State of Washington Administrative Office of the Courts Draft 120 Day Action Plan Presentation

For internal use of the Washington Administrative Office of the Courts. © 2005 Gartner, Inc. and/or Gartner Holdings Ireland.

All Rights Reserved.Page 1

Washington Administrative Office of the Courts120 Day Action Plan PresentationEngagement 221051040October 13, 2005

State of Washington

Administrative Office of the Courts

Draft 120 Day Action Plan

PresentationEngagement: 221051040

October 13, 2005




Purpose

The purpose of this presentation is to: Review the JIS Migration Project Assessment Findings and Recommendations.

Present a Draft 120 Day Action Plan that Addresses the Assessment Findings.

Vet the Action Plan and Incorporate Recommendations.

Agree on Next Steps.




JIS Migration Project Risk and Implementation Readiness Assessment Focus Areas

Project Assessent Foucs Areas Gartner Assessment Categories JIS Migration Project

1 Benefits Specification Yes2 Benefits Measure Yes3 Project Scope Management Yes4 Ongoing Support Planning Yes5 Ongoing Cost Management Yes6 Gap Management Yes7 Project Oversight and Support Yes8 Complexity Control Yes9 Project Planning Yes

10 Vendor Management Yes11 Project Management Yes12 Project Resource Management Yes13 Budget Management Yes14 Requirements Definition and Development Yes15 Customization Yes16 Conversion Planning Yes17 Conversion Execution Yes18 Systems Integration Testing Yes19 Systems Performance Testing Yes20 User Testing Yes21 Contingency Planning Yes22 On-going IT Operations Support Yes23 On-going Vendor Support Yes24 Organizational Change Yes25 User Involvement Yes26 External Stakeholders Yes27 Training Yes28 Due Diligence Yes29 Risk Management Yes

29 Areas were Assessed

and Evaluated against

Industry Best Practices

29 Areas were Assessed

and Evaluated against

Industry Best Practices




Project Risk and Implementation Readiness Assessment Assessment Methodology

Rating — Gartner’s risk and implementation assessment rating is based upon Project Management Institute’s (PMI) standards. To highlight potential risks to the project for each project management knowledge area, Gartner uses a “red light/yellow light/green light/blue light” reporting strategy as documented below: “Blue Light” (Exceeding Project Schedule and Quality Standards): The approach

exceeds “Best Practices” project standards. The approach has enhanced system delivery success.

“Green Light” (Acceptable to Excellent, i.e., “Low Risk”): The approach meets or exceeds solid project management and systems development standards. To receive this ranking, the approach must present no significant risks to the project.

“Yellow LightYellow Light” (Caution, i.e., “Medium Risk”): The approach is not clearly defined, and/or presents a risk to the project. Recommendations for risk areas assigned this rating are important to ensure optimal project operation.

“Red Light” (Risk Alert, i.e., “High Risk”): The approach presents serious risks to the project and requires immediate attention. Recommendations for risk areas assigned this rating are essential for mitigating project risk.

Recommendations — Gartner’s recommendations for improvement and risk mitigation.




Overall the project is rated RED – High Risk. There were 13 Red – High Risk areas identified.

There were 16 YellowYellow – Medium Risk areas identified.

There were no Green – Low Risk areas identified.

There were no areas Blue – Exceeding Project Schedule and Quality Standards identified.

Overall Project

Business Benefit Risk Budget and Schedule Risk Operational Risk Organizational Risk External Risk

JIS Migration ProjectAssessment

Focus Area Summary

JIS Migration ProjetOverall Risk and Readiness Assessment Ratings




JIS Migration ProjectOverall Risk and Readiness Assessment Findings Rationale

Overall the Project is Rated RED – High Risk.

Rationale for the rating includes: There is no clear vision (charter), case for action or project plan in place (and signed off by key

stakeholders) that defines the business benefits (in terms of the functionality to be delivered to the specific court levels, the technology improvements to be gained or the metrics by which to measure the system’s success to be achieved through business functionality delivered or process improvement to be provided) by the JIS Migration Project.

AOC does not have a fully fleshed-out architecture for the proposed JIS system, making it difficult to assess overall system complexity, resource requirements (for development as well as ongoing support), project schedule impacts (development and implementation), as well as overall budget requirements.

