The SCION project digitized paper-based processes, replaced legacy systems, and is projected to save $1.7M annually without disrupting business operations
One of the key challenges the government faces in modernizing its IT infrastructure is the disruption of operations. The government, generally, can’t stop doing its business to upgrade its technology systems. Applications still need to be accepted, permits must be issued and safety net program checks can’t stop being cut.
So, how are different agencies approaching modernization projects – while maintaining continuity of business operations?
To answer that question, we aim to take a look at some of the modernization projects that have been cited in the public record as successful. In this piece, we will break down one such project: how the USDA modernized its Specialty Crops Inspection Operating Network (SCION) system.
While Intelliworx was not a part of this project, it involved digitizing paper-based processes, which is an area of expertise and of interest to our company and customers. We reached out to current and former officials, which public reporting indicates had a role in this project, to request interviews; however, no one obliged. So, this piece is based strictly on an examination of publicly available documentation.
Stay in touch by subscribing to our email newsletter.
We will never share or sell your email address.
Inspecting 60 billion pounds of produce annually
The Specialty Crops Inspection Division (SCID) is the part of the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) that inspects “fruits, vegetables, and other crops and products for compliance with safety and quality standards,” according to a Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) case study on the project.
The USDA is ensuring the safety of the food supply that winds up in grocery stores, restaurants, military rations and subsidized food programs such as those fielded in public schools. Crops that are approved receive “official USDA grade shields, seals and labels,” as part of the certification process.
The SCID traditionally sent inspectors to these facilities, armed with “long checklists” on “clipboards.” When a site visit was complete, inspectors would return to the office and retype their findings captured on paper into a computer system. This was a redundant task and was prone to cause paperwork errors.
Facilities that passed the inspection were “physically mailed” certifications. However, even with a certification in hand, those being inspected still had another step: A farmer, for example, was required to turn around and “mail the certification to processing agencies like the Department of Homeland Security.”
Tech debt and legacy systems
This government modernization project incorporated two separate legacy systems. One system was the Fresh Electronic Inspection Reporting/Resource System (FEIRS), which the federal registry indicates was first implemented in 2004.
The second system was the Billing and Inspection Information System (BIIS). It’s unclear exactly when that system was first fielded; however, National Archives records dated 2005 indicate this is the system where “inspection and billing information” would be re-keyed.
Suffice to say, both systems were around 15 years old by the time the USDA planned this modernization project in 2019. Some of the subcomponents of these systems were older. The BIIS, for instance, was built on a Windows SQL Server 2000, which was nearly 20 years old at the time the project got started.
These systems “cost about $2.5 million to maintain and update annually,” the TMF case study reports. Such costs are commonly referred to as “tech debt,” which accounts today for upwards of 80% of the collective federal spending on technology.
Those are the hard costs – the overall savings in time and efficiency were larger. The General Services Administration (GSA), summed up the challenge this way:
“[The] USDA AMS’s billing, inspection and certificate generation and issuance processes are managed through a combination of manual, paper-based processes and legacy information technology systems that are outdated and difficult to maintain. The inefficiencies of the billing, inspection and certification process cause substantial delays within the program, which are significant when dealing with perishable items.”
The SCION modernization project
The USDA put together a five-year plan to replace both systems with a single integrated web-based system called SCION. The TMF provided $8 million in funding that allowed the agency to accelerate this timeline to get it done in just three years. It worked “with Deloitte Consulting LLP to define, design, and build the new system.”
By all public accounts, including the TMF case study, GAO reporting to Congress and news reports by Government Executive [commentary], Federal News Network and FedTech, the project was one of the earliest TMF success stories.
Among the notable outcomes we’ve seen documented were the following:
- Eliminated paper process. Facilities needing inspections could make the request online, rather than with paper forms, and receive a faster response. This resulted “in reduced food waste and spoilage.” In addition, certifications were issued digitally rather than by U.S. Mail.
- Removed duplicative data entry. Inspectors ditched their clipboards for tablet computers during site visits – which removed another paper process and the requirement for re-keying information collected on paper into an electronic system.
- Added greater transparency. SCION allowed the agency to “provide faster, more accurate service while providing customers with analytics and other data.” This enabled farmers and food facilities to “identify ways to improve the efficiency of their own operations while meeting the certification standards.”
- Saved taxpayer money. The USDA projected “an annual savings of $1.72 million in operations and maintenance costs” once the legacy systems were retired.
5 key steps the USDA took for modernization success
The buzz and benefits stemming from this project sound solid. Yet the question for those who want to learn from this success remains: how exactly did the USDA move operations from the old system to the new one?
Below is what we found by sifting through the available information.
1. SCION was introduced in phases
The USDA introduced the new system in three phases over time. A 2021 update posted to the agency’s website noted the agency “will develop and implement SCION in three releases, each of which will support an expanded scope of USDA specialty crops inspection and audit functions.”
The phased approach provided a chance to test, find and remediate unexpected bugs or workflow problems gradually. These are inevitable in any project of this size, so the phases enabled the USDA to do this in a more controlled manner – as opposed to ‘flipping the switch’ and turning the whole new system live at one time.
2. Parallel processes during implementation
USDA customers – the farmers and facilities being inspected – could use either the old paper-based system or the new one as the implementation was rolled out.
The agricultural trade publication, The Packer, reported at the time:
“As AMS further deploys SCION, stakeholders may receive either traditional inspection and audit documents, or SCION-generated outputs. The new output documents may differ slightly from current formats and will be identifiable by the designation ‘ES’ on the form name. Both the traditional and SCION-generated inspection certificates and audit reports are official USDA documents.”
This provided a grace period of sorts. If users had trouble with the new system, the old one they were familiar with was still available. This ensured business continuity while helping end users get accustomed to the idea that change was coming.
3. Used commercially available systems
While it appears Deloitte built some custom integrations out of necessity, SCION was largely built on “commercially available offerings to securely manage billing, inspection, and certification processes.” This seems like a logical choice. Rather than building a custom system, it’s a lot easier to implement a commercial system that’s already proven to be up to the task and at a scale that meets the needs of the USDA.
4. Planned for customer adoption
The USDA built out educational materials to support customer adoption – presentations, FAQs and factsheets – which are all still on the website for anyone to review. The agency also used a single sign-on (SSO) system called eAuthentication for registration and verification – which makes the onboarding process relatively easy.
5. Involved USDA civil servants in the project
The USDA did something especially interesting in developing this project – they involved employees in the process. As the project lead for SCION wrote in an update:
“The name SCION was chosen through an employee naming contest. Joanna Small, one of our administrative staff in the SCI Division’s Standardization Branch, submitted the winning name. In her submission, Ms. Small noted the beginning of the acronym is the same as the Specialty Crops Inspection (SCI) Division, which was a great connection. Even better, however, was the description of a scion. A ‘scion’ relates to botany as ‘a young shoot or twig of a plant, especially one cut for grafting or rooting.’”
This may seem like a small thing – but by engaging employees to participate in the project – leaders are also inviting them to have a stake in the outcome.
Process improvement before automation
The USDA standardized the process first, digitizing paper intake, removing duplicate data entry, and building certification into the workflow. Then the agency chose proven commercial systems to run it. We’ve made this case before: modernization delivers optimally when the process comes first, and it’s the same reason AI initiatives stall at agencies that skip that step.
* * *
Intelliworx has been providing purpose-built software to the federal government for 20 years and currently serves 40+ federal government agencies. The company is a certified service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) and is FedRAMP-authorized.
Contact us for a no-obligation demo.
If you enjoyed this post, you might also like:
Why is integration so hard for the federal government?
