Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

09/11/081 ISD2R\YES NM PCC Presentation 09/24/08 Planning Phase Certification Change Request.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "09/11/081 ISD2R\YES NM PCC Presentation 09/24/08 Planning Phase Certification Change Request."— Presentation transcript:

1 09/11/081 ISD2R\YES NM PCC Presentation 09/24/08 Planning Phase Certification Change Request

2 09/11/082 Agenda Change in Project Approach Project Status Accomplishments Calendar Year 2008 Current Budget and Timeline Remaining Risks Mitigation Strategies

3 09/11/083 Project Approach Leadership Change State visits, State teleconferences, conference attendance Lessons Learned Combination of ISD2R\YES NM Accelerated delivery of IT Infrastructure components Current Plans

4 09/11/084 Leadership Change Kate Jesberg and Terri Gomez placed the project under review early 2008 Dan Donoghue accepted a promotion at the Department of Corrections in March 2008 Jan Christine assumed responsibility for the ISD2R and YES NM project mid April 2008.

5 09/11/085 State Visits, Teleconferences, Conferences In the past 1 ½ years, the project team has conducted teleconferences with or viewed demos from 25 states (list at end of presentation). See next slide for the list of states. The team has also conducted (4) on-site State visits to Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and California C-IV

6 09/11/086 States Analysis Contacted: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, California (C- IV and LA Leader), City of New York, District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming Viewed full or partial demos: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, California (C-IV system and LA Leader system), City of New York, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin

7 09/11/087 Lessons Learned Planning Phases range in cost from Million. Implementation costs range from Arizona’s estimate of $80 Million to Texas’ actual cost of $300 Million for completion of implementation in four counties. Implementation typically requires 4 years from the start of the implementation phase. Other states consider the YES-equivalent to be functionality of the main system. No state currently provides centralized intake for their own and other agencies. Most of the States contacted possessed IT Infrastructure components for business intelligence, imaging, customer eligibility screening, and forms creation that New Mexico currently does not possess. Idaho, Oklahoma, Curum, and Oracle are pursuing models different from the current “norm”.

8 09/11/088 Idaho Model Completed Planning in-house to replace that previously completed by an external vendor. Justified the transfer of the C-IV system from California “as-is” as a result of the Planning Phase. Obtained the approval of the business to implement C-IV in Idaho with infinitesimal changes. Hired C-IV experts without an RFP Attempted to retool State COBOL resources, but instead hired local Java/Oracle developers. NOTE: The State already has capabilities for business intelligence, imaging and electronic document management and a rudimentary Master Client Index. Idaho’s current estimate is $32 Million to project completion for replacement of an ISD2R look-alike. They are currently reducing the scope to meet the budget.

9 09/11/089 Oklahoma Model Approach is 180º from Idaho. Spent $4.5 Million on the planning phase Create requirements for intake (and possibly some interviewing) that are shared across all Health and Human Services (HHS) functions. Defined the program-unique modules behind the shared intake. Performed a large Business Process Reengineering phase defining how the Departments would collaborate in the future. Currently working on the RFP. Estimate Phase 1 of the project to cost $160 Million.

10 09/11/0810 Curum and Oracle (the 600 pound gorillas in the room) At the ISM conference August 2008 in San Francisco, both of these organizations touted COTS systems that would offer a solution similar to Oklahoma’s vision. Oracle has pursued a very aggressive acquisition strategy during the past four years. Oracle promised a major announcement in regards to HHS COTS systems within the next 60 days, but shared nothing about the nature of that announcement.

11 09/11/0811 Current ISD2R\YES NM Approach Combine ISD2R\YES NM. Complete Planning Phase by late spring Perform RFI December through January SFY 2009 Invite Oracle and Curum to RFI and continue to determine how much functionality is in production. Pursue candidate system for Idaho approach using criteria agreed upon by New Mexico. Plan and budget for an approach similar to Arizona’s ($80 Million estimate), but include enough funds for business intelligence and imaging\electronic document management that New Mexico does not possess. Stay in continual contact with Oklahoma and a group of states exploring in Enterprise solutions.

12 09/11/0812 Planning Phase Budget Cost CategoryPlanning Phase Estimate State Personnel $656,850 Contract Personnel $ 1,113,150 Hardware, Software and Travel $230,000 TOTAL $2,000,000

13 09/11/0813 Planning Phase Schedule

14 09/11/0814 Governance Structure

15 09/11/0815 Planning Phase Risks\ Mitigation Risk #1: Inexperience of Internal Team with Planning Phase Mitigation #1: Obtain 2-3 external resources with depth of experience in Planning Phase for similar systems in successful projects Risk #2: Lack of internal resources for adequate technical review including architecture and security Mitigation #2: Obtain full-time external resource for Systems Engineer, experienced in Java, Oracle, SOA architecture used in systems similar to ISD2R\YES NM Risk #3: Flexibility and timeliness of procurement processes Mitigation #3: Discuss and agree upon procurement strategies early in project. Place all procurement partners within a portfolio management workflow that will allow continual monitoring of the process.

16 09/11/0816 Global Risks Risk #4: Changing Competitive vendor environment, especially in regards to COTS vendors Mitigation #4: Invite the appropriate vendors to the project RFI and continually track with industry trends. Risk #5: Legislative funding approval at adequate levels for SFY 2010 and beyond. Mitigation #5: Budget request has been made for SFY10 funds adequate to continue to completion

17 09/11/0817 Request Summary Increase planning phase funding to $2 Million, with revised schedule. Recombine ISD2R and YES NM for the complete project life cycle.


Download ppt "09/11/081 ISD2R\YES NM PCC Presentation 09/24/08 Planning Phase Certification Change Request."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google