Project Connect. August 10, 2011

Transcription

1 Project Connect August 10, 2011

2 Introduction Meeting Minutes Approval Project Status Report IV&V Update By Ernst & Young Other Business Public Comments Review of Actions from Meeting Schedule Next Meeting September 14 Adjourn Project Connect 2

3 Budget and Timeline Current and Upcoming Activities Risks and Issues Key Project Dates Project Connect 3

4 Millions Project Funding - Cumulative by Quarter Budgeted: $52,841,655 Forecast: 51,796,984 Variance: $1,044, FY11 Q1 FY11 Q2 FY11 Q3 FY11 Q4 FY12 Q1 FY12 Q2 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q4 FY13 Q1 FY13 Q2 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q4 FY14 Q1 FY14 Q2 Budget Committed Forecast Project Connect 4

5 Overall Project Budget & Estimated Variance Project Budget Estimate at Completion Project Variance Operational Funding State Salaries & Benefits 5,050, ,493, ,250 Admin/ Misc 391, ,919 (63,669) Operational Funding Totals 5,441, ,948, ,581 Project Funding OPS 92,400 81,977 10,423 Expenses 6,867,726 6,665, ,488 OCO (Hardware) 483, ,420 17,819 Contracted Services Project Management & Support 5,991,903 5,654, ,001 IV&V Services 2,005,798 2,005,798 0 Benefits Realization Strategy 288, ,539 50,661 Operational Change Management 678, ,435 50,865 System Integrator (SI) Services 28,061,156 28,061,156 0 SI Hardware & Maintenance 2,543,608 2,502,126 41,482 SI Software & Maintenance 5,706,630 5,495, ,237 Project Reserves 122, ,695 Project Funding Totals 52,841,655 51,796,984 1,044,671 Project Connect 5

6 PROJECT Cumulative through July 2011 July 2011 Aug 2012 Budget Committed Variance Budget Committed Budget Forecast Operational Funding State Salaries & Benefits 1,600,000 1,043, , , , , ,000 Admin/ Misc 92,125 82,789 9,336 13,875 13,935 13,625 17,060 Operational Funding Totals 1,692,125 1,126, , , , , ,060 Project Funding OPS 19,400 9,692 9,708 3,800 3,644 3,800 3,735 Expenses 1,485,651 1,283, , , , , ,775 OCO (Hardware) 82,092 64,272 17, ,000 68,000 Contracted Services Project Management & Support 2,424,109 2,089, , , , , ,791 IV&V Services 920, , ,456 46, , ,068 Benefits Realization Strategy 154, ,819 50,661 9,320 8,815 9,320 9,320 Operational Change Management 151, ,635 50,865 25,500 17,115 25,500 25,500 System Integrator (SI) Services 698, , ,630,482 1,630,482 SI Hardware & Maintenance 1,261,219 1,219,737 41, , , SI Software & Maintenance 5,665,644 5,454, , Project Reserves 48, ,583 5, ,609 0 Project Funding Totals 12,911,612 11,944, ,274 1,338,181 1,166,041 2,215,578 2,211,671 Project Connect 6

7 Project Connect 7

8 Project Connect 8

9 The Phase Gate Review Board met on July 19 and advised the Project Director to conditionally approve and accept the Define Interim 2 deliverable The condition was that the following requirements were yet to be accepted: FEAT1227, FEAT1229, FEAT1234, FEAT1329, and FEAT1577 (all requiring minor changes) To provide clarity around approval and acceptance, the Project Director moved those five requirements into Interim 3 and approved moving through the Define Interim Gate 2 and approved Deloitte to proceed with project work Project Connect 9

10 Define Interim Gate 2 approval occurred two days behind schedule (July 19 vs. July 15) Missing Interim Gates 1 & 2 pointed out challenges with the deliverable preparation and review process Time conflict with reviewing deliverables while other work is also underway (e.g., JAD sessions) 15-day review period includes a 10-day Agency review and a 5-day Deloitte cure period Pressure with deliverable review cycle ending at the same time as Interim or Phase Gate dates Project Connect 10