AOC project management and software development processes and methodologies (although improving in some areas) are not mature and lack the depth needed to ensure the success of such a complex undertaking as the new JIS. Requirements capture, assessment, management and tracking processes need to be

improved significantly. Testing and systems requirements validation processes need to be improved. Staff training and awareness of key software development and testing tools to be used on

the project is lacking.




Rationale for the rating (cont): Overall project governance needs to be strengthened at all levels.

The JISC is encouraged to be more proactive and a driving force around:

– Defining high-level business requirements.

– Establishing the value of business benefits expected.

– Prioritizing the functionality to be delivered to the various court levels (phasing).

– Requiring budget and tracking cost for the individual solution components.

– Requiring a linkage between business benefit value received and the cost for each solution component.

In addition, the JISC needs to facilitate and drive consensus among the various courts, counties and agencies involved in the project.

AOC management needs to take a more “hands on role” in regularly assessing project status, helping to address key issues, providing mentorship and clearly articulating the vision and progress the project is making.

At the “grass-roots level” it is not clear what the new JIS encompasses either from a technology standpoint or business value to be delivered. The team lacks direction and focus.

JIS Migration ProjectOverall Risk and Readiness Assessment Findings Rationale (cont)




Rationale for the rating (cont): Critical resources needed for the project are either not available, or do not have the necessary

experience and skill level required, including: Program Management System and Application Architect Database Architect Systems Security Architect

The courts (due to business workload and resource constraints) are hard pressed to provide the needed resources to support the project, and this situation appears unlikely to change. The courts will need to provide support in a variety of critical areas on the project including:

Requirements definition and review (system functionality, business value metrics, delivery priority, etc.).

In process project reviews and the assessment of key deliverables.

User Acceptance Testing.

Turn Over to Production Planning.

Post Implementation Assessment and Support.

JIS Migration ProjectOverall Risk and Readiness Assessment Findings Rationale (cont)




JIS Migration Project AssessmentThe Bottom Line

There are unmet business needs within the court system. The business problems and opportunities that resulted in the original JIS Migration Project

represent real business needs.

Some of the current initiatives and solutions would meet these defined needs if they could be executed successfully.

However, no “business case” can be articulated for the entirety of the JIS Migration Plan, which is a strategy and is comprised of multiple IT initiatives that require separate and distinct justifications (e.g., case management, calendaring, e-Citation, public e-Access, data exchange).

While AOC has made progress towards an enterprise JIS, Gartner’s assessment indicates that the program risk of failure is high.

It is not clear if AOC will be able to deliver a finished project within the specified timeframes and within the budget.

Issues associated with definition of scope, prioritization, and execution of those initiatives have introduced risk to project success and full benefit realization of the JIS Migration Project.

The strategy of building an enterprise system is not consistent with similar initiatives other states.

The need for a single enterprise solution to solve the problems of separate courts may not be feasible and would require a very strong governance, which is not present today.




Proposed Alternatives A Process to Bridge the Gaps and Reduce Risks

In defining the alternatives, Gartner believes that AOC needs to focus its activities on Strategy first and then Execution:

Strategy Alternatives

Alternative I: Continue As Is But Improve Execution

Alternative II: Reconsider Strategy and Approach

Execution Alternatives

Alternative A: Re-Architect / Re-Host the Legacy JIS

Alternative B: Acquire Best-of-Breed Solutions and Integrate

Alternative C: Initially Focus on Data Exchange*, Then Best-of-Breed

*Note: The Data Exchange referenced in this alternative includes a broader scope than the existing JIS Data Exchange initiative.

Gartner’s Recommendations are highlighted in Blue




Recommended Strategy Alternative Alternative II: Reconsider Strategy and Approach

Reconsider Strategy and Approach This alternative consists of the following key actions:

Applications Development– Consider pausing all discretionary applications development and enhancement activities. Do not

initiate any new applications development or major enhancement activities until the subsequent actions have been completed.

Governance – Take aggressive action to plan for the new JIS by strengthening the governance processes that will

foster consensus building and drive accountability: » JISC: Project Prioritization, Business Case Approval, Consensus Building, Expectation Management,

Executive Oversight.» AOC: Project Assessment and Corrective Action Reviews, Delivery Assurance.» All: Document and track the measurable business value to be provided through each release to drive

accountability.

– Gain consensus from all key stakeholders on the business objectives and benefits for the system.» Functionality to be delivered (and its phasing).» Data exchange capability and scope.

