangements for system development

and support

e. Mobilise the project team for the Optimise Project Initiation Phase, which needs
to minimise impact on current stabilisation activities and resources (including
skilled Workbrain and SAP resources)

f. Conduct business requirement collection and confirmation, together with a

detailed “fit” gap analysis (this includes formal documentation and progressive
sign offs)

g. Prioritise investment activities between the Optimise Project Initiation Phase and
other related projects to maximise Queensland Health’s Return On Investment
(ROI)

2. In line with the new payroll operating model, design the new solution at the “local”, or
decentralised, level, in particular taking rostering back to the local/district/divisional
level to:

a. Address the issues that have been experienced through the centralised model, i.e.
the loss of localised processing knowledge in relation to local working conditions
and challenges

b. Allow Queensland Health to support their own eHealth agenda and respond to
changes in the Health sector, Federally (as in the case of National Health Reform),
and at a State level (in terms of legislative change and industrial changes)

3. Ernst & Young recognises that substantial work to address current payroll issues
(through PIP) has already occurred to date. Queensland Health should continue this
work alongside a formalised issue prioritisation strategy

4. Establish a global Workbrain healthcare working group to share and leverage existing
improvements in the solution

Ernst & Young would like to extend its sincere appreciation and thanks to the following
stakeholders and organisations, for their time, information and support throughout the
review process (listed alphabetically):

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  5
 ► Other professional service organisations

► Peer healthcare sector agencies

► Queensland Health clinical staff

► Queensland Health non-clinical staff

► Queensland Health payroll and administrative staff

► Queensland Health union representatives and their members

► Software vendors

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  6
 2. Introduction and scope
Queensland Health employs approximately 78,000 employees in 200 locations across
Queensland. In 2007, a decision was made to adopt SAP HR/Payroll and Workbrain (“the
solution”) to support Queensland Health’s payroll and rostering functions respectively. As
shown in Figure 1 below, the solution was intended to be an interim one and would be
delivered under a centralised rostering and payroll model with no improvement of existing
business processes. Any enhanced system functionality, such as the ability for employees to
book their own leave through Employee Self Serve (“ESS”), was to be built at a later date.

Figure 1: Current situation

On 8 March, 2010, the solution went live. Since then Queensland Health has experienced
significant payroll errors resulting in staff being overpaid, underpaid, or not paid at all. In
June, 2010, the Auditor-General of Queensland conducted a review of the Queensland
Health information systems governance and control in relation to the Continuity Project.
The findings of this review were published in a report titled “Report to Parliament No. 7 for
2010 information systems governance and control, including the Queensland Health
Implementation of Continuity Project” (the Auditor-General Report).

The Auditor-General Report identified a number of factors with the implementation of the
new payroll and rostering solution which have contributed to the payroll issues being
experienced by Queensland Health. In response to the financial distress this caused many
employees, Queensland Health undertook immediate action to stabilise the payroll and
rostering solution and to make payments to those staff who were underpaid, or not paid at
all. This was achieved through the establishment of the Payroll Stabilisation Project
(“PSP”), which has now evolved into PIP. Both of these are operationally focused to pay
staff correctly as soon as possible.

2.1 Scope and approach

In parallel to the above, a joint statement2 was released on Tuesday June 29, 2010 from
the Premier and Minister for the Arts, The Honourable Anna Bligh and the Deputy Premier
and Minister for Health, The Honourable Paul Lucas which stated that Ernst & Young had
been engaged by Queensland Health to provide a review of the most commonly deployed
payroll and rostering solutions in the national and international healthcare sector. This
statement formed Ernst & Young’s Terms of Reference for this engagement.

2
Joint Statement: Premier and Minister for the Arts The Honourable Anna Bligh and the Deputy Premier and
Minister for Health The Honourable Paul Lucas Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  7
 The joint statement further outlined the intention for Queensland Health to work with Ernst
& Young in consultation with staff and unions to confirm the most suitable roster and award
interpreter configuration that delivers staff the payroll outcome they deserve as quickly as
possible. This may involve reconfiguring the current systems or introducing alternatives,
however it should be noted this review was not intended to be a system procurement
exercise. Accordingly, whilst this review has considered the origin of the current issues in
making this assessment of ongoing system options, it is not a review of the root causes of
the original project problems.

Ernst & Young’s approach to this engagement was to assess the options available for
stabilising and optimising the current environment, and determining which of these delivers
the most effective and efficient, lowest risk outcome in relation to removing staff “pain”
and better supporting the payroll process.

This approach has been provided in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2: Ernst & Young approach to the review

The information outlined in Figure 2 and comprehensive consultation with unions and their
members assisted with the analysis of the solution options.

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  8
 2.1.1 Out of scope items
The following were out of scope for this review:

► Vendor analysis of specific Queensland Health business requirements against

software functionality

► The configuration and customisation of the current systems

► The SAP finance system – however this has been taken into consideration as part of
our solution options assessment in relation to impacts on integration

► Costing studies or exercises for the implementation of the new rostering and payroll
solution for Queensland Health

► A system procurement process

2.1.2 Assumptions
The information, findings and recommendations contained in this review are based on the
following assumptions:

► The recommendations will be implemented as a matter of priority

► Business requirements for the current known system issues will be confirmed, and
signed off in the next 6 months

► A ‘solution’ in this report implies people, process and technology “connectivity” or

integration, as each are interdependent for the successful delivery of any technology
enabled business transformation project

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  9
 3. Current state assessment
This section provides a summary of the key “pain points”3 gathered through an extensive
stakeholder consultation and engagement process (including discussions with unions,
clinical, non-clinical and administrative and payroll and technical support staff).

Although the focus of the review was to assess the system options available for stabilising
and optimising the current environment, it is important to understand both the people and
the business processes that the systems are supporting. Therefore, to identify all relevant
issues, feedback was sought and captured from the people, process and technology
perspectives.

The information below is summarised and presented for a broader stakeholder audience.
Ernst & Young’s approach to this process followed a rigorous methodology to gain a
comprehensive understanding of the current state.

3.1 Approach
Our approach to understanding the current Queensland Health solution is represented in
Table 1 below:

Table 1: Approach to current state

Step 1: Existing documents and reports

In consultation with Queensland Health staff, we identified relevant documentation

which informed our review process.

Step 2: Formal discussions with unions

At the request of the Queensland Premier and the Health Minister we held joint
briefing sessions with unions to confirm our engagement approach, understand their
issues with regard to the current solution and identify members to participate in the
consultation process.

Step 3: Consultation with stakeholders and union members

Based on the briefing and feedback received in Step 2 above, we consulted with staff
at eight payroll processing sites (“hubs and spokes”) within Queensland Health
including regional and metropolitan areas. We also consulted with other key
stakeholders including the union delegates, Nurse Unit Managers, non-clinical and
support staff and staff within PIP within Queensland Health.

Step 4: Validation with key stakeholders

The field data obtained in Step 3 was assessed and validated through a consultation
process that included staff within the payroll state wide operations team. This
validation process also included feedback from solution vendors.

