Urban Counties TEXAS Conference of Tarrant County Criminal Courts Phase 1 Implementation Kick Off August 5, 2016

Agenda About TechShare Project Overview Project Team Governance Collaboration tools Communications Change Management Risk Time Line Questions 2

3 Texas Conference of Urban Counties Established by the six most populous counties in Texas (Harris, Dallas, Bexar, Tarrant, El Paso, and Travis) in 1975, the Texas Conference of Urban Counties is a non-profit organization representing large urban county issues.

4 TechShare History Established in 2004, TechShare is an innovative non-profit organization providing collaborative, county-owned technology solutions for the counties, by the counties. County participants: Control their own destiny Own the intellectual property Leverage resources across counties Own a solution that meets your needs Provide continuous feedback throughout Texas Conference of Urban Counties TechShare Texas Indigent Health Care Association (TIHCA) Texas Clean Air Working Group (TCAWG) Public Policy

Our Solutions TechShare.Juvenile Juvenile case management system, basic and advanced versions Live in 250 counties across Texas TechShare.Indigent Defense Solution to enable more efficient management of indigent defense services 11 participating counties TechShare.Court Court case management system Three participating counties Live in one county Live for additional Criminal and Justice of the Peace courts by 2017 TechShare.Prosecutor Prosecutor case management system, includes Defense Attorney and LEA portal Live in five counties Live for one additional large county implementing in

Project Overview – Implementation Process 6 PHASE 1 PHASE 2

Project Overview – Project Activities 7 Assess & Plan Assess -Functional Process Mapping -Data Migration -Integration Requirements -Technical Architecture & Environments -Training Plan -Implementation Assessment and Proposal Recommended Implementation Approach Draft Project Schedule Software GAPs from Functional Process Mapping Staffing needs worksheet Cost Estimates Judicial White Paper Functional Process Mapping (FPM)

8 Process list Role definition Assess FPM How things work now AS IS How will it be done? Process, Forms, Reports, Configuration Proposed TO BE Finalize definition of Process, Forms, Reports, Configuration, Gaps Collaborative TO BE sessions Review and sign off Process Validation

Scott Sheppard Project Director Bryan Wells Project Manager Carmen Elbert Sr. BA Shawn Brewer BA Stephanie Coulombe DC Sr. BA Barbara Powell QA Supervisor Jagadish Patel QA Linda Mars QA Binidya Joshi QA Matt Bennett Project Director Katrina Daniels Project Manager Alex Salazar BA Alex Cesarz Sr. BA Alli Sanderson BA James Coignet Tech Virginia Etherly BA Ron Bertel Financial SME Derek Smith Data Kiran Vemuri Risk Manager Project Team 9 White Box Sub contractor

Tarrant County Team 10 Greg Shugart Court Functional Manager Barbara Murphy SME Doug Gowin DC Functional Manager Alisia Morris SME Jeff Nicholson CC Functional Manager Holly Webb SME District & County Courts District Clerk’s OfficeCourt Clerk’s Office

Governance 11 Framework to make decisions in the project Various decision makers for various aspects of the project Project schedule, scope, etc. Processes, forms, reports, etc. Architecture, Data, etc. How decisions are made Project Charter guides governance

Collaboration Tools - Confluence Collaboration Centralize Central Repository of Project-Related Information Connects teams with content, knowledge Project Development / Organizing JIRA tickets “Spaces” – Group pages Communications Meeting notes Plans Status Reports 12

Collaboration - JIRA Plan Create Issues Distribute Tasks Track Prioritize Status Report/Communicate Stay in Loop Watch Comments Risk Management 13

Communications – Communications Matrix CommunicationsTarget AudienceMessageFrequencyMethod Project NewsletterEveryoneProject highlights, plans, general status Quarterly / Website Quarterly StatusIT Steering Comm. & Justice Executive Planning Committee Executive level Project Status QuarterlyIn person presentation Monthly StatusStakeholder Committee and Project decision makers Project StatusMonthlyIn person presentation Process Decision Review Functional Owners and FPM Decision Makers FPM Status and Decision Review As Scheduled In person presentation Technical ReviewTarrant County Technical Committee Architecture, hardware, integration, conversion As Scheduled In person presentation Bi Weekly StatusProgram ManagersAssignments, budget, issues, risks, etc. Bi-WeeklyIn person presentation Team MeetingsProject TeamStatus, task, updatesDailyIn person presentation Special Interest Groups External groupsProject awarenessProject Milestones In person presentation 14

Communications – Communications Flow example 15 Stakeholder CommitteeFunctional Owners Status Reports Program Management Team compiles reviews and updates status report and creates Executive Summary Status Reports Urban Counties Project Manager and Project Staff create draft project status reports Project Managers compile status report Start

Change Management Is Communication the same as Engagement? We need everyone on the team engaged. We need everyone sharing knowledge, and working for the best outcome. We must identify all current process, systems, and ways of doing business TODAY. Then we must map it all to the new system. We must take this time to understand the culture in Tarrant County and ensure we capture the needs of all users. 16

Change Management Process required for managing change to: Scope Schedule Cost Resources Requirements Deliverables Defined Process Systematic Evaluation Coordination Approval / Disapproval Implementation Monitoring and Control 17

Change Management Benefits Visibility of scope and cost changes Effective team communication Clear roles and responsibilities Consistent quality of outputs and meeting customer needs Consistent decision making 18

Change Management 19

Risk Management Risks typically have an adverse impact on schedule, effort, and cost Risk Management Identify the risk Define priority based on the probability and impact Define mitigation strategies Monitor the progress of mitigation strategies JIRA for Risk Management 20

Risk 21

Risk Report 22

Potential Risks 23 Chasing perfect system Challenge of change Timely access to critical resources Delays in decisions/approvals Complex FPM Scheduling Working with third party vendors Potential attrition

August September October November December January February March April 24 Criminal Court Project Phase 1 Assess & Plan Functional Process Mapping (FPM) As-Is Project plan / Schedule Implementation Strategy Data Assessment Integration Assessment Environment Assessment Recommendations Staffing Needs Cost Estimates Finalize Phase 2 SOW May To-Be Portal White Paper Finalize Portal SOW Project Overview – Implementation JuneJuly Accounting FormsReportsIntegrationsConfiguration Bonds FormsReportsIntegrationsConfiguration Case FormsReportsIntegrationsConfiguration PROCESS VALIDATION Charges FormsReportsIntegrationsConfiguration Parties FormsReportsIntegrationsConfiguration Warrant FormsReportsIntegrationsConfigurationFormsReportsIntegrationsConfiguration Scheduling

Timeline Activities – Significant Dates 25 Contract Signing – June 21 st, 2016 Project Start – August 5 th, 2016 Kick Off Meeting – August 5 th, 2016 Plan and Assess Start Date – August 8 th, 2016 Functional Process Mapping Start Date – Approx. October 18 th Project End – July 4 th, 2017

Urban Counties TEXAS Conference of For more information: Charles Gray TechShare Program Director