Child Support Directors Association of California in partnership with California Department of Child Support Services Annual Child Support Training Conference & Expo October 5-7, 2010 | Orange County, California

Presenters Department of Child Support Services CCSAS Project and Procurement Office Enterprise Project Management Office ✷ Wendy Justinich, Manager ✷ Jason Tomoeda, Change Request Coordinator

CCSAS SYSTEM CHANGE GOVERNANCE PROCESS

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 annually CCSAS 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

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 Action Maintenance, Mandatory and Non-System Changes

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 REQUIRED Maintenance ■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

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 Changes Mandatory 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 Examples ■Mandatory change – indicate source (legislative, rule, regulation, control agency, etc.) ■Include quantifiable data/metrics

Discretionary Changes – Annual Limits Resources ■Limited to existing DCSS staff and contractors ■No new funding for the foreseeable future Number 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

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 Prioritization Principles 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 DCSS Risk/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?