3
A pain point in the context of this review has been defined as anything that restricts the effective completion of
an activity, both inside and outside the technology.
Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  10
 3.2 Extensive Queensland Health staff and stakeholder
consultation and engagement
The Ernst & Young review team consulted and engaged broadly across stakeholder groups
and geographic locations to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issues and their
origins. This was intended to assist the review team in identifying people, process and
technology issues. This consultation and engagement was a critical step in this review to
provide Queensland Health staff and stakeholders with the opportunity to contribute to the
future rostering and payroll solution. The process for consultation and engagement of staff
was developed and agreed with Queensland Health and the 13 Queensland Health unions.

Specifically, Ernst & Young listened, observed and spoke with 8 payroll processing locations
across regional and remote Queensland for a day. These locations have been provided and
identified in the map of Queensland below:

Payroll sites consulted and engaged (listed

alphabetically):
► Barcaldine
► Cairns
► Chinchilla
► Ipswich
► Meadowbrook
► Rockhampton
► Townsville
► Warwick

Figure 3: Areas Consulted and Engaged

3.3 Current landscape and pain point summary

Presented in Table 2 below is the range of pain points communicated to the review team
from the stakeholders interviewed.

The yellow columns indicate the number of pain points found in the labelled category and
the grey columns indicate how many times the pain points in the labelled category were
raised.

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  11
 Table 2: Pain point summary
People
► Lack of training in both SAP and
Workbrain, including an understanding of
how information flows between both
systems
► Clarity of communication of solution fixes
40 from Queensland Health to end users are
35 not timely and inconsistent
30 ► Staff morale has been negatively impacted
25
and staff have reported a loss of pride in
their work
20
► Staff receiving incorrect payments are
15
reporting financial distress and frustration
10

0
Communication Support Training

Number of issues raised by staff

Number of times times issues were raised by staff

Process
► Centralised rostering and payroll business
model has led to loss of localised
processing knowledge, for example in
relation to local working conditions and
challenges
30 ► Paper-driven business processes do not
adequately allow for efficient data
25
processing (such as rosters being
20 developed on paper or Microsoft Excel and
then entered manually into Workbrain,
15
resulting in the double handling of rosters)
10 ► The current technology (fax server) used
5
to accept rosters, shift changes and
overtime etc has proven to be an
0 inefficient way of managing payroll items.
Business Process 
Accuracy
Business Process 
Compliance
Form Submission 
Through Fax Server
The fax server also crashes periodically.

Number of issues raised by staff

Number of times times issues were raised by staff

Technology
► The centralised rostering and payroll
technology platform of the Workbrain
system is significantly impacting on
120 performance of the solution
► Processing of leave is a long and tedious
100
process
80 ► Unacceptable system performance is
60
causing crashes and reduces accessibility,
particularly prior to a pay cut off
40
► Flow of information between systems does
20 not allow for efficient processing for items
0
such as staff termination and leave
Technology accuracy, System functionality and processing
performance and stability features
► Workbrain does not currently support
Number of issues raised by staff
Number of times times issues were raised by staff
concurrent employees (i.e. staff with more
than one role in Queensland Health)

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  12
 These pain points have been recognised by Queensland Health and the known system
issues logged for resolution. It should be noted some pain points will require a re-
development of the current system or changes to the underlying technology platform for
their effective resolution. For those pain points that can be addressed in the shorter term,
it is considered critical that the ongoing PIP continues.

Recommendation: Ernst & Young recognises that substantial work to address current payroll issues
(through PIP) has already occurred to date. Queensland Health should continue this work alongside
with a formalised issue prioritisation strategy

Section 3.3.1 below provides details of a scenario designed to illustrate some of the key
issues above in a practical sense.

3.3.1 Pain point scenario

Figure 4 below provides a scenario (rostering concurrent employees) to clearly demonstrate
the real impact on staff and what the review recommendations will look to solve.

The red dots indicate areas in the process where pain points are being experienced and
have been labelled by letter and described to the right of the illustration.

Sally is a concurrent employee, she works at a metropolitan facility as a part time, registered nurse in a surgical ward and in another role, provides casual relief to another
department in the same facility. Under the current configuration Sally has two Workbrain employee IDs one for each of her roles.

John, Sally’s Line Manager for her role as a registered nurse in the metropolitan area submits her roster to the Shared Service Provider for Monday, Tuesday and Thursday shifts.
Following this submission, Julie, Sally’s Line Manager for her relief role submits her AVAC (used by non-rostered staff to report hours worked) to the Shared Service Provider for
Monday, Wednesday and Thursday shifts. Workbrain does not alert the payroll roster plotter that Julie is a concurrent Queensland Health staff member, or that she has already
been allocated shifts for both Monday and Thursday in her alternative position.

This can result in Sally being paid in both positions for both conflicting days if the form submitted for the position she did not work in is not received in time for processing within the
pay cycle.

Customer needs & questions:

Paint Points
A – A second roster is submitted by
another Line Manager for a
Staff Member concurrent employee that includes
two conflicting shifts. Line Managers
do not have access to Workbrain to
A D
view if the concurrent employee is
Changes to already rostered.
Hospitality
Nursing Line roster
Line B – Workbrain views concurrent
Manager submitted
Manager employees as two individuals, so no
error is created when the conflicting
days are plotted.
E
C – The roster information is then
Roster AVAC Changes sent from Workbrain a to SAP whilst
received Form received the employee is still double booked
which could create an overpayment if
not rectified.

B D – The relevant Line Manager is

then required to submit a form to the
Shared Service Shared Service Changes Shared Service Provider to cancel
Provider plots Provider plots C entered F
roster roster the shifts in Workbrain that the
employee did not work.
Data Data
transfer transfer E – The changes are made by the
Shared Service Provider in
Workbrain to remove the conflicting
shift/s. This is not always possible
prior to cut-off due to the information
transfer through the fax server and
the backlog of changes to be
Paper/Microsoft Excel actioned.
Fax server
F – If the roster changes have not
Workbrain been requested or processed, this
can result in the employee being
SAP overpaid.

KEY: Information flow to systems Business process flow Pain Point

Figure 4: Pain point scenario

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  13
 3.4 Conclusion
Based on the information provided above, the following “current state” themes clearly
emerge:

► A large number of the pain points identified are training, communication and change
management based. In particular, the lack of training has in some cases resulted in the
misuse of Workbrain and SAP

► The technical issues within the solution fall into the following categories:

i Centralised rostering and payroll technology platform

ii Management of concurrent employees
iii Leave management
iv System performance
v Flow of information between Workbrain and SAP (interfaces)

► There is a preference amongst Queensland Health payroll staff for the system to be
retained if the technical challenges can be resolved

► The pain points identified are consistent across the 8 payroll sites that were consulted
and engaged

► If the key recommendations of this report are not commenced, and clear progress
communicated to all stakeholders, Queensland Health will continue to see staff stress
and workplace impacts

► Finding a solution that comprehensively supports Queensland Health’s size and

complexity, such as award structures and working conditions, is difficult. The Program
to resolve current issues will require a significant undertaking by Queensland Health
which will need to be managed via two projects: stabilisation and optimisation (note:
this will form part of the roadmap which has been provided in a later section of this
report)

► The solution in its current state may not be able to effectively respond to the National
Health Reform Agenda and the introduction of National Health and Hospitals Network.
Although Information and Communications Technology (ICT) considerations are
unclear, it is important to understand the potential implications for the current
solution, such as the localised management and autonomy of solutions, which could
include rostering and payroll

Recommendation: The design of the new solution be flexible and robust to allow Queensland Health to respond to
changes in the in the Health sector, both federally, as in the case of National Health Reform , and at a State level in
terms of legislative change and industrial changes

Recommendation: Incorporate and clearly identify the consideration of lessons learnt from the current solution,
both from the past and in the present, and embed into relevant activities in the roadmap

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  14
 4. Vendor analysis
4.1 Approach
In parallel with the current state assessment, the Ernst & Young review team commenced
an analysis of key vendors for both the payroll and rostering systems components
respectively. Vendors were either identified as part of Ernst & Young’s market research or
through the vendors making direct contact with the Queensland Government or ourselves.