Organizational Role – Determine the role that the AOC will fulfill in the delivery of solutions to the courts:

» Full Service Provider

» Applications Developer

» Systems Integrator

» Internal Service Company (ISCo)




Key actions (cont) Business Needs and Value of Business Benefits

– Define the success metrics and business value that the new system(s) will bring to the courts and State agencies.

– Vet the business case with all key stakeholders and incorporate feedback. – Based on the above, prioritize the development and delivery of JIS functionality based on business

needs and the value of the benefits to be delivered. Use this as the roadmap for the development of a fully fleshed-out JIS solution architecture and delivery strategy.

– Finally, document the delivery strategy and measurable business and operational improvement metrics into an overall project vision and charter to guide the project, set priorities, and focus delivery activities.

Overall Solution Architecture of the new JIS– Define and develop a fully fleshed-out solution architecture and detailed development and

implementation plan for the new JIS.– Assess recent systems development successes and how they should be integrated into the overall

JIS solution architecture (e.g., JCS).

– Application Architecture (including interfaces).

– Functional Specification (including use cases).

– Database Architecture.

Recommended Strategy Alternative (cont)Alternative II: Reconsider Strategy and Approach




Key actions (cont) Analysis and Selection of Execution Alternatives

– Identify components for statewide or local implementation.

– Assess buy vs. build options.» Commercial COTS components (e.g., case management, jury management, financial systems).

» Other state and county solutions (e.g., LINX from Pierce County).

Project Prioritization and Phasing– Redefine the JIS Migration as a program with a series of interrelated projects.

– Develop a detailed project plan and work breakdown structure.

– Develop a detailed project budget.

– Identify vendor support requirements.

Execution Capability and Resources– Acquire critical skills needed for enhance execution delivery:

» JIS Program Manager (experienced in the management and delivery of complex systems)

» Applications Architect

» Database Architect

» Security Architect

– Develop and enhance internal processes and provide in-depth training to ensure the project’s success (e.g., Project Management, Software Development Lifecycle, Financial Management, Vendor Management).

Recommended Strategy Alternative (cont)Alternative II: Reconsider Strategy and Approach




Proposed Execution Alternatives

Gartner considered the following critical areas when developing potential Execution Alternative candidates:

Buy vs. Build Options Sourcing (in-house, staff augmentation, vs. outsource) Single System vs. Court-specific Systems Big Bang vs. Phased Implementation

Gartner identified three execution alternatives to evaluate as potential options for the JIS Migration Project:

Alternative A: Re-Architect / Re-Host the Legacy JIS

Alternative B: Acquire Best-of-Breed Solutions and Integrate

Alternative C: Initially Focus on Data Exchange, Then Best-of-Breed

Gartner’s Recommendation is highlighted in Blue




Recommended Execution Alternative Alternative C: Initially Focus on Data Exchange, Then Best-of-Breed

Initial development and operation of a statewide JIS data integration infrastructure and offer best-of-breed solution services

This alternative consists of: Continuing to be the preferred solution provider for the vast majority of courts.

Initially focusing on the design and development of a statewide data integration infrastructure.

Performing operation and maintenance of the data infrastructure.

Continuing to maintain the infrastructure and legacy systems and offer best-of-breed solution services using an Internal Service Company (ISCo) Model, thus providing various court levels throughout the State the greatest flexibility.

Acquisition Strategy

Assess the use of: Commercial off the shelf solutions (e.g., data integration infrastructure components).

Other existing state or county solutions.

Current in-house initiatives (e.g., Data Exchange Project).

Assess build vs. buy options for the above. Develop the detailed Data Exchange Architecture and Integration Standards. Define the Enterprise Database Architecture.




Process-Based

Silos

InternalService

Company(ISCo)

The

IS M

atur

ity P

ath

CostCenter

ISCo Transformation

Messaging ServicesMessaging ServicesInfrastructure ServicesInfrastructure ServicesApplication ServicesApplication ServicesBusiness Recovery ServicesBusiness Recovery Services

DataCenter

Distrib-uted

App. Devel-opment

Reactive, budget-driven, resource-constrained, acts like a perpetual backlog

Service-focused, competitive pricing, supply creator

Change Mgmt.Asset Mgmt.