11 Process Improvement Activities A focus on initial deliverable quality Need for quality reviews prior to initial submittal and greater collaboration during the review process May alter deliverable dates going forward to better align reviews with Interim and Phase Gate dates Project Connect 11

12 Phase Gate Review Board (PGRB) met on July 29 (five days early), reviewed all deliverables for the Define Phase Gate and advised the Project Director to approve and accept the following: Validated Requirements Documents Iterations 1, 2 and 3 Data Conversion Plan Change Sponsor Assessment Project Connect 12

13 The PGRB also reviewed the overall health of the project and advised the Project Director to approve passage through the Define Phase Gate The Project Director accepted the deliverables and authorized the contractors to pass the Define Phase Gate and proceed with project work Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) requirements are being tracked separately (CR 59) and its define work will be completed by September 23 Requirements that were retired as part of the process will be reviewed for work credits Project Connect 13

14 Approving invoice for $1,630,482 for the deliverables associated with the Define Phase Gate Project Connect 14

15 Joint Applications Design (JAD) sessions underway for initial claims, wage determination and continued claims Data conversion design meetings involving UC-IT continue Validating the technical design specifications and developing the disaster recovery plan Project Connect 15

16 Completed Change Sponsor Assessment and reviewing related sponsor development plan Preparing for Change Champions meeting in Tallahassee on August 18 Beginning Organizational Design discussions Project Connect 16

17 Performance Technology Partners, LLC (PTP), the reseller for the Genesys Call Center/IVR Software, has offered the Agency an additional discount of $341,451 (10% of licensing & maintenance total) to advance the procurement of the production software from December 2011 to September 2011 This was negotiated up from an initial offer of a $121,944 discount Risk is advancing this payment prior to the sign-off of the Design Phase Gate Project Connect 17

18 Finalized the Bill of Materials for most of the software and the test and development hardware environments resulting in a savings of $252,719 from the contract Approved invoice for $6,430, for those procurements by Deloitte Amendment 3 underway for review and approval to align the contract to the DO Also removes Red Hat and VMware as those software are no longer needed Advanced the procurement of the F5 Load Balancers after discussions with the SSRC Project Connect 18

19 Deloitte Contract Amendment 1 called for Deloitte to meet 6 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 1 - Correspondence 2 - Adjudication of Issues 3 - No Touch Claims 4 - Overpayments 5 - Appeals Docketing/Scheduling 6 - Self Service Project Connect 19

20 KPI Description Measurement Technique 1 Correspondence Generation Total pieces of correspondence per claimant 2 Adjudication of Issues Total number of determinations per hour 3 No touch claims Total percentage of no touch claims 4 Overpayment Total percentage of overpayments paid 5 Appeals Number of minutes to docket and schedule an appeal 6 Self-service Adoption Rate Total percentage of initial claims filed via the Internet Total pieces of correspondence / number of claimants served # of determinations / # of adjudication hours worked No touch claims / total claims Baseline Metric Target Metric % 40% Overpayments / benefits paid 1.70% 1.65% Total hours worked for appeals scheduling / number of appeals scheduled Initial claims filed via the internet / Total claims filed % 68% Project Connect 20

21 The Amendment states: The parties agree that the Measurement Technique and Measurement Cycle, Baseline Metric, and Target Metric for each BR KPI will be reviewed and validated as part of the deliverables for the Planning Phase Gate The work effort extended beyond the Planning Phase and was recently completed Established the Measurement Technique (including a standard definition of terms and data elements), Measurement Cycle, Baseline Metric, and Target Metric for each BR KPI using 2010 as the baseline New Targets were based upon the same improvement percentages Project Connect 21

