Project Reflection Implement New Open-System Rating Engine by Ray Kutzer, PMP Information Technology Division Erie Insurance January 18, 2011

Could Things Have Been Different Question and Answer Agenda Project Overview Objective Estimated hours and project completion Risks and Issues Initial Key Ones During Project Key Ones Deployment Details Lessons Learned Could Things Have Been Different Question and Answer

Project Overview - Objective Implement the New Open-Systems Rating Solution for the four lines of business. The project will use a new technical architecture for the rating components that aligns with the direction of the strategic architecture. The ABC Standing Team will deliver this project through multiple drops (by State groupings) in 2009. In addition, dual rating, Homes>$1m will also be delivered with this project.

Project Overview – Est hrs & completion PM 1 – Starts 07/08 – Leaves 12/08 Projected hrs 28,000 – Projected finish 04/09 PM 1 – Starts 01/09 – Leaves 02/09 Projected hrs 34,000 – Projected finish 03/10 PM 2 – Starts 03/09 – Leaves 03/09 PM 3 – Starts 04/09 – Leaves 05/09 PM 4 – Starts 06/09 – Leaves 07/09 (not full-time) PM 5 – Starts 08/09 – Finishes project 03/11 Projected hrs 52,000 – Projected finish 07/10 Final hrs 55,000 – Finish 03/11

Risk and Issues – Initial Key Ones Risk – Lack of available product knowledge Risk – Need new infrastructure components Risk – Dependencies on other teams (priorities) Risk – Adding requirements to the project Risk – Volume of testing needed requires automation Issue – Impact of regulatory projects

Risk and Issues – PM5 Project Key Ones Issue – Need new infrastructure components installed in all environments (readiness effort) Issue – New architectural components introduced instabilities that were unanticipated Issue – New arch components introduced need for business rule and data transformations Issue – Dependencies on other teams (priorities) Issue – Changed state deployments from a simple one to a complex one months before planned deployment Issue –

Project Overview – Deployments 03/10 – move rating arch components to production and a front-end workaround 06/10 – move special state features – first state done 07/10 – requests and incidents 08/10 – split batch 09/10 – deployed second state 10/10 – deployed one more state 11/10 – deployed two more states 12/10 – requests and incidents 01/11 – requests and incidents 02/11 – remaining states RED = Actual date and was not the original planned date

Impact of the lack of cross program prioritization Lessons Learned Impact of the lack of cross program prioritization Impact of resource contention Effort needed to implement new infrastructural components into all environments (stage and prod) Impact on future projects planned fro the same team as the current project delays Blending of project and production support work within the same team

Could Things Have Been Different What were the drivers that created the issues Cross program priority impacts did not exist - false New arch components were simple pass through events - false Another project would drive the build out of the arch components – they would be ready for this project - false Primary personnel goal was delivery - false Team would not deploy unless quality was achieved Forced a drive all the way to the deployment date before changing Standing/defined team supports the application - true Production support always takes priority Delays the future project work – impacting delivery

Questions and Answers