Child Support Directors Association of California in partnership with California Department of...
-
Upload
samson-cobb -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Child Support Directors Association of California in partnership with California Department of...
Child Support Directors Association of California in partnership with California Department of Child Support Services
Annual Child Support Training Conference & ExpoAnnual Child Support Training Conference & Expo
October 5-7, 2010 October 5-7, 2010 || Orange County, California Orange County, California
PresentersDepartment of Child Support
ServicesCCSAS Project and Procurement Office Enterprise Project Management Office
✷ Wendy Justinich, Manager✷ Jason Tomoeda, Change Request
Coordinator
CCSAS SYSTEM CHANGEGOVERNANCE PROCESS
Return to Originator
Not this year
Does not meet MCR Requirements
LoE
Bypass
Yes
Mandatory Change
Division/LCSA
Internal Development
STARTTechnical
Review Team (TRT)
Develop Level of Effort (LoE)
CMCC Voters
RFC to Workgroup?
Discretionary CSE System Change (New Functionality)
CMCC Workgroup
Validates Justification
and LoE
CMCC Voters
RFC to CCB?
1
1
CCSASCCB
IAP Status
and Approval
CCSASCCB
Prioritize1) Cost/Benefit2) Risk/Reward
2
2
Yes
Maintenance Change Request (MCR), and Business Application
Mandatory System Change
Yes
Maintenance
Non-System Resolution
4
End
Division/LCSA
Finalize RFC
IterativeProcessCMCC
Support
Log in RFC send to TRT
CMCCCCBExec
Color Key
TSD
Div/LCSA
Deputy Dir./ LCSA Director
Sign-off on RFC
Meets MCRRequirements
ExternalFunding?
END
END
ReturnTo Originator
CCSASExecutiveSteering
Committee
Implement
Send Back Go to 4
END
Yes
No
Return ToOriginator
Go to 4
Go to 4
CMCC Workgroup
Normal Issue Analysis
Revision Date 9/01/10
NoNo
CCSAS Governance Voters Change Management Coordination Committee
(CMCC)■Validate Justification and Level of Effort on RFC CCSAS Change Control Board (CCB)■Approve technical solution■Decide whether change should be made■Prioritize changes to be made annuallyCCSAS Executive Steering Committee■Approval before submission of external funding
requests
Change Requests (CR) – Identifiers and Numbering
Identifier – “CR-n”■ CR-2 retired – Business Partner changes ■ CR-3 SDU■ CR-4 retired – Reports changes now under “5”■ CR-5 CSE system change CR (Mandated and Discretionary)■ CR-6 Business Application Changes (non-CSE system
changes)■ CR-C Multiple system impacts (e.g. CSE and SDU)
Numbering■ New CR numbering scheme will begin with 2000 starting in
November 2010
Existing CR Inventory
CRs that can proceed forward during moratorium:■ Mandatory changes for: transition (CSE or SDU); Enterprise
Customer Service Solution (ECSS), MCR or Business Applications
For CRs in “Deferred” status:■ DCSS Deputy Directors and LCSA Directors to determine if change
still needed and valid ■ Sponsorship and new justification tied to DCSS Strategic Goals■ New number will be assigned■ Close CRs with no sponsorship and archive information■ No inventory of deferred CRs will be maintained in the
future
Initiation – Division/LCSA
CMCCCCBExec
Color Key
TSD
DCSS/LCSA
DCSS / LCSA
Internal Development – Draft Request for
Consideration (RFC)
STARTTechnical
Review Team (TRT)
Develop Levelof Effort (LoE)
LoE
FinalRFC
DCSS / LCSA
Finalize Request for Consideration
Submit RFCto CMCC
1
IterativeProcess
DCSS /LCSA
Sign-offon RFC
MCR - No
Maintenance
MCR - Yes
Maintenance Change Request (MCR), Business Applications END
Changes from Existing Process■Request for Consideration (RFC) submission –
documented research required for justification■Deputy Director or LCSA Director declaration of
sponsorship required upon RFC submission■RFC will be logged for Technical Review Team
(TRT) tracking■TRT will evaluate Maintenance Change Requests
(MCR) and Business Application Changes■TRT will provide Level of Effort (LoE) estimate
for each system change RFC
Technical Review Team
LoE Estimates for System Changes■Completely new step■Sponsor’s primary contact will work with TRT ■Estimate should be relatively quick to develop
(estimated 5-10 working days)■LoE is required for RFC to assist voters■Mandated changes will also be required to have
this■MCR and Business Application changes will not
require LoE
Technical Review Team (cont’d)
■MCR process replaces the Document Change Request (DCR) process
■TRT will validate RFC fits MCR criteria■TRT will also review requests for Business
Applications changes■If RFC fits either MCR or Business
Application criteria they will be implemented without passing through CMCC
CMCC Voter ActionMaintenance, Mandatory and Non-System Changes
No
END
BypassWorkgroup
Submit RFC to CMCC
2
CMCC Voters
Should RFC should be sent to
Workgroup?
