A cross-project summary built from nine independently researched and cited project profiles. Full timelines, dollar figures, and complete citations live in the two companion markdown files referenced at the bottom of this page — this page is the scannable summary, not the evidence base itself.
Achieve Australia — Systems Scoping — Status update.pdf does not check out against the signed Engagement Schedule — wrong phone number, wrong dates, and references to artefacts and named stakeholders that appear nowhere else in this engagement. It was not used anywhere in this analysis. Recommend confirming its origin before it's opened or shared again.
| # | Project | Status | Sponsor / owner | Core goal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Funding Optimisation (FO) | Restarted after failed review | Wally Phillips (Sponsor); Frankie Poon (Lead, restart) | Fix billing/claiming from case file to cash |
| 2 | Connect / Visicase implementation | Live, under active monitoring | Karen Moore-Evans (System Lead) | Replace/upgrade Visicase-era platform, rostering, incident mgmt |
| 3 | Systems Scoping (this engagement) | In progress, on contracted terms | Sarah Archer (Client sponsor); Angela Harvey (Consultant) | Map how Achieve's systems/processes/information flows connect |
| 4 | Case File Management | Stale vs. Connect go-live | No dedicated sponsor — inherits FO governance | Document case file creation/management/revenue procedures |
| 5 | Strategic Planning (FY2027-31) | On track; funding unprovisioned | Board / ELT | New strategic ambition and three priorities, launching Aug 2026 |
| 6 | HRIS / Payroll Discovery | Pre-Board-approval business case | Chief People Officer; external (Solution Minds Consulting) | Replace ELMO/JobAdder/MicroPay ($596K/yr) with integrated platform |
| 7 | M.E. Services Assessment | Completed; Phase 2 not commissioned | Sarah Archer; Tina McManus; Jennifer Horsfield | Independent review of SIL participant journey — people/process/tech |
| 8 | Sustainability Reporting | Recurring; this cycle rated "Delayed" | CFO | Track $7.6M/yr incremental-return strategy across 5 initiatives |
| 9 | Customer/Staff Journey Mapping | "Commenced" 14 months after scoping | Not clearly named | CX/EX-lensed priority plan for systems and process improvement |
Which of the nine projects actually touches each part of the organisation. Read across a row to see how many concurrent, separately-governed initiatives are landing on the same function.
| Business unit / function | 1 FO | 2 Connect | 3 Sys. Scoping | 4 Case File | 5 Strat. Plan | 6 HRIS | 7 M.E. Services | 8 Sustainability | 9 Journey Map | Count |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finance | 6 | |||||||||
| Operations | 7 | |||||||||
| Clinical / Practice | 4 | |||||||||
| HR / People & Culture | 5 | |||||||||
| IT | 6 | |||||||||
| PMO | 2 | |||||||||
| Board / ELT | 6 | |||||||||
| Frontline / Service Delivery | 6 | |||||||||
| NDIS Admin | 2 |
Finance, Operations, and IT each carry six-to-seven concurrent projects. Nobody profiled in any of these nine projects' documentation appears to hold a cross-project view of that load — each project's own status reporting only tracks itself.
Three specific findings surface independently, from different authors, at different times, with no visible cross-referencing between the source documents themselves.
Found independently in the M.E. Services Assessment, the Sustainability Report, the CEO Report, and this engagement's own funding-loop analysis. Same root cause every time: pending Connect/VisiCase migration. Still unresolved as of the 25 June 2026 board cycle.
M.E. Services AssessmentSustainability ReportCEO ReportFlagged independently by the HRIS/Payroll Discovery project (which exists to replace it) and the M.E. Services Assessment (an unrelated engagement) — two consultancies, same verdict, same window, no cross-reference.
HRIS Discovery FindingsM.E. Services AssessmentSelf-labelled "(undocumented)" on Achieve's own Customer Journey Map, independently confirmed by this engagement's client lifecycle feedback-loop analysis, echoed in the M.E. Services journey figure's Stage 3 critique.
Customer Journey MapClient Lifecycle LoopAchieve commissioned the M.E. Services independent assessment of systems fragmentation in May 2026, then commissioned Supporting Potential's Systems Scoping engagement covering substantially overlapping ground one month later, in June 2026. Both sponsored by Sarah Archer. Neither document explains why two independent external reviews of closely related territory were commissioned six weeks apart rather than one being scoped to build on the other. This is a documented fact, not a criticism — but it's arguably the clearest single piece of evidence for the "lack of cohesion" pattern this mapping exercise was asked to surface. Worth raising directly with Sarah rather than inferring further from the files alone.
FO named Connect as its long-term system answer from inception and tracked "Connect Timeline Unknown" as an unresolved risk for months (meetings actively cancelled by the Connect System Lead) — before FO's own December 2025 review concluded, in capitals, "Project NOT aligned to Connect."
Case file procedures are Visicase-based and dated September 2025 — roughly nine months before Connect's actual go-live. The current documented procedure has not yet been revalidated against the live system.
This engagement is contractually built to synthesise FO's Phase 1 output as a named "Known Input." It runs in the same window (roughly March–July 2026) as FO's own Phase 2 restart, with no documented coordination visible in the files reviewed.
All three sit under one Digital Transformation Strategy enabler in the Board's Program of Works, documented across three unrelated artefact sets (a board paper, a vendor discovery report, a 14-month-old workshop transcript) with no single integrating document.
HRIS/Payroll reform is formally a financial sub-line of the Sustainability Strategy's "$1M/yr ICT Transformation" budget, but the two documents were prepared independently with no visible cross-reference beyond that one figure.
Every one of these disconnects is direct, citable evidence for the core diagnosis in the Supporting Potential proposal — that Achieve's problem isn't a lack of process, it's the absence of a mechanism connecting the processes that already exist. The M.E. Services report reaches the identical conclusion independently:
"The core finding is not that Achieve Australia lacks process... processes were developed locally in silos, and do not consider requirements or effective information sharing across other departments."
Recommend treating the M.E. Services Assessment as a corroborating second opinion when the Systems Map report goes to Sarah — two independently-commissioned reviews reaching the same root-cause finding from different angles is a stronger evidentiary basis than either alone.