executive sponsor – robert unthank, superintendent, rld … · web view1.1 executive summary...

ACCELA REPLACEMENT PROJECT

PROJECT CHARTER FOR CERTIFICATION

EXECUTIVE SPONSOR – ROBERT UNTHANK, SUPERINTENDENT, RLD

RLD BUSINESS OWNER - ROBERT UNTHANK, SUPERINTENDENT

MHD BUSINESS OWNER – JESUS CARRASCO, MHD BUREAU CHIEF

LPG BUSINESS OWNER – CLAY BAILEY, LPG BUREAU CHIEF

CMS BUSINESS OWNER – AMANDA ROYBAL, CMS BUREAU CHIEF

PRM BUSINESS OWNER – RICHARD LUCERO, PRM BUREAU CHIEF

IT LEAD – MICHELLE LANGEHENNIG, CIO

PROJECT MANAGER – CHUCK SLOCTER FABIO MIR, APPLICATIONS DEVELOPER

ORIGINAL PLAN DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2017

VERSION: 1.0

http://www.rld.state.nm.us/default.aspx

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................... II

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT....................................................................................................11.2 SUMMARY OF THE FOUNDATION PLANNING AND DOCUMENTATION FOR THE PROJECT.........................................................11.3 PROJECT CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................................................1

2.0 JUSTIFICATION, OBJECTIVES AND IMPACTS....................................................................................................1

2.1 AGENCY JUSTIFICATION...........................................................................................................................................12.2 BUSINESS OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................................................................22.3 TECHNICAL OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................................................................22.4 IMPACT ON ORGANIZATION......................................................................................................................................22.5 TRANSITION TO OPERATIONS....................................................................................................................................2

3.0 PROJECT/PRODUCT SCOPE OF WORK............................................................................................................ 3

3.1 DELIVERABLES.......................................................................................................................................................33.1.1 Project Deliverables...................................................................................................................................33.1.2 Product Deliverables..................................................................................................................................5

3.2 SUCCESS AND QUALITY METRICS..........................................................................................................................6

4.0 SCHEDULE ESTIMATE..................................................................................................................................... 6

5.0 BUDGET ESTIMATE........................................................................................................................................ 6

5.1 FUNDING SOURCE(S)..............................................................................................................................................65.2. BUDGET BY MAJOR DELIVERABLE OR TYPE OF EXPENSE -..............................................................................................75.3 BUDGET BY PROJECT PHASE OR CERTIFICATION PHASE..................................................................................................7

6.0 PROJECT AUTHORITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.............................................................................7

6.1 STAKEHOLDERS.................................................................................................................................................76.2 PROJECT GOVERNANCE PLAN...........................................................................................................................76.3 PROJECT MANAGER...........................................................................................................................................7

6.3.1 PROJECT MANAGER CONTACT INFORMATION..........................................................................................76.3.2 PROJECT MANAGER BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................7

6.4 PROJECT TEAM ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES..................................................................................................76.5 PROJECT MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................8

7.0 CONSTRAINTS............................................................................................................................................... 8

8.0 DEPENDENCIES.............................................................................................................................................. 8

9.0 ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................................................................................................. 9

10.0 SIGNIFICANT RISKS AND MITIGATION STRATEGY.........................................................................................9

11.0 COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR EXECUTIVE REPORTING..................................................................................9

i

12.0 INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION - IV&V................................................................................9

13.0 PROJECT CHARTER AGENCY APPROVAL SIGNATURES.................................................................................11

14.0 PROJECT CHARTER CERTIFICATION APPROVAL SIGNATURE........................................................................11

Revision History

REVISION NUMBER DATE COMMENT

December 15, 2017 Original RLD Accela Replacement Document

January 10, 2018 Submitted to Department of Information Technology (DoIT) Project Certification Committee (PCC)

January 15, 2018 Rejected by DoIT PCC

February 14, 2018 Submitted to DoIT PCC

February 19, 2018 Rejected by DoIT PCC

March 14, 2018 Submitted to DoIT PCC

March 19, 2018 Rejected by DoIT PCC

April 11, 2018 Submitted to DoIT PCC

April 17, 2018 Rejected by DoIT PCC

ii

PROJECT CHARTER RLD ACCELA REPLACEMENT 1

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT

The Accela software suite (Citizen Portal, Automation, and Mobile Inspection) supports the functionality of the RLD Construction Industries Division (CID) to manage all permitting related to Construction Industries, Manufactured Housing and LP Gas as well as to manage field inspections by inspection staff using a mobile application. RLD is facing a critical moment of possibly not being able to fulfill its charge to the citizens to ensure that life and property is protected and conducted in compliance with our laws.

