Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Child Support Directors Association of California in partnership with California Department of Child Support Services Annual Child Support Training Conference.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Child Support Directors Association of California in partnership with California Department of Child Support Services Annual Child Support Training Conference."— Presentation transcript:

1 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

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

3 CCSAS SYSTEM CHANGE GOVERNANCE PROCESS

4 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

5 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

6 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

7 Initiation – Division/LCSA

8 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

9 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

10 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

11 CMCC Voter Action Maintenance, Mandatory and Non-System Changes

12 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

13 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)

14 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

15 Discretionary CSE Changes

16 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

17 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

18 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 2010-2014 Examples ■Mandatory change – indicate source (legislative, rule, regulation, control agency, etc.) ■Include quantifiable data/metrics

19 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

20 CCSAS CCB and Executive Steering Committee

21 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

22 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

23 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

24 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?

25 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

26 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

27 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

28 CSE/CMCC Vision: What’s Next Questions or Comments?

29


Download ppt "Child Support Directors Association of California in partnership with California Department of Child Support Services Annual Child Support Training Conference."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google