As an outcome from the Current State Assessment above, it was identified that the
majority of the current system issues being experienced by Queensland Health were a
result of the configuration of the current setup of the time and attendance and rostering
solution.

In relation to payroll, literature reviews conducted by Ernst & Young for Queensland Health,
and discussions with the payroll vendor SAP indicated a:

► Large local, national and global skill base exists to support the SAP Payroll solution

► Mature presence in both the national and global healthcare industry

► Significant local, national and global implementations exist for the SAP Payroll
solution in related industries

► Demonstrated commitment to ongoing investment in its healthcare solution

Given these strengths and the fact that SAP is currently used by Queensland Health for its
finance solution (minimising potential integration impacts), the review team concluded that,
on the assumption that the recommendations of this report are implemented by
Queensland Health, SAP can provide an appropriate payroll solution for Queensland Health.
This meant that a significant focus of the vendor analysis was on the rostering solution
market (however the vendor analysis did review alternate payroll systems).

Whilst the above provides a level of comfort to Ernst & Young, Queensland Health’s
requirements are complex. Therefore one of the key recommendations is to define clear
checkpoints to marry the system’s functionality versus the documented and singed off
business requirements.

It should be noted that whilst an understanding of the current systems was being gathered,
Ernst & Young was contacted by other payroll system providers who were also interviewed
to allow a better end to end solution understanding.

Our approach to the rostering vendor analysis is outlined below:

Step 1: Identify and conduct interviews with vendors

Ernst & Young undertook a national and global literature review of rostering products with a
proven track record in the healthcare industry. This review identified that there was no
single dominant rostering system within the healthcare industry, however, the following
major vendors were identified with strong healthcare experience:

► Infor (owner of the Workbrain system)

► Kronos

► Integrated Workforce Solutions (IWS)

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  15
 ► Allocate

► AMS

► RosterOn

► Microster

These rostering vendors were then interviewed to obtain a high level overview of the
rostering solutions. For completeness, our interview process included vendors who made
unsolicited contact, as well as those we identified and approached directly.

Step 2: Analyse discussions and documentation

The objective of Step 2 was to analyse the documentation gathered against the known high
level Queensland Health system requirements and current pain points. This review included
assessing product overviews and corporate profiles as well as considering the outputs of
interviews conducted by the Ernst & Young review team.

Step 3: Shortlist vendors

Those vendors that had adequate healthcare experience were then shortlisted via a two
stage process:

► Stage 1: Assessment against key criteria to determine suitability for Queensland

Health

► Stage 2: Corporate assessment to determine ongoing investment of the product in the

healthcare sector

As part of Stage 1 of Step 3 we identified the following three mandatory criteria for our
first round shortlisting process:

► National and local presence and resources for support in Brisbane

► Credentials of Queensland healthcare sector clients, and therefore a knowledge of the

Queensland award structures

► Proven Australian healthcare sector experience

The rostering solution vendors that did not satisfy these mandatory criteria were not
shortlisted in this first round. In the instance where two or more vendors satisfied the
above mandatory criteria, the following “highly desirable” criteria were used as a key
differentiator:

► Demonstrated global presence and experience in the healthcare industry

► Experience in other industries in Australia that have implemented our target vendor
solutions

► The number of resources and support the vendors have to offer nationally and the
locations they are based

► GITC 5 accredited (Government Information Technology Contracting Framework,

version 5). This is administered by GITC Services which works closely with both
Government agencies and the ICT industry to simplify the purchasing process. The
Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  16
 GITC terms and conditions are designed to remove uncertainties and inconsistencies in
contractual procurement arrangements

Following the assessment against the key criteria (Stage 1) we conducted a corporate
assessment (Stage 2). The purpose of this review was to focus on their corporate
background in terms of their:

► Key offerings

► Their target markets and industries

► Customers and business partners that they engage with

► Growth strategy

► Financials

► Level of experience and credentials in the healthcare industry

► Commitment to the Australian market

In summary this review was to establish their suitability as a business partner for
Queensland Health.

Step 4: Conduct healthcare client interviews

In parallel to the company information review, we asked those shortlisted vendors that had
adequate healthcare sector experience to provide client contact points (the outcome of
these interviews are provided in the peer analysis section). The purpose of these interviews
was to understand:

► The relationship, responsiveness and support of the respective vendor

► The complexity and organisation size in comparison with Queensland Health

► The rostering functions

► The effectiveness of the solution

4.2 Conclusion
Based on the assessment and process outlined above, the following rostering vendors were
shortlisted for consideration as options for Queensland Health. These vendors
demonstrated that they met all the mandatory criteria and whose client references
provided feedback that the systems were able to meet their respective business
requirements.

► Kronos

► Workbrain

Note: Should Workbrain be unable to address the current critical system issues or negotiate a suitable commercial
arrangement with Queensland Health, Queensland Health should further investigate a suitable replacement using
the outcome of the vendor analysis as a starting point

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  17
 4.3 Key themes
Key themes that emerged from the vendor analysis include:

► Rostering challenges in Australia appear to be based around access to skilled resources

► The rostering solution market has no clear leader

► The leading rostering solutions are developed offshore, increasing the challenge to
meet regulatory and operational requirements in Australia
► No dominant payroll and rostering solution which is specifically designed to work
together for the healthcare sector, although some product owners certify their
products’ operating compatibility

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  18
 5. Peer analysis overview
This section provides a summary of information and feedback from discussions held with
peer healthcare agencies in Australia and around the globe. A primary objective of these
discussions was to identify any similar organisations around the world with a payroll and
rostering solution similar in size and scale to that of Queensland Health. It was also to
understand key success factors and lessons learnt in implementing their systems. The
review team also wanted to understand how other healthcare agencies approach rostering
and payroll functions and if any of these approaches could be leveraged for developing an
improved future state for Queensland Health.

Ernst & Young also held discussions with two other organisations outside the healthcare
sector that use similar systems to Queensland Health.

The healthcare agencies and other organisations that Ernst & Young held discussions with
cannot be named for commercial-in-confidence reasons. However, the organisations
consulted included major Australian healthcare agencies, overseas major healthcare
agencies as well as a retail organisation and a service delivery organisation with similar
complexity to Queensland Health.

5.1 Approach
The approach taken to identify, interview and analyse the information gathered from
agencies and other organisations is outlined below in Table 3.

Table 3: Approach to peer analysis

Step 1: Identify peer agencies

Ernst & Young utilised its existing client base and its discussions with vendors to
identify peer healthcare agencies and other organisations within Australia and
globally that had similarities to Queensland Health.

