ccio capstone - best practices

Certified Public Technology Leadership Program

09

Capstone Project -

The CscForce Application Meeting the Needs of Tomorrow

By: Jennifer A. Fisch

Capstone Project - The CscForce Application 2009

Jennifer A. Fisch

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Segment 1- Goals, Project Scope and Consequences ................................................................................ 5

Goal of the application .............................................................................................................................. 5

Unintended Consequences of Success ..................................................................................................... 5

Leadership and Professional Goals ........................................................................................................... 5

Segment 2 – Background, Research and Evaluation................................................................................. 6

Background ............................................................................................................................................... 6

Prior to Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 6

Technology ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................... 8

Advantages/Disadvantages of Alternatives .............................................................................................. 8

Private Sector Applicability ....................................................................................................................... 8

Implications or Considerations ................................................................................................................. 8

Segment 3 – Benefits/Work Plan ............................................................................................................. 10

The Solution ............................................................................................................................................ 10

Overview, timeline and project management considerations ............................................................... 10

Budget Estimates .................................................................................................................................... 11

Human Resources and Communications ................................................................................................ 12

Risk Management ................................................................................................................................... 12

Segment 4: Reflection and Discussion ..................................................................................................... 14

Success Factors ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Reflection/Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................... 14

Potential Hindrances/Obstacles of Others on Implementation ............................................................. 15

Other Collaborative Governance Opportunities ..................................................................................... 15

Attachment A – Project Charter ............................................................................................................... 16

Attachment B – Desired Features, Functionality, Technologies ............................................................ 19

Attachment C – FY2009 Development Plan ............................................................................................ 20

Attachment D – CCIO Material Engagement ............................................................................................ 22


Jennifer A. Fisch

Executive Summary

The purpose of this capstone is to describe how a local special taxing district (The Children’s Board of

Hillsborough County) chose a customized web solution to address the needs of its contracting process.

Discussed in this paper are details of the project (both past and present), alternatives addressed,

reflections and lessons learned both personally and organizationally.

TheChildren’s Board of Hillsborough County (CBHC) has been working on the development of cscForce

application since January 2003. It began with a partnership between Hillsborough County’s newly

formed community-based care organization, Hillsborough Kids, Inc. (HKI) and the Children’s Board to

build a custom web application that would replace our antiquated contract management and Demogeo

software with a more versatile web-based application. Since our CEO recently viewed a demonstration

of a similar web-based product that HKI produced, this individual was contracted to develop the

application.

The initial design phase included an evaluation of a competitor’s software package (SAMIS) that had

been in existence since the late 1990’s. The Juvenile Welfare Board (JWB), a neighboring Children’s

Services Council, developed SAMIS to allow for same type of contract management and data collection

processes that the Children’s Board wished to accomplish. Buy-in to this software consortium was ruled

out early due to extensive user training requirements and heavy partnership fees in excess of $280,000

start-up costs and over $100,000 annually.

The purpose of the cscForce application was to eliminate the need for multiple data entryby Children’s

Board staff and its providers/applicants, streamline the process by which the Children’s Board awards its

program/service dollars and to measure, in real-time, the impact of CBHC dollars within the community

of Hillsborough County.

Also included in the original design of the application was the ability to allow for data input by multiple

Children’s Services Councils (CSCs) in Florida. The Children’s Trust (Miami-Dade) was the most

interested in the initial design, but dropped out in 2005 due to CBHC inability to deliver the contract

management module in a reasonable timeframe.

Development of the application hit multiple stumbling blocks during its initial phase. This

includedsevere scope creep, the assignment of a non-contract management staff to head the project,

and the departure of the developer from the community based care organization, and his employment

at three other organizations. Unfortunate for the Children’s Board, we followed each transition and

continued to contract with the developer through each of his employers with minimal, if any, actual

product delivery. In December of 2005, the Children’s Board terminated its relationship with the

developer due to inferior product performance and its lack of desired features. In January of 2006, a

well known consulting firm was contracted to continue the development of the application. Five

months and three developers later, the new developer recommended the scraping of the current code


Jennifer A. Fisch

due to its unstable nature and lack of cohesiveness. In mid-June 2006, development of the new

cscForce began.

Since 2006, the universal application module has been implemented along with multiple modules that

allowed contracts to be managed from the application through execution and monitoring of fiscal

outcomes and performance. In late February 2008, two FTEs were hired to support the growing needs

of this application among others.

