Project Board Meeting

Welcome & Introductions Carol We’d like you to welcome everyone and recognize any non-board member visitors.

Agenda Continued Demand Project Progress-to-Date PSDC Development Demo Project & Product Risks Project Budget Next Steps Board Expectations Q & A Quick review of today’s agenda

Demand continues FY08 permit volume Y-T-D: 231,534 6.7 % increase over last year 23.5% increase from three years ago (FY05) 39.2% increase from five years ago (FY03) First of all I’d like to address the idea that the perceived “recession” might be having an impact on the need for this solution. As you can see, the first five months of this fiscal year has experienced as strong a growth in the volume as we’ve been experiencing th past five years despite fees that have doubled or tripled. As the compliance and enforcement capabilities allotted to MCD by HB 2093 begin to come into play, coupled with our ability to provide significantly improved turnaround time, we believe that we will experience an even higher increase rate from latent demand (loads previously running hot)

Just a quick look at the growth trends over the last three years and how this year is exceeding even that.

Progress-to-Date Let’s take a minute to look at what’s been accomplished so far

Milestones (MS) MS 1 – Solidifying project approach Deliverables included: Project Approach Document High-level WBS, WBS Dictionary & RAM Web-based Project tracking tool Issue Defect & Resolution tracking tool Reporting Requirements Document MS 1 was delivered on-time, to specifications and was processed for payment A quick recap of Milestone 1 that established our project approach between the vendor and the TxDOT team and established our on-line tracking tools

Milestones (cont.) MS 2 – Joint Application Design (JAD) Deliverables included: JAD schedule and assignments document JAD sessions themselves JAD Summaries Detail Design Documents for application modules, databases (data models), data conversion, and external systems interfaces MS 2 deliverables were presented on-time and are currently under review Since our last meeting our focus has been on the JAD sessions that were felt needed to ensure full stakeholder involvement in establishing the detail design elements of the solution. These were planned out, conducted, summarized and utilized in the developing the design documents. All of the deliverables were submitted by the vendor and are being reviewed by the PMT and appropriate technical resources from MCD and TSD.

Milestones (cont.) MS 2 – Activities Recap Nine JAD sessions Wide range of Participants Confirmed RFO business requirements Expanded the detail and identified additional requirements within scope Processed 17 requests for information from Vendor for use in detail design There is a adage in software development project known as the 1-10-100 rule that emphasizes the importance of the milestone 2 activities. “The effort to accomplish a requirement for the solution, if properly identified in the design effort is a factor of 1. If not identified until testing it is a factor of 10 and, if not identified until after the application is in production, the factor is 100. These activities and the range of players were intended to focus on keeping the factors at 1. To date, we’ve conducted nine JAD sessions that addressed: Customer access and usage, Restrictions Management, Reporting, TSD Standards, Data Identification & Integration, Contingency Planning, Routing, and Map Usage & CPS interface by the Permit Office. Participants, as appropriate, included representation from Districts (DOM, Maintenance Supervisors and Permit Coordinators), BRG, TPP, CST (PAV), TSD (all areas), MCD & Customer representatives. This wide range of participation will, hopefully, serve not only to identify all of the stakeholders’ needs but also encourage their ‘buy-in” that this is their system as well as MCD’s. The sessions scheduled in advance with agenda goal and objectives to encourage the participants to come prepared to not only validate the continuation of the business requirements identified in the RFO (copies were sent with the agendas) but to further expand them, as well as any additional needs, into a level of detail that they felt met their needs.

Milestones (cont.) MS 2 – Activities Recap Design Documents for: System Overview Data Conversion Systems Interface User Interface/Mapping Restrictions Management Routing Re-Route Identification Report Generation Database Design documents for GIS, Bridge, Restrictions, Permits, Users, Saved Trips and Audit Administrative Trail As you can see, the list of detail design documents generated following the JAD sessions are extensive. These documents will, in fact, be “living documents, as we move forward into the prototype and the pilot area and will be revised as we further refine the approach.

PSDC Progress Demo Here we turn the session over to PSDC for them to demo the route testing prototype?

RISKS Although we have a full risk management approach that really moves into a higher gear following the next milestone when we have detail plans and schedules for their activities, there are a couple of risk areas that we would like bring to your attention at this time.