Step 2: Understand the agency

We developed a standard set of questions to:

► Understand the organisation and its complexity compared to Queensland
Health
► Gather information about its approach to rostering and payroll functions
► Identify the current solutions in place and how effectively they are supporting
the organisation

Step 3: Validate information

We collated and documented the information from Step 2 and where required, asked
each organisation to validate this documentation.

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  19
 Step 4: Analyse and identify key differences

Following the validation process, the information was analysed to identify any key
differences in approaches and whether these could be leveraged for future
optimisation activities.

5.2 Summary of peer analysis

Queensland Health’s centralisation of its rostering and payroll function for 78,000 staff and
underlying technology platform, based on the range of healthcare agencies we have
consulted with, is rare in the world in terms of size and scale. Many of the healthcare
industry solutions have been developed to operate on a “local“ level system solution on an
underlying technology platform for 5,000 – 15,000 staff (e.g. at the District or Hospital
level).

Other clear themes that emerged from our peer healthcare agency review:

► Annual leave is typically managed by the payroll system effectively reducing the need
to exchange information between solutions, which can affect system performance and
availability (within Queensland Health, annual leave accumulation resides in the
rostering system)
► Similar to the current configuration in Queensland Health, award interpretation
predominately occurs in the rostering solution to allow for real time interpretation of
awards (such as allowances) against hours worked
► Most healthcare agencies manage rostering at a district or hospital level and use
Employee Self Service (ESS) functionality (this means that employees can carry out
activities such as managing and requesting their own leave and reviewing their
rostering details). ESS ultimately reduces the administration effort and number of
paper driven transactions
► Most healthcare agencies utilise Manage Self Service (MSS) functionality (whereby line
managers can plot and publish their own unit’s rosters), reducing administration effort
and the double handling of rosters
► Other healthcare agencies in Australia and globally have seen benefit from biometric
devices such as swipe cards and finger print scanners. Such devices electronically
track exceptions in rosters such as staff sick days or overtime, as opposed to manually
submitting a form for processing

The key themes above suggest that Queensland Health has opportunities and areas to
further improve and enhance its payroll and rostering solutions. Some of these themes
could be leveraged and applied in the current system to provide improvements to
Queensland Health. It is recommended, therefore, that Queensland Health establish
relationships with peer healthcare organisations to maximise this opportunity. It should be
noted that some of these opportunities, such as the use of biometrics, would require
significant change both technically and organisationally.

Recommendation: Design the new solution at the “local”, or decentralised, level, in particular taking rostering
back to the local/district/divisional level

Recommendation: Establish a global Workbrain healthcare working group to share and leverage existing
improvements in the solution

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  20
 6. Solution options assessment
This section uses the information gathered in the previous sections to inform the
assessment of the solution options (“options”) available to Queensland Health to effectively
reduce the risk of ongoing impacts on the current solution.

Therefore, each of the options identified below has been assessed against their ability to
stabilise, improve and enhance the current Queensland Health rostering and payroll
environment to support the complete, accurate and prompt payment of staff.

The definition of a “solution” in the context of this report refers to people, process and
technology challenges as each are interdependent for the successful delivery of any
technology enabled business transformation project.

Merely focusing on ‘fixing’ the systems, and not improving people aspects (e.g. change
management and training) and business process aspects (e.g. reliance on paper based
processes) may stabilise the IT environment, however it will not drastically improve
information quality nor a robust and flexible environment to respond effectively to
changing requirements. This would include responding to the requirements of the National
Health Reform, and in particular, the National Health and Hospitals Network (NHHN).

Provided below is our approach to assessing available options.

6.1 Approach to options assessment

The objective of the options assessment is the identification of the most effective and
efficient, lowest risk option for Queensland Health as opposed to an assessment made
purely on the basis of cost or functional benefit. Ernst & Young has taken a rigorous
methodological approach to identifying these options and consulted broadly with
stakeholders to gain a better understanding of the implications of future change.

A summary of our approach is outlined in Table 4 below:

Table 4: Approach to solution options assessment

Step 1: Identify options

Identification of possible options is based on:

► Analysis of current state information and engagement with key stakeholders on
their issues with the current solution
► Analysis of the current rostering and payroll market
► Workshops with key stakeholders to discuss available options and their
potential configurations
Step 2: Assess options

The resulting list of options has been assessed against risk principles that consider
the organisation, its people and processes and the available technologies.

Options which scored a high risk against the risk assessment principles have been
automatically excluded from additional consideration.

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  21
 Step 3: Analyse refined options

Options which scored a moderate or low risk against the assessment principles were
shortlisted and further assessed against:
► Option capability assessment: analyse if the option is capable of addressing the
key issues identified by Ernst & Young during site visits, stakeholder
engagements and the payroll state wide operations team ( this team is
responsible for addressing issues escalated from Queensland Health payroll
processing hubs)
► Option risk and impact assessment: analyse the strengths, weaknesses, people
impacts, process impacts and implementation risks

Step 4: Determine the most effective and efficient, lowest risk option

The outcome of Step 3: Analyse refined options is to provide the most effective and
efficient, lowest risk option for Queensland Health for delivering solution outcomes
in terms of removing staff “pain” and better supporting the payroll process.

6.2 Step 1: Identify options

The options available for Queensland Health include:

Option 1 – Stabilise the existing solution environment

(i.e. invest in the current solution through the fixing of current system issues)

This Option includes retaining SAP and Workbrain but implementing system enhancements
and configuration changes to address key issues. In addition, it includes improving system
infrastructure capability to relieve performance and accessibility issues. This option
excludes any major changes to the underlying technology platform. It may include
realignment of business processes to functionality enhancements.

Option 2 – Stabilise and optimise the existing solution environment

(i.e. undertake an “optimise” project of the current systems to resolve all
current issues and improve usability at the “local” level)

Under this option SAP and Workbrain would be retained by Queensland Health. This option
differs from Option 1 in that it includes two concurrent projects: stabilise and optimise. The
scope of the stabilisation project is the same as Option 1 – to enhance system and
infrastructure capability. The optimise project, however, includes changes to the
underlying technology platform to reduce system dependencies, streamline processing and
enable efficiency improvements.

More specifically, leave and separation will be managed by SAP rather than Workbrain. In
addition automated forms processing and Employee Self Service (ESS) and Manager Self
Service (MSS) will be introduced. ESS/MSS provides an avenue for employees and managers
to directly interact with the technologies e.g. Enter leave or view leave balances from a web
site.

This option will be designed in line with the implementation of a new payroll operating
model which is currently being piloted in two sites, with the objective of providing improved
services at the district/hospital/divisional level. This option will also require effort in the
people, process and technology layers of the solution to achieve alignment and integration.
Enhancement to change management, communication and training are seen as critical
activities for this option.

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  22
 Option 3 - Replace the existing rostering system (whilst retaining the current payroll
system)
This option retains SAP as the payroll system but substitutes the current rostering system,
Workbrain, with an alternative rostering solution. The replacement system would be
selected using the results of the shortlisting process conducted and described in Section 4 -
Vendor analysis as a starting point.

This option will involve work streams in the people, process and technology layers to
achieve alignment and smooth transition. A significant amount of effort is required around
the rostering functions to cater for the change in system.

Like Option 2, this option will be designed in line with the new payroll operating model, i.e.
at the “local”, or decentralised, level.