On June 17th, a cross departmental representation of the organization made a formal presentation to

the Executive Leadership team to tout the cscForce application’s usefulness and versatility. It was an

overwhelming success and at this writing, the project currently has approved to proceed with its

development as planned.


Jennifer A. Fisch

Segment 1- Goals, Project Scope and Consequences

Goal of the application

The goal of the software application is to automate processes within our organization, create

operational efficiencies within our contract managing process and better manage large scale projects in

our organization through planning, leadership and the implementation of a change control process. By

implementing this type of system, the Children’s Board should have a greater ability to efficiently

manage taxpayer dollars and report the value of our services within our community.

Our vow in developing the cscForce application was that it be user friendly, fairly intuitive, and not

requiring volumes of manuals or a complex series of trainings in order to navigate it.

Unintended Consequences of Success

Potential unintended consequences to the Children’s Board of implementing this application are:

Greater accountability/responsibility to provide value added services on both our partners’ side

as the provider of services and ours as a funding agency.

More processes with the potential for bottlenecks by introducing a change control process to

hopefully minimize the presence of scope creep

Heavier reliance on technology to complete tasks that previously were done manually

Leadership and Professional Goals

I will be able to further my leadership and professional goals by moving this project forward against

multiple threats such as incompetent developers, ineffective to project leads, and unreasonable

userexpectations. I intend to accomplish this by effectively communicating with my internal and

external users by using active listening skills and models of communication and decision making similar

to the Ladder of Inference. I intend to manage the project aggressively and confidently by not allowing

it to manage me or my team. And finally, I intend to establish myself as a leader in the organization by

finally completing the “application to nowhere” that although it has the majority of its modules in

production for the last 2 years and is producing an estimated $30 million worth of contracts annually, it

continues to have the reputation as the application that “never gets done”.


Jennifer A. Fisch

Segment 2–Background, Research and Evaluation

Background

It’s an outcome-based web application based on David Fetterman’s Empowerment Evaluation.

Empowerment Evaluation is a participatory process by which a funder develops expected outcomes in

partnership with its providers. The cscForce application allows a grantee to apply for funding through

our universal application, enter into either a short-term (six month) or continuation (annual) contracting

process for as long as the provider is producing quantifiable, measurable outcomes. During this process,

real-time measures are calculated, via outcome-based formulas, for either participant level (individuals)

or group level data immediately upon entry into the system. The determination of whether or not to

collect individual information (demographics) is generally determined by mutual agreement between

the provider and the CBHC contract manager and the overall feasibility of collecting participant level

information for that outcome.

Prior to Implementation

Previous grant awards and contracting processes were both manual and semi-automated, however all

were separate functions. The grantee process to acquire funds from the Children’s Board was manual, a

completed funding application and submission to the Resource Development Department for manual

processing.

Once the grant was approved, the Contract Manager application was used to set the objectives and

develop the actual service contract. This application was a based on Access 97 and ran as an

independent application on a Microsoft Window 2000 based server. The contract management

processes soon outgrew that application and in 2004 developed into an empowerment evaluation based

model that used MS Word or Excel forms to set goals, develop performance objectives, define

responsible parties, define outcomes, identify data repositories, and set measurement guidelines.

However due to other components still residing in the old Contract Manager application, i.e. standard

verbiage like Terms and Conditions, the application continued to be partially utilized to develop service

based contracts. Contract activities generally associated with the management of these contracts, e.g.

fiscal & performance service levels were routinely reviewed and recorded manually during scheduled

quarterly meetings. Prior to the empowerment model being implemented, program performance

required official reports semi-annually and again at the completion of the contract, generally due 30-60

days after the completion of the contract. As you can see, one of the inherent problems with the

manual process was the lack of a performance reporting until 7 months into the service and then not

again until 30-60 days after the contract had expired.

In addition, contract reimbursements, either fixed or cost reimbursement, for the contracted services

were tracked and recorded manually in two separate electronic systems. Payments were made to the

accounts payable system (Sage MIP)and recorded separately in the Contract Management application as

a central repository for the internal contract management staff. During this process, copies of all

executed documents and associated reports were kept in a physical contract file in accordance with

Florida State Statues and record retention requirements.


Jennifer A. Fisch

Demographic information (Demogeo data) was submitted to the CBHC via a 3½ floppy disk with

aggregate participant information, .e.g. race, gender, ethnicity, and zip code. That data was collected by

our Database Administrator who loaded it manually into the Access 97 database.