Risk Types Project Risks Product Risks Risks that impact the project’s ability to deliver on time, on budget and according to specs. These risks occur within the project life-cycle Product Risks Risks that could impact the production capability of the product (post implementation) to meet its intended performance levels and are risks associated with the Product life-cycle These risks fall into two categories, Project risks and Product Lists and although they both ultimately impact the effectiveness of the solution, they are different in nature and timing.

Identified Project Risks Data TxDOT’s data is lacking Mitigation efforts include: Involving Districts & Divisions in Project Manual data correlation processes of disparate data TFT Uncertainty of ability to have needed environment for performance testing and production implementation Working closely with TSD to identify process and establish needs Contingency planning The top two project risks or concerns have to do with Data and TFT. The concern with data centers around the inconsistency of data being maintained on a complete and current basis. The bridge data in BRINSAP is dated (not always current) and, in some cases, incomplete as far as having identifiable location (long/lat). TRM data maintenance by the districts varies from outstanding to the other end of the spectrum. The major impacts on the project are the accuracy of our databases to be used for routing and the amount of manual data correction effort that will be required which is very labor/time intensive. Mitigation actions involve efforts to convince the districts of the value to them of this system and the importance of maintaining accurate, complete and current TRM data, especially as impacts the expanded routing/reporting capability of TXPROS. Bridge has a project underway to gain much more detail information (locations and lane clearances) by way of a laser process. This will be of immense value to TxPROS, but will, in all likely hood, not be completed in time for the initial implementation of TxPROS. We will incorporate this future data source into the design and be ready for it as soon as it is available. Any steps that can be taken to expedite that project will be of obvious benefit. The concern with TFT centers around the timing of their getting the processes stabilized and under control to enable them to respond in a timely manner. Conversations with TSD staff indicates that this may be a major concern area. To mitigate this we are working closely with TSD and looking at contingencies involving using the vendor , PSDC, as an alternative. It is still early in the process but the potential impact of this is such that it warrants early and constant consideration

Identified Product Risks TFT performance levels Production process at risk Quarterly updates potential quagmire Mitigation efforts include: Working with TSD to establish appropriate support levels and sense of urgency by TFT Contingency planning for outage periods Minimizing quarterly process steps Local OS/OW permit issuance (counties/cities) Coordination of routed permits a potential nightmare Working some of the entities (Harris County, Houston, Laredo) to be involved in the process Exploring potential TxPROS solution Although the data issues identified as a project risk will also continue to be a risk to accurate and timely quarterly updates once the system is in production, there are two other areas that are of significant concern that need to be surfaced and monitored. Once again, TFT and the performance levels are of concern. Currently their ability to meet service level objectives, although improving, is somewhat unsatisfactory. As more of the server level applications are transferred to their control this performance level needs to be closely monitored. As mitigation, we are developing contingency plans to enable continued ability to route and issue permits, albeit on a limited or reduced capability, in the event of various outage scenarios by TFT. On a quarterly basis, the update process of GIS mapping and affected Restrictions will be very time sensitive. The processes that will be required to migrate these updates from PSDC to TSD and then to TFT fro eventual placement into production status is of significant concern. Again, as a mitigation action, we are working with TSD to identify ways to improve this process and ensure that TFT understands and accepts the need for urgency in these update processes. We are also looking at ways to simplify the process to better enable the ability to expedite it. Another issue that is begging to surface and warrants attention is the activity by counties and cities towards wanting to issue OS/OW permits for travel on their roadways. Their efforts are based on wanting to control the routes that are traveled on their roads AND the revenue from the permits as restitution for the extra wear and tear on their systems. If this should start to materialize on a widespread basis, it could provide significant challenges and potential delays in issuing permits due the need to synchronize the junction points between their systems and TxDOT’s. On an extended route this could conceivably require coordination between multiple entities causing significant delays. Currently the AG’s informal opinion is that only TxDOT is authorized to issue OS/OW permits in Texas but this is likely to be challenged and the outcome unknown. Our mitigation efforts, in the event that this materializes. Is two fold. First we are working with some of the major entities pursuing this direction to address the issues and work together to resolve them. Secondly, we are exploring ways that TxPROS could be a solution to this situation. Conceivably TxPROS could be expanded to include the capability of routing on all roadways state, county and city included. It could also collect the appropriate fees and monthly distribute them to the appropriate parties based on the permits issued. If TxDOT collected an administrative fee from the counties and cities for each of these permits for the service rendered, the counties and cities would have minimal cost (just maintaining their restrictions and providing any updates to the mapping system) as the cost would come from the fees. TxDOT could potentially have the benefit of the system at no hardware operating costs as the administrative fees from the counties and cities would pay the cost of operating and maintaining the system. It could, potentially even help offset the cost of TxDOT’s personnel administering the system. This is somewhat blue-sky at this time but the potential warrants paying attention to the situation as it develops and being in position to deal with it to TxDOT’s advantage. This could conceivably be a win-win-win situation for all of the players, including the carriers, as they would only have one entity to deal with as opposed to spending half the day trying to get synchronized permits from multiple entities.