Over the course of FY17 Accela went through 3 different account reps assigned to RLD and it became progressively more difficult to get high level technical support. Accela was then acquired by Berkshire Partners, LLC (a Boston-based investment firm) on September 29, 2017. Since the acquisition, Accela’s business support model has changed drastically. Accela has notified RLD that after June 30, 2018 they will no longer license the RLD’s current on premise implementation. After June 30, 2018 RLD will no longer be able to process CID permits and collect an estimated $4,000,000 in revenue for the General Fund. The RLD legal department is currently working to recoup payments made for services that have not been rendered.

Without Accela, the RLD will be in violation of the Construction Industries Licensing Act (60-13-1 NMSA 1978) and the Manufactured Housing Act (60-14-1 NMSA 1978). The purpose of the Construction Industries Licensing Act is in 60-13-1.1 NMSA 1978:

The purpose of the Construction Industries Licensing Act [60-13-1 NMSA 1978] is to promote the general welfare of the people of New Mexico by providing for the protection of life and property by adopting and enforcing codes and standards for construction, alteration, installation, connection, demolition and repair work.

Based on the purpose of the Construction Industries Licensing Act to protect life and property of New Mexico’s citizens and how that is accomplished, RLD would be in violation of the entire Act if we are unable to issue permits and make inspections of construction work in New Mexico. CID fields about 5500 to over 6000 calls and emails into its call center to set up inspections on a monthly basis. In order to determine that construction work is code compliant and therefore competent and protecting life and property in New Mexico CID is charged with issuing permits which thereafter result in inspections being conducted for general construction, mechanical, plumbing, electrical and LP Gas. If CID did not have the ability to issue the permits and therefore conduct inspections RLD would not be fulfilling its charge to the citizens and could not ensure that life and property is protected and conducted in compliance with New Mexico laws.

PAGE 1


The purpose of the Manufactured Housing Act is in 60-14-3 NMSA 1978:

It is the intent of the legislature that the large and growing manufactured housing industry be supervised and regulated by a division of the commerce and industry department [regulation and licensing department]. The purpose of the Manufactured Housing Act [60-14-1 NMSA 1978] is to insure the purchasers and users of manufactured homes the essential conditions of health and safety which are their right and to provide that the business practices of the industry are fair and orderly among the members of the industry with due regard to the ultimate consumers in this important area of human shelter.

Without the ability to issue permits and perform inspections, RLD’s Manufactured Housing Division would also not be able to meet its purpose of insuring the essential conditions of health and safety to the purchasers and users of manufactured houses. Hence, a lack of an Accela replacement will force RLD to be in violation of two Acts.

1.2 SUMMARY OF THE FOUNDATION PLANNING AND DOCUMENTATION FOR THE PROJECT

Alternative #1: Replace current proprietary software code based Accela implementation - Migrate the current Accela environment functionality to nonproprietary current programming language based system architecture. Ensure the coding of the credit card acceptance page on the Permitting Payment Portal so that credit card transactions are submitted through a payment page hosted by the State's payment gateway provider, Wells Fargo/CyberSource.

This alternative consists of four primary parts:1. Contracting with local NM based software vendors to take capture current Accela

implementation and migrate it to a current widely accepted and used programming language. Redesign and recode the payment module in the Permitting and licensing Portal to use a Wells Fargo/CyberSource hosted page. Wells Fargo/CyberSource is already PCI DSS compliant.

2. Change our service with Wells Fargo/CyberSource from an API-based payment-processing plan to their Secure Acceptance Web/Mobile, a fully hosted payment page.

3. Contract with a provider to create procedures & policies appropriate to the new SAQ-A guidelines which the new Permitting and Licensing system architecture will allow us to use.

4. Remove credit card acceptance from internal site based payment kiosks to prevent CD from flowing through RLD networks or equipment.