Technology

The new application (cscForce) is being developed in VB.Netwith stored procedures accessing an MS SQL

Server 2000 back-end which allows for secure, real-time access and manipulation of data by both

internal staff and external providers. The use of this technology also centralizes the viewing of data in

one central repository therefore minimizing the need for paper files. Also inherent in the new system is

the ability for the contract manager, CBHC staff, and the provider (a vendor of social service related

services for children and families) to jointly develop goals and performance objectives real-time which

shortens the period of contract development substantially. Database encryption and server based SSL

allows for the secure transmission of participant level outcome data which enables real-timereporting

and evaluation of performance level information as opposed to semi-annual and annual reporting as in

the previous contracting process. The use of SQL based queries has eliminated the need for manual dual

entriesand allows contract manager to view “real-time” processing of contract related transactions, i.e.

reimbursements, journal entries, etc.

The implementation of a user friendly grant application enables the grantee to complete their funding

application online and allows real-time tracking of the application through our approval process. This

electronic process as eliminated the need for paper based applications, and files, which inherently

reduced the need for physical space (file cabinets) and increased accountability and responsiveness in

our organization.

The current architectural platform is reflected below:

Hardware Software Function

HP Proliant DL360 G5

MS Windows 2003, Std. Version Physical server & operating System

3,325.87 MB Memory

MS SQL Server 2000 Database (data)

MS SQL Server 2005 Database (encryption & other adv. features)

ActivePDF Prints contracts ApexSQL Allows database

triggers and reporting ActiveXLS Professional for .NET Allows EDI capability VeriSign SSL SSL encryption Sage MIP Accounts Payable Accounts Payable

software CuteEditor Allows text box editing


Jennifer A. Fisch

Alternatives

There are currently two alternatives. Firstis the continued use of manual reporting which cost the

provider agency and the Children’s Board manpower, physical file space, and inefficiencies related to

data-based decision-making. The other,as mentioned previously,is the performance based application

developed by The Juvenile Welfare Board (JWB), another Children’s Services Council in Pinellas County

Florida. JWB developed SAMISto produce contracts and measure their service providers’ performance.

Advantages/Disadvantages of Alternatives

An advantage of the manual process for contract and provider management would be the staff and

providers doing their job as they know it. Not everyone embraces change, learning a new application is

change and not all are in favor of it.

Disadvantages to a continued manual process are cost to the organization: time/manpower (e.g. man-

hours required to manually review, develop and manage contracts; quality (consistency of managing

contracts and service to the providers, i.e. grants awarded faster, contracts being developed faster and

more efficiently); reduced accountability ( the requirement of the semi-annual and annual reporting

which equates to achievement reporting after the fact and not calculated in a real-time environment.

Disadvantages to the buy-in to SAMIS would be the development by committee model in addition to it

not being based on an empowerment evaluation model, i.e. partnership with the provider.

Modifications to the application are only approved if agreed upon by all participating CSCs. In addition

to being design by committee, modifications, since the application is not developed in-house, are

normally estimated to be between 12-18 months from approval to implementation. To pay for the

external development, the CSC’s are required to pay a “maintenance fee” approximate to a percentage

of the CSC’s total revenue. SAMIS, according to feedback from its end-users, is very cumbersome to use,

has numerous manuals and requires aminimum 2 to 3 day training to learn how to use it.

Private Sector Applicability

The private sector would handle this situation in a similar manner to the public sector. Organizations

always need to evaluate whether or not a customized solution would be better suited for their

organization than a purchased one, or if a manual process would be more efficient than the time and

resources spent on the development of an electronic solution.

Implications or Considerations

Logistical or fiscal implications that need to be considered are adequate resources in order to complete

the project/application development, testing and deployment in a reasonable timeframe.

Logistical considerations of a customized solution are manpower and resources. Whether it’s the

hardware to support the application or the developers to develop it, resources are always required in

order to support and maintain a real-time application.

A consideration not taken into account during the application’s planning phase was a though

understand of user expectations. It’s been my experience with internally developed application that


Jennifer A. Fisch

users expect functionality to just “appear” in the blink of an eye without any consideration for

development time and testing. Frequent and personalized communications are a huge consideration

when implementing an application as critical to your core business as the cscForce application is to our

organization.

Security & legal considerations that need to be considered are unauthorized access to modules that a

user may not have access to view or modify or unauthorized access to the application in general.

Examples of unauthorized user access would be access to confidential participant information, i.e. client

files, or access to screens not authorized to be viewed or manipulated by that particular user or agency.