22 KPI Description Improvement Contract Baseline Contract Target New Baseline New Target 1 Correspondence Generation Decrease correspondence per claimant by 40% Adjudication of Issues 3 No touch claims Increase adjudications/hour by 33% Increase no touch claims by 100% % 40% 11% 22% 4 Overpayment 5 Appeals Decrease % of overpayments by 4% Decrease the time it takes to docket and schedule an appeal by 50% 1.70% 1.65% 1.76% 1.71% HB7005, implemented August 1 st requiring all claimants to file electronically, renders KPI #6: Self-service Adoption Rate no longer relevant Project Connect 22

23 Measurement Cycle Implementing a monthly reporting process through implementation and the warranty period During the Warranty Performance Period, will report on each fiscal quarter and compare to Target Metric If Deloitte meets the Target Metric on a particular KPI in a fiscal quarter during the Warranty Performance Period, the KPI will be deemed as met If Deloitte does not meet the Target Metric for a particular KPI by the end of the Warranty Performance Period, they will forgo payment for that KPI Integrate remaining Benefits Realization KPIs into this overall process Project Connect 23

24 Since KPI #6: Self-service Adoption Rate is no longer relevant, the Agency and Deloitte have agreed to close that KPI and allocate its payment proportionally across the other 5 KPIs Need to compare algorithms from legacy systems to Connect and make appropriate adjustments May need to revisit Baseline Metrics over the next 15 months These changes will be made part of the Contract as Amendment 4 and will be routed for approval Project Connect 24

25 Began installation of development and test environments at the SSRC Managing Change Requests Project Connect 25

26 Deloitte referenced both Minnesota and Massachusetts as its most recent implementations of the ufacts solution The Project Connect Team conducted an onsite visit to MN in December 2010 to gain lessons learned prior to contract recommendation and signing Reference January 12, 2011 ESC Status Report Overall positive experience for MN with many applicable lessons learned for Project Connect Project Connect 26

27 The Project Team conducted a MA project update conference call with Ann Corey Functional Lead for the MA ufacts project Deloitte s proposal stated MA ufacts was scheduled for an April 2011 implementation MA has not implemented as of yet and does not have a revised implementation date The Project Team is scheduling an on-site visit this month with the MA Project Team to gain lessons learned Project Connect 27

28 Risk #30 Conflicting workloads for UC-IT TOPS schedule concurrent with data conversion activities may create a conflict with UC-IT resources Risk #31 Sufficient Deloitte staffing Concerns that the project may not have the appropriate number of UI experienced resources assigned to meet deliverables expectations Other State UI implementations concurrent with Connect may have the potential to create resource conflicts Five other open risks being actively monitored Project Connect 28

29 No open issues at this time Project Connect 29

30 August 24 Massachusetts Trip September 14 ESC Meeting October 12 ESC Meeting October 28 Design Interim Gate 1 Project Connect 30

31 Introduction Meeting Minutes Approval Project Status Report IV&V Update By Ernst & Young Other Business Public Comments Review of Actions from Meeting Schedule Next Meeting September 14 Adjourn Project Connect 31

32 Unemployment Compensation Project Independent Verification and Validation Monthly Assessment Report Summary 05 August 2011

33 Topics for discussion General IV&V overview Overall risk state and trending Key indicators Key findings Upcoming IV&V activities Open deficiencies Summary of changes UC project milestones Page 33

34 General IV&V overview The UC Project Team has baselined the integrated master schedule (IMS) and established a performance measurement baseline (PMB) for managing and reporting project performance. A formal demonstration of the Project Management Center (PMC) to be used to manage and report project status was conducted. Several artifacts and deliverables were provided for review. Comments have been provided to the UC Project Team for consideration. Deficiencies addressed: D8 The IMS is not dynamic and does not readily support the re-scheduling of tasks as a result of changes. No new deficiencies identified. All foundational elements to properly manage the UC Project have been implemented. Page 34