PAGE 2


This alternative will allow RLD to take full control over one of its Permitting software application process. It avoids the current situation of being held hostage by unscrupulous out of state vendors that are bought and sold and change their service offerings with the intent of charging more for new and so called improved services. It also allows for PCI DSS compliance by redirecting users to an externally hosted payment page so that all cardholder data flows through the network and systems of the already PCI compliant provider, Wells Fargo/CyberSource, rather than flowing through the RLD/State of New Mexico servers and systems. This dramatically reduces our compliance burden in terms of number of PCI compliance items and number of dedicated RLD IT staff hours required to maintain compliance.

Pros: Will allow RLD to take full control and ownership of its mission critical software systems. Will allow the RLD to achieve full PCI DSS 3.2 compliance within 45 days of completion

of the project and release to production. Saves over $200,000 over eight years compared with the status quo Reduces the number of required PCI security control compliance items from over 198 to

25. Prevents penalties due to non-compliance which are currently over $1,200/month for the

RLD and could, conceivably, grow to $10,000/month for the RLD. If it is the only agency unable to achieve PCI compliance, this could amount to $120,000 / year for non-compliance.

Simplifies application adaptation to new payment methods (such as Amex) and security technologies due to Wells Fargo/CyberSource’s strong relationships and integration with key financial institutions, credit card providers, and payment technology providers.

Maintains a robust and easy-to-use online system for permittees to access vital business and financial services online and at their convenience. This convenience tends to increase compliance with existing business and contractor requirements and statutes while reducing the need for additional RLD staffing.

Maintains or increases the variety of payment methods accepted for Permitting and portal transactions. Currently limited to Visa/MasterCard.

Cons: Relies heavily on a single vendor to complete project in a timely manner.

Alternative MonthlyStaff Hours Required (Initial)

Monthly Staff Hours Required (Ongoing)

PCI Compliance Items (Type)

Initial Cost Ongoing Cost (Annual)

PCI Compliance Achieved (time course)

#1. Replace current proprietary software code

25 (SAQ-A) Yes (within 6-8 months of funding receipt)

PAGE 3


based Accela implementation (Recommended)

Alternative #2: Maintain the Status Quo – This alternative is untenable. After June 30, 2018 RLD’s current Accela implementation will be unlicensed as RLDs contract with Accela (now Berkshire Partners, LLC) will end on the above stated date. The risk to RLD and the State of M to continue trying to use an unlicensed system is extremely high. If the unsupported system fails RLD will be unable to fulfill its mission critical function of permitting the construction activity and maintaining the safety of the general public through site based inspections of all permitted projects.

Pros: The cost of migrating to Accela’s cloud based solution will be at least $177,000 / year in

licensing costs. This is less that the cost of migrating the system to an RLD owned and controlled system. Accela has not to date provided the cost of migrating on premise installation to cloud based offering as of the date of this C-2.

Cons: RLD will continue to be held hostage to an out of state sole source contract vendor that

has proven unreliable and that has changed their service model without consulting customers.

Changes to accepted payment methods may require recoding application and involve additional expenditure and vendor involvement.

Changes & upgrades to security protocols, such as changes to encryption and hashing standards & algorithms, may require application alteration and involve additional expenditure and vendor involvement.

Has the effect of delaying or negatively affecting other important planned Projects

Alternative Monthly Staff Hours Required (Initial)

Monthly Staff Hours Required (Ongoing)

PCI Compliance Items (Type)

Initial Cost Ongoing Cost (Annual)

PCI Compliance Achieved (time course)

#2. Status Quo (Not Recommended)

198 (SAQ-D Merchant)

Likely Not (initial phase 12-18 months if achieved at all)

PAGE 4


Alternative #3: Stop accepting credit cards as an allowable payment method – The approach for this alternative would be to alter the current Permitting portal application to entirely prevent the acceptance of credit cards as an allowed payment method.

Pros: Very low initial expenditure. Rapid achievement of PCI compliance.

Cons: Required increase in RLD staff due to increased in-house processing of checks and

money orders that per STO must all be processed within 24 hours of receipt. Payment by electronic check, the remaining online payment option, is error prone. This

is because the validity of account numbers and the amount of account balances cannot be verified by the payment gateway provider or payment authorization services. We expect that the number of dishonored electronic check payments will increase dramatically, perhaps requiring an additional employee to track and collect payment on these transactions.