Jennifer A. Fisch

Segment 3 – Benefits/Work Plan

The Solution

The solution is to build a customized web application that incorporates all the functions of our

contracting process into one easy to use, customer friendly, accountability system. By building this

application, external customers would have the ability to login to the cscForce application to apply for

Children’s Board funding, internal customers would have the ability to generate contracts based on the

grant application or not, program managers would have the ability to easily manage the partnership

between the CB and the provider, and finally the CB would have to the ability to show residents of

Hillsborough County how their tax dollars are being spent and/or generating additional dollars for our

community.

Listed below are the various components in the application.

Universal Application – previously paper based, the new web-based application provides the ability

to apply for funding online. When completed, notification is automatically sent to the Resource

Development department for review and tracking, via a dashboard. When approved, select data is

automatically transferred to a draft contract for processing where a contract manager is assigned.

Contract Management system – enables program support staff to electronically develop and

manage provider’s contracts and data. The application includes user administration portion,

contract management component, data entry component (either direct entry or an EDI interface),

outcome reporting, fiscal tracking component, an unintended return on investment component for

technical assistance type contracts, and last but certainly not least reports.

Overview, timeline and project management considerations

As stated previously, the development began in 2003 with an external consultant. Development

continued through 2005 with the project being directed by a non-project management trained staff and

an unqualified developer. The result was an inferior product that did not meet quality standards and an

attempt was made to hire a professional staffing organization to salvage the product. After months and

literally dozens of attempts to plug holes in the codes, the code was scrapped and development was

began again with a different, yet still external, developer. In late 2006 the Universal application process

was redesigned and implemented. Spring 2007 yielded a new contracting process with continuation

contracts being completed in the system by July 2007. Development was slow with a single developer

with the outcome/indicator component being completed during the next 6-8 months. In February of

2008, an internal developer was hired to continue the evolution of the application.

See Attachment A for the Project Charter (developed approx. 3 years after initial implementation)

See Attachment B for the Desired Features, Functionality, and Technologies

Since January 2009, the CEO & COO of our organization have questioned the reliability and usability of

the application. In the last three months, we’ve been in the process of re-evaluating the usefulness of

the application with the alternate again being a scrap and a complete redesign. Beginning in May of


Jennifer A. Fisch

2009, the MIS team has met with internal users to ask what the application is currently doing well

and/or what features is it still missing. In the interim development has continued as normal. In June

2009, a short presentation was done to the Executive Team to tout the application’s capabilities and

ease of use since the majority of users sing praises about it. An expanded presentation was given to our

Board of Directors on June 25, 2009 at our annual Board Workshop and the result was a resounding

“great job”, “we love it”, “this is fantastic”. As a result of this feedback, development will continue as

planned and features will continue to be added as originally scheduled.

See Attachment C for the FY2009 Development Plan

Budget Estimates

True historical costs for this application are difficult to document due to the project beginning over six

years ago.However, documentation found included initial equipment estimates in order to begin

development, i.e., two servers, operating system licenses and MS SQL 2000 enterprise licensing, in

addition to infrastructure upgrades, e.g. upgraded switches, and higher capacity data trunk. Initially one

internal staff member was assigned to the project, estimated .45 FTE man-hours of staffing. Other staff

was engaged during the requirement gathering process in addition to the review of products as they

were delivered and evaluated for acceptance. When the product was scrapped in 2006, the project

reinitialized to the design phase and weeks were spent with users to either re-establish original

requirements or gather new ones.

Historical Costs (Estimation only)

Stage of Development Timeframe Estimated Costs

Feasibility and Evaluation with HKI (1/2003 – 6/2003) $10,000

Initial Infrastructure Costs 05/2003 $ 19,800

Development Costs (initial developer) (7/2003 – 9/2005) $147,055

Development Costs (2nd& 3rdconsultant) (12/2005 – 3/2006) # $45,000

Development Costs (4thconsultant) (3/2006 – 9/2006) $60,000

Upgraded Infrastructure Costs (server) 06/2006 $ 6,000

Development Cost (continued 4thconsultant)

(10/2006 – 9/2007) $107,300

Phase-out Consultant & Internal Developer Cost

(10/2007 – 9/2008) $60,000

Implemented test server environment 10/2008 $ 6,000

Estimated Internal Development Costs 10/2008 – 9/2009 $ 95,948

*Estimated Total $557,103

Note:

# Point after which application code was scrapped.

*Does not include internal/external user requirements, testing and/or evaluation time, IT administrative

support, management support, or normal operating expenses.