Application Development

Proactive, Total Cost of Ownership-optimized

Telecom

I

T F

ocu

s

C

ust

om

er F

ocu

s

Recommended Execution Alternative (cont)Alternative C: Initially Focus on Data Exchange, Then Best-of-Breed

SolutionProvider

AOC




Recommended Execution Alternative (cont)Alternative C: Initially Focus on Data Exchange, Then Best-of-Breed

Implementation/Rollout Strategy

Define the business benefits (in terms of the data exchange functionality to be delivered to the specific court levels, the technology improvements to be gained and the metrics by which to measure the system(s)’ success to be achieved through data exchange functionality delivered or process improvement to be provided) by the Data Exchange Project.

Define phased (prioritization) implementation plan to deliver the data exchange functionality to the various court levels and State agencies.

Move to an Internal Service Company (ISCo) delivery model for providing best-of-breed solution services and maintenance support for the courts. Any court that chooses to acquire and support their own systems must comply with AOC data integration requirements. Assess implementation options:

In-house

Hire Systems Integrator(s)




Recommended Roadmap

Strategic Focus(Reconsider Strategy and Approach)

Strategic Focus(Reconsider Strategy and Approach)

Execution Focus(Focus on Data Exchange)

Execution Focus(Focus on Data Exchange)

Establish a robust Governance and Project Oversight Process.

Determine the role that the AOC will fulfill in the delivery of solutions to the courts.

Define the success metrics and business value that each initiative will bring to the courts. Vet each business case with all key stakeholders.

Define and fully develop an overall solution architecture and detailed plan for the new JIS.

Identify components for statewide or local implementation and analyze buy vs. build for each.

Redefine the JIS Migration as a program with a series of interrelated, prioritized projects, each with a budget and detailed project plan.

Establish comprehensive delivery processes and acquire needed critical skills.

Continue to be the preferred solution provider for the vast majority of courts.

Focus on the design and development of a statewide data integration infrastructure.

Develop detailed Data Exchange Architecture. Assess Buy vs. Build Alternatives. Develop Integration Standards. Define the Enterprise Database Architecture. Defined Phased Implementation Plan.

Focus on the operation and maintenance of the data infrastructure by AOC.

Move to an Internal Service Company (ISCo) delivery model providing best-of-breed solution services and maintenance support for the courts.

Any court that chooses to acquire and support their own systems must comply with AOC data integration requirements.

First 120 Days On Going Focus

x




Draft 120 Day Action Plan




Action Plan DevelopmentGuiding Principals

Address All Key Elements of the Recommendation Roadmap: Define the role that the AOC will fulfill in the delivery of solutions to the courts.

Continue to be the preferred solution provider for the vast majority of courts. Establish a robust Governance and Project Oversight Process. Focus on the design and development of a statewide data integration infrastructure. Focus on the operation and maintenance of the data infrastructure by AOC. Define and fully develop an overall solution architecture and detailed plan for the new JIS.

Define the success metrics and business value that each initiative will bring to the courts. Redefine the JIS Migration as a program with a series of interrelated, prioritized projects, each with a budget and

detailed project plan. Identify components for statewide or local implementation and analyze buy vs. build for each .

Establish comprehensive delivery processes and acquire needed critical skills. Move to an Internal Service Company (ISCo) delivery model providing best-of-breed solution services and

maintenance support for the courts.

Define a “Team Focused” Plan that addresses issues impacting the: Organization Governance Delivery Processes and Tools Current Projects Definition of a Statewide Data Integration Infrastructure Solution Architecture and

Implementation Plan Definition of the JIS Solution Architecture and Implementation Plan




Action PlanInitial Planning Activities

ID Task Name

1 AOC 120 Day Action Plan2 Develop Draft Action Plan and Presentation3 Present Draf t Plan to Key Staff 4 Assign Action Plan Owners To Manage Plan Activities5 Assign Overall Plan Owner6 Assign Subtask (Team) Owners7 Plan and Subtask Team Owners Finalize Plan8 Add, modify and update draf t tasks9 Identif y required resources (people, t imeframe, etc.)10 Assign resources to each task11 Identif y key milestones and delivery dates12 Update and Finalize Indiv idual Plans and Integrate into Ov erall Action Plan13 Present Action Plan f or Approv al14 Report Progress and Address Issues on a Weekly Basis