Option 4 - Replace all existing rostering and payroll systems

Replace both the rostering system, Workbrain, and the payroll system, SAP. The roster
replacement system will be selected using the results of the process conducted and
described in Section 4 - Vendor analysis of this report.

This option will involve work streams in the people, process and technology layers to
achieve alignment and smooth transition. A significant amount of effort is required as
existing knowledge of the current solution would be lost (such as training materials and
system expertise).

Option 5 – Outsource the payroll function to an external organisation

Outsource payroll processing to an experienced and well established commercial vendor.
This involves partnering with the vendor to implement changes and system enhancements.

This option will involve work streams in the people, process and technology layers to
achieve alignment and smooth transition. In addition to the potential implementation of
another new solution, a significant amount of effort is required specifically around business
processes, establishing maturity around IT Service Management (ITSM), focused contract
management and Service Level Agreements (SLAs). This is required to integrate payroll
processing with the overall HR function and business.

This option includes work streams for critical project components such as business process
improvements, enhancements to the current communication and change management
functions, training and rigorous testing both technically and by users.

Option 6 - Maintain status quo of the current systems

(i.e. no further investment in the current systems)
Continue with the current SAP and Workbrain solution configurations and make no
significant changes to the current rostering and payroll systems. This option excludes
improvements to the current approach to communication, change management and
business process improvement activities.

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  23
 6.3 Step 2: Assess options
The options identified above have been assessed against six key principles with the overall
objective of identifying the most effective and efficient, lowest risk option for Queensland
Health for delivering solution outcomes in terms of removing staff “pain” and better
supporting the payroll process.

These principles include:

1. Impact on staff – an option is high risk, if implemented, if it has a negative impact on

district and payroll staff and other stakeholders, and potentially results in significant
workplace impact or increases in average staff turnover

2. Implementation timeframe – an option is high risk, if implemented, if it takes in excess

of 3 years to fully implement and achieve the specified vision

3. Business fit and strategic alignment – an option is high risk, if implemented if the
solution is misaligned with the overall strategic direction of Queensland Health

4. Solution effectiveness risk – an option is high risk, if implemented, if it cannot address

the current pain points that are being experienced by end users of the solution

5. Stability risk – an option is high risk if implemented if it continues to be unstable (e.g.

system crashes and inaccessibility)

6. Performance and scalability risk – an option is high risk, if implemented, if it does not
perform or is not of scale to respond to changing business requirements or the
expected long term growth of Queensland Health

Table 5 provides a summary of the outcome of Step 2: Assess options has been outlined
below:

Table 5: Summary of options assessment against risk principles

Principle
High

Medium
Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Option 5

Option 6
Low-
Medium
Low

Summary of options assessment

against risk principles

Medium Medium Medium High High High

Any options that had an attached high risk (i.e. a red circle) were not considered for further
assessment, therefore the options that scored a medium risk or below have been refined for
Step 3: Analyse refined options component of this options assessment which has been
provided below.

For the detailed assessment against all risk principles refer to Appendix A - Detailed solution
options assessment.

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  24
 6.4 Step 3: Analyse refined options
Based on the analysis above, the refined options for assessment include:
► Option 1 - Stabilise the existing solution environment
► Option 2 – Stabilise and Optimise the existing solution environment
► Option 3 - Replace the existing rostering system
The refined options are put through a series of assessments to determine their capability to
provide a reliable and scalable payroll solution for Queensland Health. The outcome of
these assessments highlighted the most effective and efficient, lowest risk option for
Queensland Health.
► Option capability assessment: analyse if the option is capable of addressing the key
issues identified by Ernst & Young during site visits, stakeholder engagements and the
payroll state wide operations team. This team is responsible for addressing issues
escalated from Queensland Health payroll processing hubs
► Option risk and impact assessment: analyse the strength, weakness, people impacts,
process impacts and implementation risks
Table 6 below summarises the options capability and risk and impact assessments. For the
detailed assessment refer to Appendix A - Detailed solution options assessment.

Table 6: Summary of refined options

Option 1 - Stabilise the existing solution environment

Outcome: Not preferable, not the most effective and efficient, lowest risk option

Explanation: ► Short term fixes does not provide Queensland Health with a reliable and scalable payroll
solution for future growth
► May provide a stable environment in the short term, however requires significant
investment to operate long term
► Application maintenance can be costly due to the amount of system customisation
► Issues inherent in the current situation will not be addressed

Option 2 – Stabilise and Optimise the existing solution environment

Outcome: The most effective and efficient, lowest risk option for delivering solution outcomes in
relation to removing staff “pain” and better supporting the payroll process.
Explanation: ► Provides Queensland Health with a reliable and scalable payroll solution for future growth,
such as effectively responding to the requirements of the National Health Reform
► Involves stabilisation as well as optimisation. Two projects to yield the best outcome for
Queensland Health for both the short and long term
► Significant reuse of already established assets, including reuse of training materials and
leveraging of existing system knowledge. This would result in a lower cost when compared
to Option 3
► Existing system vendor has a detailed knowledge of existing solution and the existing
Queensland Health payroll issues and award structures
► Will provide in the long term reduced data entry and reliance on paper based business
processes that could lead to staff payments errors

Option 3 - Replace the existing rostering system

Outcome: Not preferable, not the most effective and efficient, lowest risk option

Explanation: ► High risk of separating Workbrain from the existing environment and introducing a “new”
system into the current system environment
► Additional effort of remediating the impact of separating Workbrain from the existing
solution environment and the effort required to design and implement significant
proportion of the solution
► Minimal reuse of established assets such as training materials and system expertise
► Queensland Health employees and HR officers have to adjust and adopt to a new system
again
► The new vendor would have a “learning curve” in relation to developing an understanding
of the current payroll issues facing Queensland Health

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  25
 6.5 The most effective and efficient, lowest risk option
Based on the methodological approach to assessing the solution options, Option 2 -
Stabilise and Optimise the existing solution environment - has been identified as the most
effective and efficient, lowest risk option for delivering solution outcomes in relation to
removing staff “pain” and better supporting the payroll process.

The most effective and efficient, lowest risk option for delivering solution outcomes in relation to removing staff
“pain” and better supporting the payroll process is:

Option 2 – Stabilise and optimise the existing solution environment

Option 2 provides both short term stabilisation as well as a platform that has the ability to
handle future growth. Short term stabilisation is provided by improving the current system
functionality without making fundamental changes to the underlying technology platform.
Stabilisation is accelerated through the reuse and refinement of existing assets leading to
lower change management efforts and stress for Payroll officers.

Option 2 extends Option 1 to address inherent issues with the current solution design. This
includes:

► Improvement of current system functionality and reduction of paper based business

processes

► The opportunity to build on the existing assets and the lessons learned reduces the
cost and risk profile of Option 2

► A better, and “localised” environment that has the ability to handle future growth
catering for the changing needs of Queensland Health and State Government
requirements, such as the National Health Reform

Whilst Option 3 (replace rostering system), has the capability to ultimately achieve the same
outcome as Option 2 (stabilise and optimise), it does have a higher risk profile (under our
definition), particularly in relation to the impact to staff of a new system required to be
implemented. Additionally, the lack of knowledge of how the new rostering system will
operate and perform in the Queensland Health environment introduces an additional layer
of risk to the outcomes.