Jennifer A. Fisch

Human Resources and Communications

In March 2007, an additional FTE was assigned part-time (.50) to assist with the provider (external) and

internal training process. In April of that year, the original FTE assigned to manage the project resigned

and the department manager assumed a temporary project management role. By May of 2007, the

part-time FTE took full-time responsibility for the external consultant and success of the project.

Countless hours were spent developing, testing, implementing and soliciting internal user feedback. In

February 2008, CBHC recognized the need to retain internal expertise and hired its first web developer

and began the process of transitioning full-time development responsibility in-house.

Departments heavily involved in the design, testing & quality assurance of the product have been: Fiscal,

Finance, Resource Development, Program Administration Team, Research Team, Program Support

Team, Knowledge Management (training coordination) and obviously IT. Alternate meetings are held

every two weeks to discuss the both the contracting process itself and best practice outcome

development. Formalized trainings are typically held semi-annually to educate new users on new

features of the application and/or contracting process.

Currently the project is supported by .90 FT developer and a .85 FT program manager with internal

and/or external users pulled in as needed or when required for testing.

Communication issues are handled via bi-weekly user’s group meetings to communicate project

progress in addition to a continuously accessible SharePoint “punch-list” tracking and post. External

customers (providers) and internal users are solicited for their input to ensure user friendliness and the

identification of cumbersome or non-working features.

To assist with troubleshooting and/or communications,an online helpdesk and help screens wereadded

to the application to assist users, ([email protected]).

Risk Management

Low risks include technology changes or the unavailability of software solutions intended to meet the

user’s needs.

Medium risks include possible conflicts with internal/external customer requirements. If this situation

occurs, compromises will be made wherever possible with executive leadership agreeing to make the

final decision if a compromise is unable to be reached. Also identified as medium risk is the possibility of

competing priorities for development staff as the excitement of web-based technology proliferates

throughout the organization. Ideally, this risk would be mitigated through an IT Governance structure.

However, it is not currently in existence at the Children’s Board, which speaks to organizational

readiness. At this time, if competing priorities exist, the matter is escalated to the COO and resolved at

the Executive Leadership level.

High risks include executive management’s lack of patience for the proper development process which

includes user requirements gathering, development, developer testing, user acceptance phase,

mailto:[email protected]


Jennifer A. Fisch

production implementation. Also included in high risks are CBHC staff reassignments or changes in user

functions or requirements once development of that component is underway.

Possible hurdles include the users’ inability or unwillingness to test features as they are developed. This

hurdle will hopefully be mitigated with a timed acceptance period combined with a pre-approved

escalation process that will allow development and acceptance to continue.

These threats can be managed through continuous communications and quality assurance between the

internal/external customers, the MIS team, and the executive leadership at the Children’s Board.


Jennifer A. Fisch

Segment 4: Reflection and Discussion

Success Factors

Factors that influence the success of our work (custom designed application) would be:

o Useful features/capabilities for the end user o User friendliness of the application o Ease of maintenance o Data reliability o Cost effectiveness for the organization o Organizational support o Executive leadership support

Reflection/Lessons Learned

Others can learn by the mistakes we’ve made (organizationally & departmentally) early on in the

development of our application. They include:

Mistake Impact on Project Recommendation

Lack of clearly defined scope of service

Could never determine what “done” meant. Inability to phase application development (Project Charter remains unsigned)

Do not begin a project of this magnitude without a clear definition of what features are/are not included in the project

Inexperienced developer Delays in development due to re-work or inferior products

Hire an experienced developer (check credentials and references)

No formalized change control process or system

Competiveness among users for the implementation of features or modifications

Institute a change control council with user and executive leadership representation (keep it manageable, 5-7 people max.)

No clear leadership (driver) or governance system to guide development & prioritization of modifications or enhancements

Lack of organizational ownership and commitment

Obtain leadership buy-in via a project sponsor, use in cooperation with council to keep leadership informed and participatory

Inexperienced project manager (no project management training)

Communications suffered, features not delivered to spec., users bad mouthed project, Lack of communications with executive leaders and users on project status

Strong project management will ensure good communication and leadership

Lack of or little organizational buy-in or executive level support

Becomes solely an IT project, users unable or unwilling to dedicate resources necessary to test/implement new features

Keep users involved


Jennifer A. Fisch

The combination of all these mistakes lead to a continued bad reputation for the application, some

rightfully deserved. However, none contributed more than the last two bullets, an inexperienced

project manager and the lack of executive leadership support. After the executive decision was made to

scrap the initial application, which required extensive pleading on my part, organizational leaders finally

allowed the IT department to take control of the development process and hire a professional

developer.

