View
215
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Executive Steering Committee Medicaid Eligibility System Project September 13, 2013
-1-
October 1 Release
-5-
Functionality • Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC) Check by Federally Facilitated
Marketplace (FFM)
• Account Transfer Receipt from FFM
Status • Completing Testing with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) and Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA)
• Functionality to be Deployed on September 18 and 23
Considerations • Account Transfer Contains both Applicants and Recipients
• Implementation Support from October 1 to December 16
• Disaster Recovery for New Hardware
Deloitte Go-Live Support
-6-
• Project Manager Peers
• Weekly Marketplace Call
• Request for Information Process
• Focus Calls with CMS
• Situation Room
Solution Development Progress
-7-
Applications development progress by functional track, as of September 6 • Solid green bar indicates actual % complete, shaded portion indicates
planned % complete • Graph shows actual number of objects complete vs. planned number
complete, out of total objects
Overall Testing Schedule
-8-
Schedule for integration and system testing by the Deloitte testing team prior to user acceptance testing (UAT) by DCF is based on the functionality that is developed and ready for testing
Testing Types • Unit Testing: Performed by the developer to test functionality of a single development object prior to being released as part of
a software build • Integration Testing: Performed by the Deloitte testing team to test a functional module comprised of multiple development
objects, or to test multiple modules and the proper interaction among them • System Testing: Performed by the Deloitte testing team to test end-to-end functional processes across the entire system. DCF
expert users who will also participate in or lead User Acceptance Testing may be involved • UAT: System test scripts executed by the end users
Testing Execution Progress
-9-
Integration Testing progress by functional area:
• Solid green bar indicates % of test scripts that have been executed by functional area • Overall, 8% (195/2381) of all scripts have been executed between September 3 and 10 • Based on the two areas currently available for testing (SSP – Apply for Benefits and Worker
Portal – FLORIDA), all test scripts that were planned for testing to-date have been executed
October 1 Go Live
11
Planned Functionality
Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC) Check • Federally Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) performs the MEC Check • Check identifies those applicants that already have health insurance coverage
through Medicaid/CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program).
Account Transfer (inbound from the Federally Facilitated Marketplace) • If the applicant assesses as potentially eligible for Medicaid/CHIP, the FFM
transfers the individual’s electronic account record to DCF. • DCF captures the federal account transfer data and stores the record in a
database. • Upon receipt of the record, DCF issues a paper notice to the applicant to
inform them of receipt of the application, when to expect a decision and how to apply for current coverage
October 1 Go Live Readiness Assessment
12
Solution Design and Development • Complete
Solution Testing • Federal Data Hub testing underway – delayed 1 week • Florida Healthy Kids (FHK) and Florida Agency for Healthcare
Administration (AHCA) testing underway
Solution Deployment • Scheduled for September 25
Training • Technical support provided by SI vendor • No functional training required
Field Communication • Messaging documents prepared for field
External Agency – MEC Check • FHK providing file to populate ACHA FMMIS system • ACHA / DCF testing data exchange
October 1 Go Live Readiness Assessment
13
Federal Readiness • Multiple agreements (information exchange,
information security, etc.) completed • Testing with federal hub delayed by federal
Centers fro Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
• MEC check on target • Application acceptance by federal marketplace
on target • Account transfer for states delayed – uncertain
timeframe pending federal information
14
Project Performance Metrics
14
Schedule Performance Index (SPI) and Cost Performance Index (CPI)
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
SPI
CPI
15
Project Issues – Executive Steering Committee (ESC) Level Discussion
Issues Comments
Mitigation Plan Pending CMS Approval
Mitigation strategy approved on August 20 with conditional follow up items including submission of updated plan. Plan resubmitted on August 22.
Disaster Recovery services not in place for new hardware
Proposal to purchase the services with contingency funds included in the next agenda item
Action Item- Contingency Funds
-17-
Legislative Budget Commission Release- September 12
Items for Consideration • Disaster Recovery Services for New
Hardware • Implementation Support Services • Increased Service Level for Hardware • Self Service Portal Translations • Call Center Ports
Medicaid Eligibility System Project
Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V)
Executive Steering Committee briefing
13 September 2013
Page 19
Topics for discussion
► General IV&V overview
► Overall risk state and trending
► Key indicators
► Overall project performance
► Upcoming IV&V activities
► Supporting information
► Summary of changes
► IV&V ratings summary
► Open deficiencies
Page 20
General IV&V overview
► Overall IV&V risk state for the MES project is Amber (issues and
inefficiencies).
► The project team has closed many deficiencies identified by the IV&V Team.
► The project is within the prescribed schedule control limits.
► No new deficiencies identified since the last report.
► The next IV&V PEAR will be published on 9 October 2013.
Overall IV&V risk state: Amber
Page 21
Overall risk state and trending
Risk state of MES Project Risk state with trending
Indicates that the area being assessed has critical issues that will result in significant risk to the project most likely resulting in either the inability to achieve the outcomes,
inability to meet the projected schedule, or a significant cost over-run. Requires immediate action.
Indicates that the area being assessed has issues that need to be resolved; inefficiencies exist. Current process/method can be used with refinement.
Indicates that the area being assessed did not have significant issues to report. Continued monitoring should be performed.
Indicates that the area being assessed has incomplete information available for a conclusive finding or is not applicable.