Budget Carol, Hoping you would give a a brief overview of the proposed spending schedule, approved budget, additional requests, and why it would be advantageous to accelerate the schedule.

TxPROS Budget by FY 1 10/04/07 2% $24,920 FY08 Subtotal $398,720 2 Milestone Target date % Payment $$$   FY Summary 1 10/04/07 2% $24,920 FY08 Subtotal $398,720 2 01/31/08 8% $99,680 3 03/31/08 4 04/30/08 Plus cost of data $188,900 5 05/30/08 3% $37,380 6 06/30/08 7% $87,220 Total $587,620 7 07/31/08 This overview reflects the current proposed spending by FY. FY08, which includes acquiring the base data from TeleAtlas is $587,620

TxPROS Budget by FY (cont. FY09) Milestone Target Date % Payment $$$   FY Summary 8 09/30/08 3% $37,380 FY09 Total $411,180 9 12/31/08 4% $49,840 10 01/30/09 6% $74,760 11 03/31/09 12 05/29/09 2% $24,920 13 5% $62,300 14 06/30/09 15 08/31/09 Currently, FY09’s planned spending is $411,180

TxPROS Budget by FY (cont. FY10) Milestone Target Date % Payment $$$   FY Summary 16 10/30/09 5% $62,300 FY10 Total $436,100 17 18 12/31/09 25% $311,500 100% $1,246,000 Grand $1,434,900 These are the dollars that are currently in the schedule for FY09 and include the final payment, which is essentially the hold-back for successful completion, of 25% or $311,500.

Allocations and Proposed Acceleration Current FY08 Allocation: $ 538,125 Current FY09 Allocation: $ 200,000 Pending ABR (FY08-09): (ABR for $50,000 has been submitted for FY08) (ABR for $ 212,000 will be needed for FY09) Projected FY10 Allocation: $ 436,100 We propose accelerating schedule (and funding) to complete project and payments by EOY FY09. This would require FY09 ABR of $647,280 instead of $212,000 Accelerating the schedule by three months is believed to be a strong possibility and, by gaining approval for the additional funding in FY09, would eliminate the need for it to be included in the FY10-11 biennium budget.

Next Steps What’s on the schedule next

Planning Planning Documents include: Data acquisition, conversion & Integration Infrastructure development Application development plans Security consideration Testing, Training, & Marketing Plans JAD sessions scheduled to address these topics Implementation Between now and the next Board meeting our efforts will be focused on taking the design documents and developing detail plans/schedules to turn them into actual products. We have JAD sessions scheduled for this week that include the same range of stakeholders previously involved to ensure that our planning addresses not only their needs but also incorporates their ideas/recommendations on type, tools and delivery techniques for these topics

Next Steps (cont.) Planning Documents also include: Expanded WBS & WBS Dictionary Expanded Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM) Precedence Diagram & Critical Path document Detail Work Schedule These expanded Work breakdown tools will be used to walk thru the process and accomplish a detail risk analysis of the activities that could adversely impact the project.

Board Expectations As you all know, the project files a quarterly report to the IRC as well as a different report to the QAT. These reports as well as significant detail of project activities are available at our project repository. Obviously, these quarterly Board meetings need to be something other than a simple regurgitation of this information. We would like to get your input on what you would like these quarterly meetings to address. Was the information today, the type and style, of value to you or is there additional information and another format that you would like to see. We value your involvement and we want these sessions to be worthy of the time you take to participate. So please be candid and give us your feedback.

The Project management Team and the Sponsor stand ready to respond to any questions that you might have. Q & A