Two years into the re-write process, numeroususers’ group discussions were held with medium to high

satisfaction ratings regarding the application’s functionality. However, executive leadership (the CEO

and COO) were still unconvinced of cscForce’s feasibility. IT, in partnership with Fiscal, Program

Administration, Program Supportand Research band together to actively promote the application’s

features and capacity. The group saw this as an opportunity to positively communicate the applications

features and usability. In response, reports were generated, quick updates were made and cosmetic

changes were done to update the software application’s appearance and basic functionality. Within two

weeks, a cross departmental representation made a formal presentation to the Executive Leadership

team to tout the application’s usefulness and versatility. It was an overwhelming success and at this

writing the project currently has agreen light to proceed with its development as planned.

Potential Hindrances/Obstacles of Others on Implementation

No hindrances/obstacles are known at this time other than the requirement for Sage MIP

accountspayable software.

Other Collaborative Governance Opportunities

Our application has the potential to be used not only at other Children’s Services Councils (CSCs)

throughout the state, but other not-for-profits, funders or governmental agencies that are interested in

measuring impact with their dollars.


Jennifer A. Fisch

Attachment A – Project Charter

Form Instructions:Bring together a group of vested stakeholders such as other units within the organization,

consultants, customers or sponsors and other industry groups to answer the bulleted statements in the space

provided. Use “N/A” for statements that do not apply and delete extra space as you go. As we start this process it

might be helpful to document the length of time it takes to develop the charter and the number of people involved.

(10:23 am -) Slake, Amy, Jennifer

Brief Description/Challenge Statement:

To eliminate multiple data entry required by CBHC Staff and its providers/applicants and streamline the

process by which the CBHC awards its program/service dollars (from application to award to contract

management).

Driver Not Flexible Somewhat Flexible Most Flexible Resources Cannot be exceeded Willing to exceed original budget by a small

amount, only if necessary Willing to exceed original budget estimates if necessary

Schedule Cannot be exceeded Willing to exceed original schedule by a small amount, only if necessary

Willing to exceed original schedule estimates if necessary

Scope Cannot be exceeded Willing to expand/reduce original requirements somewhat, without compromising quality

Willing to exceed original requirements, without compromising quality, if necessary.

Business Justification:

cscForce would allow CBHC to easily identify who in the community was receiving CBHC funded services

and the impact of those services.

How does this project align to the 2012 Plan & what are the internal competencies to move this project forward?

Com

pete

ncy

High Low

Low High 2012 Plan Alignment

Major Components/Scope Boundaries:

cscForce will demonstrate the CBHC’s philosophical approach of Empowerment Evaluation

Universal Application

Data Collection

Contract Management

Executive Reporting

cscForce will integrate the functions of Contract Manager software, Universal Application, DemoGeo, and MIPS (accounting systems into an integrated user friendly data collection system to increase efficiency and access to data (i.e. web-based systems) by CBHC staff and its provider community.

NOT in cscForce Phase #1 o Reimbursement Request Form o Budget Modification Form o User Administrator Functionality o Narrative reporting on EE matrix outcome level o Ability to measure & calculate system (e.g. collaborative) and product deliverable outcomes o Digital signature approval on contract/budget/ee matrix levels


Jennifer A. Fisch

Project Objectives/Milestones: (SMART: Specific, Measurable, Agreed to , Realistic and Time-

Bound)

Contracts payable will only be entered in one system by June 2008.

Online Universal Application by 2004.

Preliminary contract documents (scope, EE Matrix, budget) are harvested through the electronic Universal Application by June 2008.

Electronic storage and easy access to all “program/service dollars” contract and related documentation by June 2008.

A process to calculate and measure individual client level programmatic outcomes by June 2008.

An automated reporting function that describes individuals served, programmatic achievements and progress towards the CBHC Strategic Plan by June 2008.