Likely lowered business compliance with permitting requirements due to lowered convenience and additional required planning to file statutorily required permit applications, requests for inspection, etc.

Increased help desk requests (RLD IT) and customer complaints due to the reduction in convenience of the system and the confusion that this will cause existing users and customers.

Loss of positive image and goodwill. As the world moves more and more towards electronic payment methods, online transactions, customer-centered business, and rapid, automated request processing this could give the appearance that the RLD and the State of New Mexico are not responsive to their customer’s needs and to the times.

PAGE 5


1.3 PROJECT CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

CRITERIA YES/NO

EXPLANATION

Project is mission critical to the agency YES Required by laws: Construction Industries Licensing Act (60-13-1 NMSA 1978) and the Manufactured Housing Act (60-14-1 NMSA 1978).

Project cost is equal to or in excess of $100,000.00

YES Estimated project cost $967,000

Project impacts customer on-line access

NO Little impact with the public. All user accounts/moneys will transfer over to the new system

Project is one deemed appropriate by the Secretary of the DoIT

YES

Will an IT Architecture Review be required?

No All software and server are hosted at the vendors location.

2.0 JUSTIFICATION, OBJECTIVES AND IMPACTS

2.1 AGENCY JUSTIFICATION

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

AGENCY MISSION THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES AND MANUFACTURED HOUSING PROGRAM IS TO PROVIDE CODE COMPLIANCE OVERSIGHT; ISSUE LICENSES, PERMITS AND CITATIONS; PERFORM INSPECTIONS; ADMINISTER EXAMS; PROCESS COMPLAINTS; AND ENFORCE LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO GENERAL CONSTRUCTION AND MANUFACTURED

PAGE 6


NUMBER DESCRIPTION

HOUSING STANDARDS TO INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS.

AGENCY JUSTIFICATION 1

RLD IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROVIDE A RELIABLE PERMITTING SYSTEM.

AGENCY JUSTIFICATION 2

RLD CURRENT PERMITTING SYSTEM IS FAILING AND NEEDS TO BE REPLACE.

2.2 BUSINESS OBJECTIVES

NUMBER DESCRIPTION IMPACT RESULT/OUTCOME

BUSINESS OBJECTIVE 1

Migrate current proprietary software code based Accela implementation to open source code based application that is fully owned and controlled by RLD.

High RLD will purchase a cloud based permitting system.


Maintain or increase by 10% the percentage of business services transactions that can be customer initiated and handled online and outside of regular business hours.

Low Using Accela permitting system transaction counts as a baseline. The new systems will increase the transaction counts by 10%


Maintain or increase the ease-of-use and ease-of-payment in the Permitting and Licensing portal application.

Low Complaints about the current Accela permitting system will be used as baseline. The new system will have 10% less than baseline.

PAGE 7


2.3 TECHNICAL OBJECTIVES


TECHNICAL OBJECTIVE 1

Create online permitting application using industry-standard coding and best practices standards.

Low RLD will have a permitting system using industrial standard coding and best practice standards


Create robust data repository for the permitting application program following best practices standards.

Low RLD will have a permitting system using a robust data repository following best practices standards.


Create a very user friendly public facing interface.

Low RLD will have a permitting system with very user friendly public facing interface.


Create an easy to use day to day operations interface.

Low RLD will have a permitting system with an easy to use day to day operations interface.


Create a comprehensive administration interface.

Low RLD will have a permitting system will have a comprehensive administration interface.


Create a mobile interface for the inspectors.

Low RLD will have a permitting system will have a mobile interface for the inspectors.

PAGE 8




Create an easy way to create new permits or record types.

Low RLD will have a permitting system will have easy way to create new permits or record types.


Ensure the replacement programs has an unlimited upload document size.

Low RLD will have a permitting system will have an unlimited upload document size.

2.4 IMPACT ON ORGANIZATION

AREA DESCRIPTION

END USER There will be no impact to the end users. All accounts and credits will be transferred to the new system. User interface will be similar to current system, little or no training will be required.

BUSINESS PROCESSES

RLD staff will need training on the new system. Financial processes will need to be modified.