Mandatory System Change
Non-SystemResolution
To CCB
CMCCCCBExec
Color Key
TSD
DCSS/LCSADiscretionary
NEXT SECTION
Non-SystemYes – Existingprocess for
Non-System RFCEND
Changes from Existing RFC Process
■Maintenance changes (MCR and Business Application) will be evaluated by the TRT and will not pass through CMCC if they meet the appropriate criteria
■Mandatory changes will be forwarded to CCSAS Change Control Board (CCB) without passing through the workgroups
Maintenance and Mandatory Changes
NO GOAL JUSTIFICATION REQUIREDMaintenance■ MCR – under 40 hours of combined effort (Requirements, Development,
Testing, CM, Performance Testing, etc.); greater than 40 hours effort RFC required
■ Business Application – Systems other than CSE
Mandatory System Change■ Judicial Council form updates■ Guideline Calculator tax table changes■ Federal OCSE 34/396 Report■ Federal/State legislatively mandated change■ Hardware/software upgrades may be mandatory■ Will require LoE and Implementation Analysis Package (IAP)
Non-System Issues
■ Continue to follow existing CMCC process for analysis
■ No justification for change required unless Workgroup recommendation leads to a system change
■ Examples✷ Business Process Guides✷ Quick Reference Guides
Discretionary CSE Changes
No
No
CMCC Workgroup
Determine that RFCmay not meet
Justification andLevel of Effort
CMCC Workgroup
Validate that RFC willmeet Justification
and Level of Effort
Proposal will not achieve claimed result
Yes Yes
CMCC Voters
Validate recommendation to submit to CCB
END
Submit RFC to CMCC
2
CMCC Voters
Should RFC should be sent to
Workgroup?
Discretionary CSE System Change (New Functionality and Enhancements)
To CCB
CMCCCCBExec
Color Key
TSD
DCSS/LCSA
Changes from Existing CMCC Process for Discretionary System Changes
■CMCC Voters✷ Receive RFC for initial review and determine
whether proposal merits use of resources✷ May reject proposal at any time during
analysis✷ Submit RFC to Workgroups to
evaluate/validate discretionary system change
✷ Vote on WG recommendation and submission to CCSAS CCB
Changes from Existing CMCC Process for Discretionary System Changes
(cont’d)
■CMCC Workgroups✷ Validate whether the stated justification
will move the Department towards achieving strategic goals
✷ Make recommendation to CMCC Voters
Justification for System ChangesMandatory or Discretionary (Goal Oriented)■ Mandatory changes will not require justification to the
Strategic Goals■ Discretionary changes should indicate which strategic
goal(s) will be addressed■ Complete justification including specific objective and
strategies identified for the goals as listed in the Strategic Plan 2010-2014
Examples■ Mandatory change – indicate source (legislative, rule,
regulation, control agency, etc.)■ Include quantifiable data/metrics
Discretionary Changes – Annual LimitsResources■Limited to existing DCSS staff and
contractors■No new funding for the foreseeable futureNumber of CR■Maintenance and annual changes will be
approximately 70% of available hours■Hours for discretionary changes will be
balanced against usage for other areas
CCSAS CCB and Executive Steering Committee
No
CCSAS Executive Steering Committee
CCSAS CCB
IAP Status and Approval
ExternalFunding
RELEASE PLANNING
CCSAS CCB
Prioritize CRs1) Cost/Benefit2) Risk/Reward
No END
NOT THIS CYCLE
No External Funding
END
CMCCCCBExec
Color Key
TSD
DCSS/LCSA
CCSAS CCB Prioritization Role
Change Request Impact Analysis Package (IAP)■ Vote to conduct impact analysis
✷ IAP to include full resource estimates – analysis will carry through JAD sessions
■ Approve IAPs – Technical Solutions■ Prioritize approved IAP based on Strategic Goals■ May reject request at any point during analysis
✷ Analysis taking too much times✷ Scope Creep
CCSAS CCB Prioritization Role (cont’d)
Managing Portfolio of Changes■ Balance out CRs for implementation
✷ Maintenance✷ Mandated✷ Discretionary
■ Requests not approved for implementation will be returned to originator
Guiding Principles for PrioritizationPrinciples provide a general sense of priority, to guide decision-makers in instances where more than one guiding principle may apply.
■Focus on enhancing CCSAS as a “case management” system■Focus change on achieving goals of the Strategic Plan■Support changes that enhance the statewideness of CCSAS■Use automation to leverage resources
✷ Improve effectiveness✷ Reduce costs
Prioritization Factors■Prioritization after IAP approved for implementation■Goals and considerations
✷ High to Low importance■Most justifications will require Cost-Benefit analysis
✷ Does the potential benefit justify the cost/hours require to implement the solution?
■Fiscal program safeguards will require Risk-Reward analysis✷ What is the risk or not implementing the change and
what will we gain if we do?
Prioritization Methods
Cost/Benefit■ Not an exact science■ Benefits will be an educated guess backed-up by queries■ Resource costs will be based on IAP JAD sessions■ Improved efficiencies will be validated by DCSSRisk/Reward■ Not an exact science■ CCB will determine whether risk will balance out cost and
reward■ Resource costs will be based on IAP JAD sessions
Prioritization Criteria for CCB■ High
✷ Current Support Collected✷ Arrears Collections✷ Total Collections✷ Operate Efficiently and Effectively
■ High/Medium/Low (depends on justification)✷ Fiscal Program Safeguards
■ Low✷ Parentage Established✷ Support Orders✷ Medical Coverage✷ Customer Service
*All goals require cost/benefit analysis except “Fiscal” that will require Risk/Reward Analysis
CCSAS Executive Steering Committee Role
■The final arbiter of disputes (rejection, priority, etc.)
■Final approval for changes requiring external approval or funding requests
■Will not prioritize changes
CSE/CMCC Vision: What’s Next
Questions or Comments?