Project Organization & Key Resources:

The key members of the project organization are:

Sponsors (the person who will approve the project & scope changes):Don Dixon, COO

Project Manager (the person assigned by the Sponsor to achieve the project objectives): Jennifer Fisch, PMP

Project Manager Back-Up: Angie Young

Project Stakeholders (Persons that are actively involved in the project): Fiscal, Research Team, Program Support (Contract Managers),

Other Team Members/Consults: (Persons who may be involved with the Project from time to time, e.g. Subject Matter Experts (SME), Vendors, End-Users, etc.): Sandy Terminey, Tonia Williams, Tracy Hall, Wendy Watson, Slake Counts, Amy Haile, Christine Caffray-Kreines, Kathy Maes, Bobbie Davis, Irene Hill, Mike Lawless (Vendor)

Budget:(Identify the expected budget required for project)

FY2003 - $ 26,040

FY2004 - $ 94,720

FY2005 - $ 31,695

FY2006 - $105,000

FY2007 - $107,300

FY2008 - $ 60,000

FY2009 - $95,948 (in-house)

FY2010 - TBD

Defining Constraints & Assumptions:

An organizational culture that in an attempt to be inclusive and democratic can cause significant delays throughout the planning process and changes to expectations throughout the design and implementation.

Heavily dependent outside competency and skills for development.

Organizational table of organization changes has created confusion on project direction.

Dedication of human resource allocation with competing priorities

Existing procedures to govern purchasing of services and supplies, e.g. computer consulting, capital purchases.

CBHC has flexibility with regards to its funding and project deadlines.

Controlling for scope creep will be critical for success and historically is a known issue.

Multiple views and/or contradictions or requests outside of this phase impede progress

HIPPA Requirements


Jennifer A. Fisch

Known Risks (Positive and Negative):

List known risks or those already identified (risk analysis and response planning will be documented separately.)

Identify the initial risk assessment

Change in vendor for software development

CBHC Staff re-allocation/One person project

Loss of or impacts to Funding

Change in technology for web-based software

Qualitative Risk Analysis: What is the likelihood of an event occurring (high, medium, low) and what is the effect (Impact)

that it will have on the cost, schedule or performance if it happens?

Pro

babi

lity

of R

isk

High

Medium

Low

Low Medium High

Potential Impact of Risk

Other Comments:

Commitment:

_________________________________ Date:_________________

Project Sponsor


Jennifer A. Fisch

Attachment B –Desired Features, Functionality, Technologies

Following is a list Feature / Functionality items desired by interviewed staff at CBHC. This is a starting

point as production and hands-on effort will drive creative synergies in the design process.

Provide core demographics on who the CBHC is serving.

Ability to store source data onsite, or utilize community data warehouse / repository

Eliminate paper reporting and re-keying of data by enabling the Providers to feed data through Internet web based interface – either with direct key or upload / download process.

Provide Program support “staging area” for data approval and commitment.

Make program outcomes quantifiable and integrated into the data gathering and reporting functions.

Allow outcomes to be fed by demographic data.

Increase the frequency of data collection from providers.

Enable online budget to actual reporting.

Enable online reimbursement request.

Align fiscal transactions to MIP database programmatically.

Enable automatic fiscal deposit process.

Provide data import functionality to allow periodic data feeds from providers with existing populated data systems, eliminating the re-keying of data for CBHC.

Provide basic client tracking functions for smaller providers similar to what DemoGeo provides currently.

Provide ability to report against any level of granularity from client to CSC.

Consider including all contract types in new system using EE driven design.

Technology considerations:

Web Based front-end to ensure ubiquitous access, performance, and manageability.

Tier-3 Architecture to ensure performance and scalability.

Canned & Ad-hoc reporting environments.

Sustainable development environment allowing long-term enhancement and operational support by existing technical staff.

Dynamic design environment.

Electronic signature functionality.


Jennifer A. Fisch

Attachment C – FY2009 Development Plan Title hrs customer status Comments

Continuation 09 enhancements

175 Program Admin 7 in use - incorporate recently added areas into renewal function - attachment 5s for subcontractors - still need to add New budget option for subs - disable previous FY budget columns - internal process routing checklist - "submit" button added with auto functions - expedite renewal feature interface - enhancements to contracts list display - automatic user access to renewed contracts - various minor tweaks

Demographics changes - participant entry logic

97 Research 6 in testing (customer) CURRENTLY BEING TESTED BY MIS Includes:EncryptionSSN/UID logic EDI and formsIndividual entry interface and logic Total Number Served logic

Demographics - Evaluation logic

12 Research 6 in testing (customer)

Demographics changes - logic formulas and performance evaluation

71 Research 6 in testing (customer) Includes: new formula-creation mechanism to expand formula capabilities

Reimbursements 25 Program Admin 5 installed (MIS)

Demographics changes - participant reassignment

48 Research 4 in development (MIS) Addresses:Deactivated Outcomes / moving participantsParticipants continuing to next FY

Demographics changes - other

28 Research 4 in development (MIS) - change requests - "approved by research" indicator- service level dashboards

Demographics Pilot MIS; Research; PCs 4 in development (MIS) Pilot participants have been identified. A few kinks need to be ironed out with the system to begin the Pilot by late June / early July.

