The iSAC implementation guide when referring to timing is unable to set an exact implementation timeframe. It rather contemplates what the different features are contributing to changes in the implementation timing.

Below we present an illustrative form of the different implementation timings expressed in months. Minimum timing (10 months) is for the case of PRATO and maximum (24 months) is for EIWH. In between values are 12 and 18 months. Intuitively we can argue that implementation takes a longer period when a different than scenario 1 (scenario 2 or 3) regarding information system management is given. Exception is TER due to its double role of pilot and developer. However, IS scenario should be complemented with another aspect, namely implementation team size and team composition.

TER · Scenario 1

SMED · Scenario 2

PRATO · Scenario 1

BIT · Scenario 1

EIWH · Scenario 3

Implementation team

Pilots succeeded the implementation phase with teams made up by 5 (minimum) to 8 (maximum) team members (see Table 4). Minimum core teams are formed by 3 persons and often secondary team members are 2. The balance between Citizen Attention and IT is often not equilibrated towards the former since this collective is the ultimate user of iSAC. Other participants are positioned in a higher hierarchy (intermediate or top management) and other departments such as quality, processes, evaluation, etc.

Table 4: iSAC6+ Implementation team

In Table 5 we describe the composition of core teams participating in iSAC implementation. Extreme values are minimum 3 in the case of SMED and 6 maximum in the case of PRATO. Implementation is possible with 3 to 4 persons organized in a core team. Their organizational origin is most often Citizen Attention (Service Manager) +  IT technician + Another person (in some cases from a higher organizational level (representing commitment and power to promote and encourage change) or another section. Regarding the iSAC implementation phase we detect management, implementation, technical and daily operations. The case of PRATO deserves special attention since this pilot is able to imply in a core team 6 persons in different work areas important for iSAC: editorial staff, infrastructure, website, data analyst, quality and data office personnel. Another observation is that in the case of 3 pilots (SMED, PRATO and EIWH) the implementation team is in charge or managing organizational change.

Table : Core team by position in organization and task distribution

In the next posts we will talk about

• The potential change areas
• Change characterization
• Advantages expected and achieved
• Lessons Learned
• Pros and cons.
• Last, but not least, Avaluation of Success
• and concluding remarks