Abstract
Multi-year human services technology transformation programs, spanning eligibility system modernization, case
management replacement, and integrated data hub implementation, routinely engage multiple concurrent systems
integrators, software vendors, and infrastructure providers, each managing its own project-level risk register with
limited native visibility into other vendors' risk, assumption, issue, and dependency (RAID) items. Without a
program-level RAID governance function consolidating and cross-referencing these vendor-specific logs,
dependencies between vendors, and the risks and issues those dependencies create, frequently surface only after
they have already caused schedule delay or scope rework.
This research article presents a dependency and RAID log governance framework for multi-year, multi-vendor
human services technology transformation programs. The article examines RAID log structure and taxonomy,
cross-vendor dependency mapping, a tiered escalation governance model, and a five stage RAID governance
maturity model, with particular attention to how program vendor count and duration affect governance
complexity. Findings are illustrated with simple three-dimensional bar charts depicting RAID item volume,
dependency resolution time, and escalation patterns across program dimensions, and are supported throughout by
an extensive set of large, detailed grid-style data tables covering RAID taxonomy, governance roles, escalation
criteria, and program benchmarks.
Drawing on program and portfolio management literature, public sector systems integration research, and multivendor governance guidance published through November 2024, this article finds that programs operating a
consolidated, cross-vendor RAID governance function report substantially faster dependency resolution and
materially fewer schedule-impacting escalations than programs relying on vendor-specific, unconsolidated risk
registers alone.
Keywords
RAID log, dependency management, program governance, multi-vendor, human services technology transformation, risk register, escalation management, portfolio governance
References
1) Project Management Institute (PMI). (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge
(PMBOK guide) (6th ed.). PMI Publication.
2) Project Management Institute (PMI). (2019). The standard for risk management in portfolios,
programs, and projects. PMI Publication.
3) AXELOS. (2017). Managing successful programmes (MSP) (5th ed.). AXELOS Publication.
4) AXELOS. (2017). Management of risk (M_o_R): Guidance for practitioners. AXELOS Publication.
5) Kendrick, T. (2015). Identifying and managing project risk: Essential tools for failure-proofing your
project (3rd ed.). AMACOM.
6) Hillson, D. (2009). Managing risk in projects. Gower Publishing.
7) U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2021). Cloud computing: Agencies have increased usage and
realized benefits, but face challenges. GAO Report.
8) U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2019). Information security: Federal agencies need to
address aging legacy systems. GAO-19-471.
9) U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2020). Information technology: Agencies need to develop
and implement modernization plans for critical legacy systems. GAO-20-336.
10) National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO). (2021). State IT governance for
interdependent systems. NASCIO Research Brief.
11) American Public Human Services Association (APHSA). (2020). Cross-system coordination in human
services and justice technology modernization. APHSA Policy Brief.
12) Center for Digital Government. (2023). Multi-vendor program governance in state government IT
modernization. Center for Digital Government Research Report.
13) Government Technology. (2023). States confront vendor coordination challenges in multi-year systems
modernization. e.Republic Government Technology Publication.
14) Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling
(12th ed.). Wiley.
15) Association for Project Management (APM). (2019). APM body of knowledge (7th ed.). APM
Publication.
16) International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2018). ISO 31000:2018 risk management
guidelines. ISO Standard.
17) Casey Family Programs. (2018). Data quality and governance in child welfare information systems.
Casey Family Programs Research Report.
18) National Council for Adoption & Casey Family Programs. (2017). Modernizing child welfare
information systems: A practical guide for state agencies. Casey Family Programs Research Report