The time and effort associated with Option 3 is considered the highest of the three options.
This is mainly due to the lack of capability to reuse existing assets as well as the impact on
SAP of removing Workbrain from the solution. Additionally, payroll officers are not familiar
with the new system, resulting in the need for a fresh training program and change
management.

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  26
 6.6 Key commercial and contractual considerations
It is recommended that Queensland Health immediately conducts a review of the
commercial and contractual agreements in relation to Workbrain and SAP HR. Depending on
the outcome of the review, the feasibility and risk profile of Option 1 (stabilise) and Option 2
(stabilise and optimise) may need to be reviewed.

It is recommended that at a minimum the following contractual considerations be clarified:

► Current SAP and Workbrain licensing agreements and their impact on Queensland
Health

► Obligations and commitment of vendors, in particularly Workbrain, to provide

appropriately skilled resources locally as required

► The warranty and problem resolution processes including timelines and execution

► Obligations and responsibilities for management of the interface to clearly allocate

accountability for system upgrades

► Initiate commercial negotiation as necessary

► If Queensland Health does not have autonomy over the current solution, determine the
contractual boundaries and determine if variations to Option 1 or 2 are feasible. Option
3 will need to be reassessed in light of contractual and commercial clarifications

Recommendation: Review and implement robust contractual arrangements for system development and support

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  27
 7. Findings
Queensland Health operates in a dynamic and complex environment which requires
responsive and flexible supporting systems to efficiently assist with roster and payroll
processing. It is important to note that the systems are the enabler of Queensland Health’s
services. It is the people, process and policies that will drive the behaviour of the systems.

It is widely acknowledged that the existing solution does not provide sufficient support for
Queensland Health’s rostering and payroll function. Therefore, the Queensland Health
solution, in particular Workbrain, is to be re-implemented and be conducted as a separate
Program to be made up of stabilise and optimise projects with a defined and agreed vision.
This solution vision and design also needs to consider the Finance Solution vision,
particularly as it relates to integrating key aspects such as costing and Activity Based
Funding (ABF).

Both projects are to be conducted in parallel, with the stabilise project looking to ongoing
activities of PIP, which has already been established to stabilise the current systems and
implement fixes that can provide some immediate relief to payroll operators and recipients.

Once the majority of current stabilisation activities have been achieved, Queensland Health
should also look to transition PIP resources into the optimisation project to allow for
continuity of existing knowledge and skills.

It should be noted that this new Program will need up to 3 years to achieve the ultimate
vision and be fully rolled out to all Queensland Health Districts, however during this time
there will be ongoing issues prioritisation and fixes.

Based on our lowest risk assessment approach we recommend Option 2: Stabilise and
optimise current solution (Workbrain and SAP). This option provides:

► Both short term stabilisation and a scalable platform for future growth and response to
the National Health Reform Agenda

► Accelerated stabilisation through the reuse and refinement of existing assets

► Lower change management efforts and stress for Payroll officers

Through the capability, risk and impact assessment outlined above, this option has a
demonstrated capability to address immediate concerns as well as providing an
environment that has the ability to respond and cater for long term growth. To ensure
sustainable momentum, Queensland Health must conduct the stabilisation and optimisation
projects concurrently. In addition, the alignment of people, process and technology are seen
as critical to the success of the payroll solution.

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  28
 7.1 Recommendations
In addition to the adoption of lowest risk option, provided below are Ernst & Young’s
recommendations to Queensland Health which are linked to better practice. These
recommendations have also been referenced throughout this report.

1. Immediately initiate the Queensland Health Optimise Project to confirm the

implementation roadmap and plan to deliver the future state including the following
key activities:

a. Commence development of a “Program Management Plan” considering:

i Confirming the underlying technology platform optimisation and design

ii Establishing the end state vision of Queensland Health payroll solution and
specify transitions

iii Defining impact and alignment to the stabilisation project

b. Establish a robust payroll solution governance model based on, at minimum, the
following principles:

i Clear separation of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for the

stabilisation and optimisation projects, in particular:

► Stabilisation project is executed by PIP and sponsored by the DDG of HR

► Optimisation project is executed by the CIO and sponsored byte DDG of HR

ii Defined Key Performance Indicators

iii Establish an optimisation project steering committee group

c. Incorporate and clearly identify the consideration of lessons learnt from the
current solution, both from the past and in the present, and embed into relevant
activities in the roadmap

d. Review and implement robust contractual arrangements for system development

and support (refer to Section 6.6 - Key commercial and contractual considerations
for activities that should occur at minimum).

Note: Should Queensland Health be unable to negotiate a suitable commercial

arrangement with Workbrain, Queensland Health should further investigate
Option 3 - Replace the existing rostering system, using the outcome of the
vendor analysis as a starting point.

e. Mobilise the project team for the Optimise Project Initiation Phase, this
mobilisation needs to minimise impact on current stabilisation activities and
resources:

i This mobilisation to include the availability of skilled SAP and Workbrain

resources as per commercial and contractual negotiations

f. Conduct business requirement collection and confirmation, and a detailed fit and
gap analysis. In addition to this:

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  29
 i The business requirements are to be formally documented, and must include
formal checkpoints and progressive sign offs
ii A realistic budget is to be developed, and confirmed based on the sign off on
business requirements to determine the effort required to deliver the full
program of work
g. Prioritise investment activities between the Optimise Project Initiation Phase and
other related projects to maximise Queensland Health’s ROI
2. In line with the new payroll operating model, design the new solution at the “local”, or
decentralised, level, in particular taking rostering back to the local/district/divisional
level to:
a. Address the issues that have been experienced through the centralised model, i.e.
the loss of localised processing knowledge in relation to local working conditions
and challenges
b. Allow Queensland Health to support their own eHealth agenda and respond to
changes in the Health sector, both Federally, as in the case of National Health
Reform, and at a State level in terms of legislative change and industrial changes
3. Ernst & Young recognises that substantial work to address current payroll issues
(through PIP) has already occurred to date. Queensland Health should continue this
work along with:
a. The development of an issue prioritisation strategy and criteria to assist with
release scoping and definition for the stabilisation project. This strategy needs to
include assessing and consolidating current issues against a formalised set of
prioritisation principles
b. Identifying resources (such as resources from the implementation project and
current HR payroll officers)
c. Leveraging lessons learnt to date
d. Incorporating and embedding relevant activities within the roadmap
e. A review and revision to existing change management, communication and
stakeholder engagement plans
f. Keeping stakeholders well informed of direction and progress. Change
management, including training needs, must be aligned to the stabilisation
releases and future technology platform optimisations
g. The implementation of strong commercial arrangements with Infor (Workbrain
system vendor) to successfully deliver fixes
Note: Should Workbrain be unable to address the bugs and issues, Queensland Health
should further investigate Option 3 - Replace the existing rostering system, using the
outcome of the vendor analysis as a starting point.
4. Establish a global Workbrain healthcare working group to share and leverage existing
improvements in the solution. This provides the potential opportunity for Queensland
Health to achieve greater economies of scale for Workbrain enhancements. A Canadian
healthcare organisation has expressed interest in this. It is worth noting the healthcare
organisation and Workbrain are well progressed on the journey to resolve some of the
key issues currently faced by Queensland Health.

