Child Support Directors Association of California in partnership with California Department of Child Support Services

Annual Child Support Training Conference & ExpoAnnual Child Support Training Conference & Expo

October 5-7, 2010 October 5-7, 2010 || Orange County, California Orange County, California

PresentersDepartment of Child Support

ServicesCCSAS Project and Procurement Office Enterprise Project Management Office

✷ Wendy Justinich, Manager✷ Jason Tomoeda, Change Request

Coordinator

CCSAS SYSTEM CHANGEGOVERNANCE PROCESS

Return to Originator

Not this year

Does not meet MCR Requirements

LoE

Bypass

Yes

Mandatory Change

Division/LCSA

Internal Development

STARTTechnical

Review Team (TRT)

Develop Level of Effort (LoE)

CMCC Voters

RFC to Workgroup?

Discretionary CSE System Change (New Functionality)

CMCC Workgroup

Validates Justification

and LoE

CMCC Voters

RFC to CCB?

1

1

CCSASCCB

IAP Status

and Approval

CCSASCCB

Prioritize1) Cost/Benefit2) Risk/Reward

2

2

Yes

Maintenance Change Request (MCR), and Business Application

Mandatory System Change

Yes

Maintenance

Non-System Resolution

4

End

Division/LCSA

Finalize RFC

IterativeProcessCMCC

Support

Log in RFC send to TRT

CMCCCCBExec

Color Key

TSD

Div/LCSA

Deputy Dir./ LCSA Director

Sign-off on RFC

Meets MCRRequirements

ExternalFunding?

END

END

ReturnTo Originator

CCSASExecutiveSteering

Committee

Implement

Send Back Go to 4

END

Yes

No

Return ToOriginator

Go to 4

Go to 4

CMCC Workgroup

Normal Issue Analysis

Revision Date 9/01/10

NoNo

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 annuallyCCSAS Executive Steering Committee■Approval before submission of external funding

requests

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

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

Initiation – Division/LCSA

CMCCCCBExec

Color Key

TSD

DCSS/LCSA

DCSS / LCSA

Internal Development – Draft Request for

Consideration (RFC)

STARTTechnical

Review Team (TRT)

Develop Levelof Effort (LoE)

LoE

FinalRFC

DCSS / LCSA

Finalize Request for Consideration

Submit RFCto CMCC

1

IterativeProcess

DCSS /LCSA

Sign-offon RFC

MCR - No

Maintenance

MCR - Yes

Maintenance Change Request (MCR), Business Applications END

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

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

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

CMCC Voter ActionMaintenance, Mandatory and Non-System Changes

No

END

BypassWorkgroup

Submit RFC to CMCC

2

CMCC Voters

Should RFC should be sent to

Workgroup?

Mandatory System Change

Non-SystemResolution

To CCB

CMCCCCBExec

Color Key

TSD

DCSS/LCSADiscretionary

NEXT SECTION

Non-SystemYes – Existingprocess for

Non-System RFCEND

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

Maintenance and Mandatory Changes

NO GOAL JUSTIFICATION REQUIREDMaintenance■ 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)

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

Discretionary CSE Changes

No

No

CMCC Workgroup

Determine that RFCmay not meet

Justification andLevel of Effort

CMCC Workgroup

Validate that RFC willmeet Justification

and Level of Effort

Proposal will not achieve claimed result

Yes Yes

CMCC Voters

Validate recommendation to submit to CCB

END

Submit RFC to CMCC

2

CMCC Voters

Should RFC should be sent to

Workgroup?

Discretionary CSE System Change (New Functionality and Enhancements)

To CCB

CMCCCCBExec

Color Key

TSD

DCSS/LCSA

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

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

Justification for System ChangesMandatory 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

Discretionary Changes – Annual LimitsResources■Limited to existing DCSS staff and

contractors■No new funding for the foreseeable futureNumber 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

CCSAS CCB and Executive Steering Committee

No

CCSAS Executive Steering Committee

CCSAS CCB

IAP Status and Approval

ExternalFunding

RELEASE PLANNING

CCSAS CCB

Prioritize CRs1) Cost/Benefit2) Risk/Reward

No END

NOT THIS CYCLE

No External Funding

END

CMCCCCBExec

Color Key

TSD

DCSS/LCSA

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

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

Guiding Principles for PrioritizationPrinciples 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

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?

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 DCSSRisk/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

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

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

CSE/CMCC Vision: What’s Next

Questions or Comments?