35 Overall risk state and trending Program Risk state of UC Project As of 05 August 2011 Governance Risk state with trending Program Cost management P1 Time management P2 P4 Resource management Performance management Change management Functionality T1 Technical architecture T4 P3 Operations support High-level system architecture Risk adjusted financials T2 P6 Non-functional requirements P5 Risk management T3 P9 B1 Business objectives and value alignment Quality management P8 B2 Business process Benefits tracking P7 Organization design B3 Communication B6 P9 P6 P8 P3 P5 P7 P2 P4 T3 P1 B3 B2 B1 B6 T5 B5 B4 B9 T8 B8 T7 B7 Functional requirements T5 Legacy integration Cost, benefit and risk B5 Reporting and value monitoring T7 Requirements mapping T6 B4 Investment governance and approval B9 Technology T8 Stabilization T9 B7 Compliance and regulatory B8 Business Technology T1 T2 T4 T6 T9 Risk state with trending Business Indicates that the area being assessed has critical issues that will result in significant risk to the project most likely resulting in either the inability to achieve the outcomes, inability to meet the projected schedule, or a significant cost over-run. Requires immediate action. Indicates that the area being assessed has issues that need to be resolved; inefficiencies exist. Current process/method can be used with refinement. Indicates that the area being assessed did not have significant issues to report. Continued monitoring should be performed. Indicates that the area being assessed has incomplete information available for a conclusive finding or is not applicable. Page 35

36 Key indicators Indicator Value Comment Is the project approach sound? Is the project on time? Is the project on budget? Is scope being managed so there is no scope creep? What are the project s future risks? Are the project s risks increasing or decreasing? Are there new or emerging technological solutions that will affect the project s technology assumptions? Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Neither No The work being completed as part of the UC3 project is within the scope of the project as defined for the UC modernization project. New and emerging technologies were considered in the Feasibility Study. None have an adverse effect on the project s technological assumptions. Page 36

37 Key findings Area Item Key finding Implications Recommendations Program None None None None Business None None None None Technology None None None None Page 37

38 Upcoming IV&V activities Participate in UC meetings IV&V review meetings with the UC Project Team Executive Steering Committee meetings Review integrated master schedule and associated project performance reports Deliverable review schedule is as follows: Deliverable Planned finish Comment UC3-06A, Project Management Documents 24 August 2011 Final deliverables to be provided 08/17/11 UC3-06B, Requirements Validation 12 August 2011 UC3-06C, Design Documents 23 December 2011 UC3-06D, Development 10 August 2012 UC3-06E, Testing 13 April 2012 UC3-06F, Data Conversion 10 August 2012 UC3-06G, Training 07 December 2012 UC3-06H, Implementation 26 November 2012 Page 38

39 Open deficiencies No. Areas Deficiency Implications None None None Page 39

40 Summary of changes Item Deficiencies addressed New deficiencies Risk ratings Maturity ratings Interviews conducted Artifacts received Description D8 The IMS is not dynamic and does not readily support the re-scheduling of tasks as a result of changes. No new deficiencies since the last report. P4 Time management changed from Amber (issues and inefficiencies) to Green (no issues). P2 Cost management changed from level 2 (repeatable) to level 3 (defined). P3 Resource management changed from level 2 (repeatable) to level 3 (defined). P4 Time management changed from level 2 (repeatable) to level 4 (managed). P5 Performance management changed from level 2 (repeatable) to level 4 (managed). No interviews conducted since the last report. Artifacts received include deliverable expectation documents (DEDs), various deliverables, ESC materials, budget and forecast updates, project and performance management materials, project schedule, and requirements. Page 40

41 UC project milestones WBS Title Completion date Scheduled Planned Actual Planning Interim Gate 04/29/ /29/ /29/ Planning Phase Gate 06/17/ /17/ /17/ Define Interim Gate 1 06/24/ /29/ /29/ Define Interim Gate 2 07/15/ Define Phase Gate 08/05/ Design Interim Gate 1 10/28/ Design Interim Gate 2 12/02/ Design Interim Gate 3 12/02/ Design Phase Gate 12/16/ Develop Interim Gate 1 05/11/ Develop Interim Gate 2 07/13/ Develop Phase Gate 08/03/ UAT Phase Gate 11/16/ Implementation Phase Gate 12/14/2012 Page 41