As of 11 September 2013
Scope
management
Time
management
Cost
management
Human
resource
management
Procurement
management
Integration
management
Risk
management
Communications
management
Business case
integrity
Complexity
profile
Capability
and
maturity
Decision
framework
Organizational
change
management
Performance
management
Governance
effectiveness
Compliance and
regulatory
Benefits
design and
realization
Requirements
engineering
and design
Methodology
and
development
Technical
infrastructure
Data
management
Security,
BC and DR
Controls
Testing
and
validation
Cutover
and
support
Sustainability
model
Quality
management
G3
G2
G1
G6
G5
G4
G9
G8
G7P1
P2
P3P4
P5
P6P7
P8
P9
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
Program governanceBenefit realization and
sustainability
Project managementProcesses, controls,
and predictability
Technical solut ionRequirements development,
quality and transition
Program governance
Risk state with trending
G1
G2
G3
G8
G7
G9
G4
G6
G5
P1
P4
P6
P3
P5
P7P8
P2
P9
T2
T1
Technical
solution
Project
management
T3 T5 T6T4
T7 T8 T9
Page 22
Key indicators
Indicator Value Comment
Is the project currently on
schedule?
Yes ► The MES project is within the prescribed schedule control limits.
Do you expect the project to
complete on schedule?
Yes ► The MES project is within the prescribed schedule control limits.
Are there any scope
changes?
No ► No significant scope changes have been identified.
Are there any risks or issues
that the Department is not
successfully managing?
No
Is the project currently within
budget?
Yes ► No significant deviations from the MES project spend plan.
Do you expect the project to
remain within budget?
Yes ► No significant deviations from the MES project spend plan.
Page 23
Overall project performance
This chart shows the SPI and CPI
plotted as points against the
tolerance ranges set up for the
project.
SPI is less than 1.00 and trending
positive:
The project is behind schedule.
It is taking more time to complete
tasks than originally scheduled.
CPI is greater than 1.00 and
trending flat:
The project is under budget.
It is taking less effort to complete
tasks than originally planned.
Conclusions:
The project is behind schedule
and under budget.
The MES project is within the
prescribed schedule control
limits. ► Green area indicates within
tolerance of +/- 10% for both
SPI and CPI.
► Amber area indicates review is
required and corrective actions
may be necessary.
► Red area indicates out-of-
tolerance and corrective actions
are necessary.
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30
SPI
CPIMES project performance
Ahead of schedule and underspentBehind schedule and underspent
Ahead of schedule and overspentBehind schedule and overspent
As of 16 Aug 2013SPI = 0.95CPI = 1.20
Page 24
Upcoming IV&V activities
► Participate in MES project meetings.
► Review materials provided by the MES Project Team.
► Provide informal feedback as required.
► Schedule for September PEAR is as follows:
► Artifact and interview cut-off: 18 September 2013
► Submit draft to DCF Contract Management: 25 September 2013
► Publish final report: 09 October 2013
Page 25
Summary of changes
Item Description
Deficiencies
addressed
► D02 – Schedule status is being reported “green”
despite task slippage.
► D03 – Analysis of schedule data supports the
conclusion that the project is behind schedule.
► D04 – Schedule management plan is not being
followed.
► D05 – Critical path and resource utilization data
are unavailable, impacting situational awareness.
► D06 – The MES PMP does not allow for iterative
project schedule.
► D15 – OCM plan, normally completed during the
project planning phase, has not been approved.
► D16 – Project risks appearing in RAID log are
closed without clear explanation, leading to a lack
of traceability.
► D19 – A project-wide RAM does not exist.
New
deficiencies
► No new deficiencies addressed since the last report.
Risk ratings ► G5 – Organizational change management changed from Amber (issues and inefficiencies) to Green (no
issues).
► G6 – Performance management changed from Amber (issues and inefficiencies) to Green (no issues).
► P2 – Time management changed from Amber (issues and inefficiencies) to Green (no issues).
► P8 – Risk management changed from Amber (issues and inefficiencies) to Green (no issues).
► P9 – Communications management changed from Amber (issues and inefficiencies) to Green (no issues).
Maturity ratings ► No maturity rating changes since the last report.
Interviews
conducted
► Additional interviews conducted since the last report.
► B. Holland – 21 August 2013
Artifacts
received
► Artifacts received include CMS documents, decision framework, finances, meeting agendas and minutes,
organizational change management (OCM) and training, performance scorecard, project management plan
(PMP), risks, actions, issues and decisions (RAID), requirements, schedule, system integrator (SI) PMP
updates, and status reports.
Supporting information
Page 26
IV&V ratings summary
Supporting information
This chart shows a summary of the
IV&V cube facet ratings (red, amber,
green and grey), and open
deficiencies per month since the
BAR.
The number of cube facet risk
ratings has decreased since the
BAR.
The number of open deficiencies
has decreased since the BAR.
Conclusions:
The project risks are decreasing.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jul-13 Jul-13 Aug-13
Number
IV&V cube facet ratings and open deficiencies per month
Critical Issues Inefficiencies No Issues Not Evaluated Open Deficiencies
Page 27
Open deficiencies
No. Areas Deficiency Implications Recommendations
D14 G4 – Decision
framework
Decision levels are
based on undefined
(high, medium, low)
levels of item
severity/impact.
► Limited capacity to facilitate timely
decision making and forecast typical
challenges (risks and issues) that
could face the project.
► Inability to deliver a solution that
represents the desired outcomes of
the project.
► Misalignment in project operational
decisions to the intended project
objectives.
► Project team members lack the
knowledge around who makes
decisions (power), why they make
them (alignment), and how they
make them (decision process).
► The project management plan should
explicitly define low, medium, and high
severity/impact to reduce ambiguity and
enable clear lines of decision making.
► The project director should ensure that
all project team members are aware of
the decision framework.
Supporting information
Recommended