Queensland Health should act immediately to implement the above mentioned recommendations

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  30
 7.2 Critical Success Factors for the recommendations to
work
At a minimum, the following critical success factors should be taken into consideration and
applied as relevant to the recommendations above:

1. Defined and signed off business requirements

2. Align all the stabilisation and optimisation projects with the Queensland Government
Project Management Methodology

3. The solution vision and design is to consider impacts and interdependencies to related
systems, including, the Queensland Health finance system

4. The solution design is to fully consider the two week payroll cycle timeframe
requirements for Queensland Health, including supporting appropriate time for error
corrections prior to payroll generation

5. Mature, comprehensive and consistent testing approach. Plan sufficient testing time
and formal sign off at the end of each testing stage.

6. Clearly articulated Statement of Works and formal sign off of key documentation

7. Design and implement a comprehensive change management and training activities to

support the program

8. Effective, consistent and timely communication

9. Implement separate Steering Committees for the Stabilisation and Improvement and
Stabilisation and Optimisation Programs

10. Implement the solution progressively in a controlled, staged manner

11. Establish conditions for cooperation early on with stakeholders and effectively manage
expectations

12. Alignment of people, process and technology

13. Leverage the current learnings and solution expertise and from PIP and transition into
the optimisation project of the program

14. Enforce resource availability, in particular mandatory staff training courses

15. Strong commercial arrangements and ongoing management with the system vendor

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  31
 8. Conclusion
This report has identified that the lowest risk option is for Queensland Health is to stabilise
and optimise the existing solution, SAP and Workbrain.

This involves maintaining Workbrain as the rostering system and SAP as the main
HR/Payroll system. This will be conducted within two projects:

► The ongoing PIP stabilisation program will continue to look at technology capability
enhancements to address existing issues

► The optimisation project will look at the solution technology platform to enable
efficiency and scalability for the future

Both projects will require synchronisation and alignment of the people, process and
technology layers of the solution. This report has also highlighted key contractual
considerations and Queensland Health’s autonomy over the solution as key issues that need
to be immediately investigated and clarified.

8.1 High level roadmap

Queensland Health Payroll and Rostering solution will be centred on the solution roadmap
towards the two concurrent projects within a single program. This roadmap will need to
outline the key activities and against an approximate timeframe.

Recommendation: Immediately initiate the Queensland Health Optimise Project to confirm the implementation
roadmap and plan to deliver the future state including the following key activities:

a. Commence development of a Program Management Plan

b. Establish a robust payroll solution governance model

c. Incorporate and clearly identify the consideration of lessons learnt from the current solution, both from the past
and in the present

d. Review and implement robust contractual arrangements for system development and support (refer to Section
6.6 - Key commercial and contractual considerations for activities that should occur at minimum)

e. Mobilise the project team for the Optimise Project Initiation Phase, this mobilisation needs to minimise

impact on current stabilisation activities and resources

f. Conduct business requirement collection and confirmation, and a detailed fit and gap analysis

g. Prioritise investment activities between the Optimise Project Initiation Phase and other related projects to
maximise Queensland Health’s ROI

Provided in Figure 5 below are the immediate activities that, at a minimum, provide the
basis of initiating the program of work in line with recommendations provided in the
previous section. Further activity will need to occur to confirm the roadmap below and also
define further activities of work in the optimisation project.

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  32
 Figure 5: High level roadmap
Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  33
 Appendix A Detailed solution options
assessment
Section 6 - Solution options assessment identified the most effective and efficient, lowest
risk option for Queensland Health is Option 2 - Stabilise and optimise the existing solution
environment. This appendix provides the detailed assessment results of Step 2: Risk
assessment principle results and Step 3: Analyse refined solution options, as well as
additional reasoning behind other option exclusions.

Step 2: Risk assessment principle results

Table 7 below assesses each solution option in terms of the probability of being unable to
satisfy the risk principle and description.

Any solution option rating high against any of the risk principles will be excluded from
further assessment.

Table 7: Options assessment against risk principles

Principle
High

Medium

Low-
Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Option 5

Option 6
Medium
Low

Impact on staff

Implementation timeframe N/A

Business fit and strategic
alignment

Solution effectiveness risk

Stability risk

Performance and scalability risk

Summary

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  34
 Excluded options
Based on the above assessment, Table 8 below summarises options that are excluded:

Table 8: Exclusions

Option Exclusions

Option 4 - Replace all existing ► Long term, delayed results

rostering and payroll systems ► Does not leverage established knowledge and systems (such as training
materials and system expertise)
► High implementation risk
► Unpalatable to stakeholders unless Workbrain proven unfixable

Option 5 – Outsource the payroll ► Staff lacking confidence in third party operators who have limited knowledge
function to an external of Queensland Health
organisation ► Does not enable Queensland Health to rapidly initiate changes due to the
involvement of commercial vendor – contractual issues and process flows
changes can be time consuming
► Unlikely to be as responsive and integrated as an internal payroll function

Option 6 - Maintain status quo ► Further staff financial and morale impacts
► High potential for industrial action
► Current pain points such as performance stability will not be addressed
► High number of workarounds and errors that are unsustainable
► Unable to effectively respond to changing legislation and requirements

Step 3: Analyse refined solution options

Based on the analysis above, the refined options for assessment include:

► Option 1 - Stabilise the existing solution environment

► Option 2 – Stabilise and Optimise the existing solution environment

► Option 3 - Replace the existing rostering system

The refined options are put through a series of assessments to determine their capability to
provide a reliable and scalable payroll solution for Queensland Health. The outcome of
these assessments highlighted the most effective and efficient, lowest risk option for
Queensland Health.

► Option capability assessment: analyse if the option is capable of addressing the key
issues identified by Ernst & Young during site visits, stakeholder engagements and The
payroll state wide operations team (this team is responsible for addressing issues
escalated from Queensland Health payroll processing hubs)

► Option risk and impact assessment: analyse the strength, weakness, people impacts,
process impacts and implementation risks

Table 9 below assesses each option’s ability to address the some of the key issues that
were found as part of:

► Ernst & Young’s site visits

► Stakeholder engagements

► The payroll state wide operations team

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  35
 Table 9: Option capability assessment

Issue description Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Current Workbrain capability does not support management of
concurrent employees. Workbrain in its current form does not
support:
► Identification/flagging of a concurrent employee
► Roster restriction enforcement to avoid duplicate roster
► Accurate calculation of work details for each role for the
employee
Current Workbrain capability does not provide flexible and efficient
leave processing. More specifically:
► Leave has to be entered/amended sequentially (by date)
► Transfer of leave balances for employees holding multiple roles
requires multiple transactions (e.g. one transaction to reduce
leave balance and another transaction to increase leave balance)

