Presentation to Montana Accessibility
Interest Group
May 1, 2015
Tom Siechert
California State University, Fresno
ATI Procurement Program Manager tsiechert@csufresno.edu
@siechert

• Campus:
– ATI Procurement Program Manager (June 2013-present)
– Senior IT Buyer (January 2003-present)
– Chair, ATI Procurement subcommittee
– Procurement, ATI Steering Committee
• Systemwide:
– Procurement SME, CSU Accessible Technology Network
– Contributor, CSU Accessible Procurement Standardization workgroup

Accessibility + Procurement
• ATI implementation concerns:
– Impact to Buyer workload
– Impact to order processing times
– Role of procurement staff
– Evaluation of proposals, bids
– Bid language
– Contract language
– Time-sensitive / rush orders

Myth #1: Procurement will handle it
• Reality:
– Staff typically don’t have technical expertise, background in Assistive Technology, or understanding of how persons with disabilities use technology
– Accessibility review should be multi-disciplinary, collaborative process, and be driven by advice of subject-matter experts (e.g. IT, DSO, HR)
– Staff should concentrate on procurement-related tasks

Myth #2: We’ll only buy Accessible products!
• Reality:
– Accessibility of ICT isn’t a YES or NO proposition
– All products have Accessibility gaps
– Often challenging to determine relative levels of conformance to accessibility standards

• 2006
– Established by CSU Office of the Chancellor
– Implementation:
• Scope: Web, Instructional Materials, Procurement
• Procurement: Phased implementation, Dollar Thresholds

• Overall: Large variances among campuses
– 23 campuses – 447,000 students, 45,000 faculty and staff
– Varying Campus Sizes: From 1,000 – 38,000 students
– Varied campus processes, levels of expertise and staffing

• 2013
– Updated Implementation Plan:
• Impact-based prioritization
• Continuous quality improvement
• Document progress
• Drive vendor improvements to product accessibility

The Need for Prioritization
1621
IT-Related Purchases - 2014
Total
700
ICT
497
203
Individual-Use Review for
A11y

The Need for Standardization
• Procurement: Campuses implement Accessible procurement differently
– Different forms
– Different processes
– Different evaluation techniques

Establishing A Standardized Process
• Procurement Standardization workgroup
(2011-present)
– Contributors:
• Staff from 6 campuses
– Functional Areas: Procurement, DSO, IT
– Size: Small to large campuses
• ATI Office, CSU Chancellor's Office
– Goal:
• Document an accessible procurement process that can be adopted and adapted by CSU campuses

• Expected outcome:
– Procuring the most accessible products
– Creating a plan for providing accommodations
– Promoting a culture of accessibility
– Promoting institution-wide effort
– Speaking with one voice to vendors
– Establishing consistent, repeatable and meaningful processes
– Driving real-world improvements to accessibility of ICT

CSU Accessible Procurement Process
• Keys to successful implementation:
– Strong, sustained Executive Level support
– Roles and Responsibilities
• ATI Designee (“Coordinator”)
• Shared responsibility across the campus

Case Study: Importance of ATI Designee
• Scenario:
– University adoption of online student training solution
– Case Details:
• Procurement wasn’t involved/aware
• $0 Agreement
• High-Impact + High Stakes
• Significant Issues with Accessibility
– Take Away(s):
• Procurement department may not always be involved
• ATI Designee role is key (keeping informed, planning for what’s next)
• High impact ICT often require proactive response to ensure access

Process
Steps
Forms
Guidance
& Training
Materials
FAQs http://teachingcommons.cdl.edu/access/procurement_process/index.shtml

• Collect and file VPAT
• Limited (or no) real-world verification of claims
• Extensive use of exceptions/exemptions
• Generic plans to address accommodations
• Vendors remain uninformed about gaps
• Products remain inaccessible
• Procurement-centric focus

• Collect VPAT – Question VPAT – Revise VPAT
• Real-world verification of claims
• Very limited use of exceptions/exemptions
• Specific plans to address accommodations
• Vendors become educated about gaps
• Vendors commit to remediate products
• Products become more accessible
• Campus-wide effort

Gather
Information
Review
Information
Review
Product
Place Order

• Goals:
– Determine specific accessibility gaps
• Provides vendor with actionable information
• Allows for discovery of available workarounds
• Enables sufficient detail to be included in alternate access plans
– Drive future improvements in accessibility of ICT
• Get vendor commitment to remediate identified gaps

• Primary responsibility
– End-User
• Complete Pre-Purchase Info form
– What is it?
– Who are the End-Users?
– How will it be used?
– How many people will use it?
– Does the use involve a critical program/benefit?
• Ask Vendor for VPAT

• Primary responsibility
– ATI Designee
• Review Accessibility documentation
– Pre-Purchase Info
– VPAT(s)
• Base review plan upon impact determination
– Choose review type, tasks

Myth #3: A11y review only requires a checklist
• Reality:
– Checklists can’t address qualitative aspects like:
• Can screen reader users complete task x?
• Are bitmap images used consistently throughout app?
• Are headings used appropriately throughout page?
– Checklists are well suited for yes/no questions like:
• Did we complete all process steps for purchase x?
• Did all the right people participate in the process?
• Did our contract language include A11y provisions?

• Primary responsibility
– ATI Designee
• Review Types
– VPAT review
– Vendor demo
– Automated testing (Free or Enterprise Tools)
– Manual testing (Quick or Comprehensive)
– End-User testing

• Primary responsibility
– Procurement Department Buyer
• Complete Buyer Checklist
– Bid documents
– Bid process
– ATI Review documentation and process
– Contract documents

• Fresno State is piloting process
– Serves as real-world proof-of-concept
– Helps vet processes, forms, guidance
– Allows for development of training materials

• New, online requisition
– Accessibility integrated into new and improved requisition form
• Accessibility-related questions included on form
• Intelligent workflow based upon type of items purchased, impact
• New, online ATI review form
– Integrated with new online requisition
• Triggered only when additional information is needed, based upon responses
– Same form used regardless of funding source

• Recommendations:
– Evaluate roles & responsibilities; address gaps
– Integrate ATI review into existing processes
– Prioritize efforts + meaningfully review products
– Proactively plan for provision of alternate access
– Collaborate with vendors to improve accessibility

• A special thanks to Marlene Zentz for the invitation to present to the Montana
Accessibility Interest Group
Email: tsiechert@csufresno.edu
Twitter: @siechert