Incorporation of third-party interface/usability

all users 4 in development (MIS) Includes DevExpress grids applied to various list displays throughout the application.


Jennifer A. Fisch

enhancements

Archive contract state 40 Program Admin 3 processing requirements (MIS)

Budget Modifications (amendments)

40 Program Admin 3 processing requirements (MIS)

Independent Contractor Contracts

32 Program Admin 3 processing requirements (MIS)

Matrix modifications (amendments)

40 Program Support 3 processing requirements (MIS)

Replace ActivePDF with another product

MIS 3 processing requirements (MIS) To address problems we have with the current Print functionality

Replace CuteEditor with another product

MIS 3 processing requirements (MIS) To address problems with cross-application text formatting.

Email distribution feature CBHC 2 researching requirements (customer) Provides the ability to auto-feed into Exchange provider contacts' emails (agency heads, fiscal contacts, programmatic contacts and EE matrix officials)

Digital signatures Program Admin 2 researching requirements (customer)

Reports for PAT Program Admin 2 researching requirements (customer) -- due to addition of onsite development staff we may only produce ad hoc reports rather than create modules

Reporting interface CBHC 1 request accepted

Tracking - Phase 3 (Annual Ticklers)

Program Admin 1 request accepted This alerts PAT to upcoming deadlines.

Tracking - Phase 4 (Contact Record / Site Visits)

Program Admin 1 request accepted

Tracking - Phase 5 (Program Review)

Program Admin 1 request accepted

System administration enhancements

MIS 1 request accepted Includes User Management, Agency Management, auditing, better error transaction reporting etc.


Jennifer A. Fisch

Attachment D –CCIO Material Engagement

Module I – Leading from the Inside Out

Before the Project After the Project

Your Role as a Public Technology Leader

Knew nothing about the League of Cities

League of Cities is huge resource for knowledge and assistance

Growing Your Leadership Capacity

Functioned more as a manager than a leader

Vision, SMART goals and purposeful attempts to function

as a leader Presentations That Succeed Lack of confidence in speaking Good tips for both speaking &

presentations Leading from the Inside Out Lack of understanding of

leadership and listening techniques

Better understanding of listening techniques, greater comfort with

silence while speaking Leadership, Values and Heart Ignorance of understanding

personality differences and personal drive

Better understanding of varying personalities

Module II – Understanding the Enterprise


Understanding Local Government

Unaware of charters, home rule typical county structure

Better awareness of government structure and special taxing

districts Alternative Funding Solutions Didn’t think about technology

grants in private industry for our providers

Will inquire about technology grants for providers

Negotiation and Procurement Aware of general procurement procedure

No new knowledge

Project Leadership with an Enterprise Focus

Currently Project Management Professional certified

Will provider great leadership in current & future projects

Module III – Leading to Results Before the Project After the Project

The Legal Environment of IT Management

Took two previous courses in FL Records Management

Wow, the best! RMLO is critical function within government

Human Resources and Ethical Issues

Ignorant of labor laws dealing with hourly personnel and

exemptions

Also great! More aware of restrictions on hourly personnel

Information Technology as a Customer Service Business

Viewed client identical. Basic understanding IT governance

View IT more of a service model. Looking to implement IT governance in the org.

Module IV – Leading a World of Change


IT Talent Management Understood recruiting, retaining practices

No new knowledge

Creating a Business Thinking Culture

Unaware of other municipalities practicing outcome based

initiates

Wow, great. Very impressive view government more in a

business mindset Your Role as CIO Knew basic info. on value of

certification and CIO positioning Great. Will concentrate on promoting IT visibility and

strategic positioning.


Jennifer A. Fisch

Emerging Trends Limited new technology &social network knowledge

Wealth of information and looking to collaborate locally in

the County Web 2.0/Social Networking Limited knowledge of social

networking Becoming more involved in social networking regarding

meeting the needs of government

ccio capstone - best practices

Documents

childrens board staff

custom web application

capstone project

project scope

hillsborough countys

hillsborough kids

childrens trust miamidade

antiquated contract