Current solution does not provide sufficient flexibility in processing

employee termination. More specifically:
► Flexibility to amend data of separating/separated employee.
Currently employee need to be reinstated for any amendments
(e.g. shift changes)
Current Workbrain capability does not provide a flexible mechanism
to adjust employee meal breaks.
Current solution does not comprehensively support pay in advance
processing. More specifically post the payroll cut off in Workbrain:
► A pay in advance cannot be requested
► An amendment in a staff members pay cannot be requested
Employee can be overpaid by SAP in the situation where an
employee deduction was increased (e.g. annual health insurance
premium increases) after the deduction was made as part of a pay in
advance
Current solution results in inconsistent leave balance in Workbrain
and SAP.
Current solution does not adequately support data requirements of
business processes. More specifically:
► SAP to Workbrain data flow needs to be more frequent
► Leave balance cannot be obtained in a timely manner to support
leave payout without termination
Work details from Workbrain to SAP currently run 5 times per day.
There is too much data in each run, containing a significant amount
of errors and needing significant reconciliation efforts.
Current solution suffers from performance issues in the lead up to
payroll runs.
Current solution does not support efficient processing. A number of
payroll functions involve a number of processes e.g. termination,
leave amendments, etc.
Current solution does not scale well with increase usage and data
processing.
Ability to effectively handle and respond to the requirements of the
National Health Reform agenda, in particular the introduction of
Local Health and Hospitals Network
Overall

Notes:
► For Option 3, it should be noted that it is assumed system customisations will be made
where the system is not capable of addressing the cause of issues

► Based on the above capability assessment, Options 2 and 3 provide Queensland Health
with a better opportunity to establish a stable and scalable payroll solution. Whilst
Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  36
 Option 1 is capable of addressing the majority of the key issues, it does not provide a
scalable platform for future growth and addressing the future needs of Queensland
Health

The tables below provide the option risk and impact assessment for all three remaining
options.

Table 10: Option 1 assessment

Option 1 - Stabilise the existing solution environment

Strengths Weaknesses

► Lowest implementation cost – does not involve ► Apply fixes will not address underlying architectural
significant technical change in comparison with issues, such as data inconsistencies between two
other options systems
► Lower learning curve for payroll staff. Payroll staff ► Does not provide a scalable platform for
has become familiar with the current systems and responding to changing government requirements
will be able to make use of the enhancements easily such as the National Health and Hospitals Network
► Lower training and change management as user ► Performance issues cannot be fully addressed
has a degree of familiarity with the system ► Legislative reporting will remain difficult, such as
► Current training materials can be reused the reporting of employee leave balance to
Queensland Treasury due to concurrent employees
holding two balances in Workbrain
► Elevated cost of system maintenance due to higher
level of system customisation

People risks Process risks

► Change management including training and ► Data to be entered by roster staff, increasing
communication insufficiently revised to address opportunity for error (e.g. interpretation of roster
current issues which could result in industrial forms)
action ► Data needs to be manually entered by roster staff,
► Staff perception of change will be low as the increasing workload
system remains largely the same ► Process efficiency improvements will be limited due
► Morale and confidence in the system will require to system dependencies
time to establish
► Payroll processors become further frustrated with
the cumbersome system

Implementation risks

► Subject matter experts may not be readily available as they would be occupied with payroll processing and
change management activities such as training
► Likely to enter into a never ending recurring loop of continuous system enhancements

Table 11: Option 2 assessment

Option 2 - Stabilise and optimise the existing solution environment

Strengths Weaknesses

► Low to moderate learning curve for payroll staff. ► Two concurrent projects will require a high number
Payroll staff has become familiar with the current of resources
technologies and will be able to adjust accordingly ► Technology platform optimisation will require more
with relative ease implementation time, upwards of 18 months
► Leverage knowledge of the current environment in ► Significant amount of change management, staff
making improvements. Opportunity to directly and union consultation effort is required to provide
adopt lessons learned ESS/MSS support to end users
► Vendor has detailed knowledge of existing solution
and Queensland Health environment
► Provides opportunity to eradicate the inherent
issues in the current solution technology platform
► Streamlined and more efficient processing
► Reduced system dependencies and consolidated
data to better support business processes
► Opportunity to empower employees with
technology to enable direct access to data and data
Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  37
 Option 2 - Stabilise and optimise the existing solution environment
entry
► Involves stabilisation as well as optimisation. Two
projects to yield the best outcome for Queensland
Health for both the short and long term
► Reuse established assets such as training materials
► Leverage the core competency of each system
► Provides a scalable platform for responding to
changing government requirements such as the
National Health and Hospitals Network

People impacts Process impacts

► Reduce the demand for staff to have detailed ► Streamlined and more efficient processing
knowledge of both technologies ► Changes to existing processes
► User familiarity with the technologies ► Moderate amount of revision to existing processes
► Directly address people’s concern and documentation
► Payroll officers will have to adopt to changes from
optimisation

Implementation risks

► Need to secure skilled Workbrain resources for two projects

► Subject matter experts may not be readily available as they would be occupied with payroll processing and
change management activities such as training
► Strong and robust change management is required
► Consistent and constant consultation and engagement with unions and end users on ESS/MSS is required
► Synchronisation of two concurrent projects

Table 12: Option 3 assessment

Option 3 - Replace the existing rostering system

Strengths Weaknesses
► Offers a “fresh start” in the minds of supporting ► A complete new system that Queensland Health
stakeholders and HR staff to understand and be trained in
► Provides a scalable platform for responding to ► Minimal reuse of existing assets, particularly
changing government requirements such as the around rostering training materials
National Health and Hospitals Network ► Significant amount of change management effort is
► Has a Queensland Health Awards template that has required
been implemented at a Queensland healthcare ► Involves architectural changes that will add to
agency implementation time
► Will require significant amount of resources to
redevelop business processes, training material,
system design and testing
► Does not provide short term stabilisation
► Impact on SAP and the overall solution to remove
Workbrain
► High cost
People Impacts Process Impacts
► Going on the journey again can be draining on ► Streamlined and more efficient processing
payroll staff ► Significant amount of revision to existing processes
► Higher levels of resistance to change owing to and documentation
change fatigue
► Staff need to adopt and learn to use the new
system

Implementation Risks
► High risks with an unfamiliar system
► Extensive and comprehensive end to end, performance and scalability testing is required
► Complete recreation of project collateral will be a drain on resources e.g. training materials and
communications
► Subject matter experts may not be readily available as they would be occupied with payroll processing and
change management activities such as training
► Significant amount of change management, stakeholder engagement and consultation is required
Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  38
 Option 3 - Replace the existing rostering system
► Synchronisation of two concurrent projects

Summary of appendix
The information provided in this Appendix further supported the most effective and
efficient, lowest risk option for Queensland Health being Option 2 - Stabilise and optimise
existing solution. A Summary of this information has been provided in Section 6.5 - The
most effective and efficient, lowest risk option.

Queensland Health
Review of Payroll and Rostering Solutions Ernst & Young  39
Ernst & Young

Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory

About Ernst & Young

Ernst & Young is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. Worldwide,
our 144,000 people are united by our shared values and an unwavering commitment to quality.
We make a difference by helping our people, our clients and our wider communities achieve
their potential.

Ernst & Young refers to the global organisation of member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited,
each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by
guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organisation,
please visit www.ey.com

© 2010 Ernst & Young, Australia.

All Rights Reserved.
This communication provides general information which is current as at the time of production. The
information contained in this communication does not constitute advice and should not be relied on
as such. Professional advice should be sought prior to any action being taken in reliance on any of the
information. Ernst & Young disclaims all responsibility and liability (including, without limitation, for any
direct or indirect or consequential costs, loss or damage or loss of profits) arising from anything done
or omitted to be done by any party in reliance, whether wholly or partially, on any of the information.
Any party that relies on the information does so at its own risk.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

M1022158