Action PlanTeam 1 Activities

ID Task Name

15 Team 1 - Assess Organizational Impacts and Make Recommendations16 Define AOC Delivery Role and Responsibility17 Define Delivery Model18 Preferred Solutions Prov ider (e.g.ISCO model)19 Def ine Operation and Maintenance of the data exchange inf rastructure20 Def ine Best of Breed Solution Selection (Criteria) and Delivery (In/Out House) Processes21 Define Supporting Organizational Requirements and Structure22 PMO23 Applications Development24 Legacy Systems Support 25 Quality Assurance26 Relationship Management27 Vendor Management28 Identify and Hire Required Resources 29 Program Manager30 Project Manager(s)31 Solutions Architect32 Database Architect33 System Security Architect34 Vendor Manager35 Document Assessment Findings and Recommendations36 Present Assessment Findings and Recommendations





ID Task Name

37 Team 2 - Assess Governance Structure and Processes and Make Recommendations 38 Stakeholder Ov ersight (JISC/JISAC)39 AOC Executiv e Ov ersight40 Project Management Ov ersight41 Document Assessment Findings and Recommendations42 Present Assessment Findings and Recommendations





ID Task Name

43 Team 3 - Assess Delivery Processes and Tools and Make Recommendations 44 Critical Focus Areas45 Project Management Of f ice46 Project Management47 Financial Management48 Sof tware Development49 Quality Assurance50 Vendor Management51 Turn Over to Production52 Post Implementation Assessment53 Relationship Managment54 Document Assessment Findings and Recommendations55 Present Assessment Findings and Recommendations





ID Task Name

56 Team 4 - Assess Current Projects and Make Recommendations 57 Critical Focus Areas58 Data Exchange59 Data Warehouse60 JCS61 E-Citation62 ACORDS63 CAPS64 Other65 Document Assessment Findings and Recommendations66 Present Assessment Findings and Recommendations





ID Task Name

67 Team 5 - Define Data Integration Solution Architecture and Detailed Implementation Plan68 Def ine the Business Vision, Drivers and Needs69 Develop Prioritized Roadmap of Init iat ives required to meet def ined business needs70 Def ine overall Solutions Architecture and Implementation Plan 71 Develop a Business Case f or Each Init iatives72 Present Business Case and Priorit ized Roadmap to JISC f or approval73 Document Assessment Findings and Recommendations74 Present Assessment Findings and Recommendations





ID Task Name

75 Team 6 - Define JIS Solution Architecture and Detailed Implementation Plan76 Complete JIS Assessment Activities (i.e., Review of other State Application Activities)77 Send introductory e-mail AOC Administrators 78 Call CIOs to schedule t ime f or an ATC interv iew (e-mail init ial cut questions in advance) 79 Narrow the list of states and conduct in-depth phone interv iews 80 Narrow the list f urther and conduct site v isits 81 Continue SMC Activities and Identify Next Steps82 Def ine Case Management Functional Requirements83 Other84 Def ine the Business Vision, Drivers and Needs85 Develop Prioritized Roadmap of Init iat ives required to meet def ined business needs86 Def ine overall Solutions Architecture and Implementation Plan 87 Develop a Business Case f or Each Init iatives88 Present Business Case and Priorit ized Roadmap to JISC f or approval89 Document Assessment Findings and Recommendations90 Present Assessment Findings and Recommendations




Suggested Next StepsTo be completed by next Wednesday - October 19th

Finalize (Friday): Plan Owner.

Team Leaders.

Team Leads – Develop Detailed Plans (by COB next Tuesday): Review and update plan as needed (add, modify, update tasks).

Identify and assign required resources to each task (time, staff members, etc.).

Identify key milestones and delivery dates.

Update plan and present individual team plans for approval.

Plan Owner – Review and Approve Team Plans (by COB next Thursday) Review and approval individual team plans

Integrate and publish 120 Action Plan

Schedule weekly action Plan review and assessment meetings

Present Action Plan to JISC and JISAC and provide monthly progress reports

All - Execute the Plan

x




Questions or Comments




Gartner

Engagement ManagerRichard FlowerreeOffice: 619-542-4815 Mobile: 619-517-1500email: [email protected]

Project ManagerRosy SprakerOffice: 808-206-9405Mobile: 808-388-0818email: [email protected]

Date post:	03-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	thomas-buckley
View:	27 times
Download:	5 times

State of Washington Administrative Office of the Courts Draft 120 Day Action Plan Presentation

Documents