42 Project Connect 42

43 Introduction Meeting Minutes Approval Project Status Report IV&V Update By Ernst & Young Other Business Public Comments Review of Actions from Meeting Schedule Next Meeting September 14 Adjourn Project Connect 43

44 FY10/11 Spend Plan Graph FY10/11 Spend Plan Details Project Connect 44

45 Millions FY Project Funding - Cumulative by Month Budgeted: $21,124,881 Forecast: 20,908,149 Variance: $216, Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 FY Budget Allocation Committed Forecast Project Connect 45

46 FY Budget Allocation and Spend by Month - Q1 & Q2 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 Budget Committed Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Budget Forecast OPS Funding 3,800 3,644 3,800 3,735 3,800 3,735 3,800 3,735 3,800 3,735 3,800 3,735 Contingency Expenses Funding 777, , , ,775 49,775 49, , ,975 49,775 49,775 3,464,284 3,464,284 Contingency 10, , , , , ,955 0 OCO Funding ,000 68, , , Contingency , Contracted Services Project Management & Support 226, , , , , , , , , , , ,091 IV&V Services 46,456 46, , ,068 77,762 77,762 46,456 46,456 46,456 46, , ,068 Benefits Realization Strategy 9,320 8,815 9,320 9,320 9,320 9,320 9,320 9,320 9,320 9,320 9,320 9,320 Operational Change Management 25,500 17,115 25,500 25,500 25,500 25,500 38,700 38,700 38,700 38,700 38,700 38,700 System Integrator (SI) Services 0 0 1,630,482 1,630, ,397,556 1,397, , ,805 4,082,546 4,082,546 SI Hardware & Maintenance 243, , SI Software & Maintenance ,986 40,986 Project Reserves 5, , , , , ,084 0 Total Contracted Services 556, ,888 2,004,003 2,000, , ,372 1,712,838 1,704, , ,371 4,444,028 4,440,711 Contingency 93, , , , , ,559,185 0 Total Budget Allocation & Spend 1,338,181 1,166,041 2,215,578 2,211, , ,883 2,233,761 2,225, , ,882 7,912,112 7,908,730 Total Contingency 105, , , , , ,569,900 0 Project Connect 46

47 OPS Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Funding 3,800 3,735 3,800 3,735 3,800 3,735 3,800 3,735 3,800 3,735 3,800 3,735 Contingency Expenses FY Budget Allocation and Spend by Month - Q3 & Q4 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 Funding 74,275 74,275 69,775 69,775 69,775 69,775 74,275 74,275 91,275 91,275 71,275 71,275 Contingency 14, , , , , ,255 0 OCO Funding Contingency Contracted Services Project Management & Support 160, , , , , , , , , , , ,091 IV&V Services 46,456 46,456 46,456 46,456 46,456 46,456 46,456 46,456 46,456 46,456 46,456 46,456 Benefits Realization Strategy 7,920 7,920 7,920 7,920 7,920 7,920 7,920 7,920 7,920 7,920 7,920 7,920 Operational Change Management 38,700 38,700 38,700 38,700 38,700 38,700 38,700 38,700 38,700 38,700 38,700 38,700 System Integrator (SI) Services 122, , , , , , , ,805 2,684,990 2,684, , ,805 SI Hardware & Maintenance ,282,389 1,282, SI Software & Maintenance Project Reserves 3, , , , , ,285 0 Total Contracted Services 379, , , ,971 1,661,864 1,658, , ,971 2,941,875 2,938, , ,971 Contingency 75, , , , , ,898 0 Total Budget Allocation & Spend 457, , , ,482 1,735,439 1,731, , ,982 3,036,950 3,033, , ,982 Total Contingency 91, , , , , ,913 0 Project Connect 47