IT OPERATIONS AND STAFFING

The new permitting application will be cloud based. Meaning RLD IT staff will not have to perform web server and database server maintenance. RLD IT staff will not have to perform backups.

2.5 TRANSITION TO OPERATIONS

PAGE 9


AREA DESCRIPTION

PRELIMINARY OPERATIONS LOCATION AND STAFFING PLANS

The new permitting system will be hosted at an offsite location.all maintenance and backups will be performed by hosting company.

DATA SECURITY, BUSINESS CONTINUITY

Data security will be performed by hosting company. The hosting company will maintain a disaster recovery site.

MAINTENANCE STRATEGY

All maintenance will be performed by hosting company

INTEROPERABILITY THE NEW PERMITTING SYSTEM WILL INTERFACE WITH PSI AND MYLICENSE

RECORD RETENTION RECORDS WILL BE RETAINED ACCORDING TO STATE REQUIREMENTS.

3.0 PROJECT/PRODUCT SCOPE OF WORK

3.1 DELIVERABLES

3.1.1 PROJECT DELIVERABLES

Stage NAME Stage Description Deliverables

Initiation Set up the project framework for a successful delivery

PCC Certification Documents

Contract

Analysis Provide best practice consulting to define to-be configuration for Agency

To-Be Analysis documentation

Solution Foundation Create the appropriate solution architecture for a successful deployment

Configuration Report

Build Create the specifications and Business Automation Script

PAGE 10


deliver technical components built to support the approved specifications.

specifications

Interface specifications

Report specifications

Configured Business Automation Scripts

Configured Interfaces

the selected vendor Mobile Office specifications

Readiness Supporting Agency’s User Acceptance Test period and providing requisite training

User Acceptance Testing

Training

Deploy Move to Production and Transition to the Customer Resource Center (“CRC”)

Move to Production Checklist

Move to Production

Post Deployment Support

Handover to the CRC

Finalization Project closeout IV&V report

OCIO report.

PCC closeout

3.1.2 PRODUCT DELIVERABLES

MAJOR PROJECT DELIVERABLE BUDGET DUE DATE PROJECT PHASE

Acquire the software and licensing to implement the permitting and inspection software for construction industries.

$406,000 7/15/18 Initiation

Gather requirements and design workflows for 10 permit types.

$195,000 10/30/2018 Planning

PAGE 11


Select one permit type as a pilot for Go-Live.

Design integration interfaces and data migration strategy for the selected permit from Accela SQL Database to new application.

Develop application and Contractors Portal with design information for 10 Permit Types.

Integrate PSI’s License Import text file, credit card transactions, Geolocation used by inspector’s and document management (plans for plan review and historical documents).

Migration of permit records for one permit type from Accela to new application. Configuration of Inspection Software and Mobile Application for one permit type.

Go Live with one permit type.

$366,000 3/31/2019 Implementation

Software

Licenses

Requirements Documentation

Project Charter

Project plan

Project Kickoff meeting

Design workflows for required permits

Design integration interface

Data migration from current permitting application to new permitting application

$482,000

5/1/18 Implementation

Develop application portal

Develop contractor’s portal

Integrate PSI’s license information

Integrate credit card transactions

$195,000 7/1/2018 Planning

And Implementation

PAGE 12


Integrate geolocation into inspector’s application

Integrate document management (for plan review and historical documents)

Configuration of inspection software

Configuration reports

Business Automation Script specifications






Training


Move to Production


$290,000 12/31/2018 Implementation

3.2 SUCCESS AND QUALITY METRICS

PAGE 13


NUMBER DESCRIPTION

QUALITY METRICS 1

Using Accela permitting system transaction counts as a baseline. The new systems will increase the transaction counts by 10%

QUALITY METRICS 2

Complaints about the current Accela permitting system will be used as baseline. The new system will have 10% less than baseline.

4.0 SCHEDULE ESTIMATE

5.

Scope

Analysis/Software Requirements

Design

Development

Testing

Training

Documentation

Pilot

Deployment

Post Implementation Review

Software development template complete

0 days 10 days 20 days 30 days 40 days 50 days 60 days 70 days 80 days

Scheduled Duration

Task Mode Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors Resource Names

Auto Scheduled

Software Development

173 daysTue 5/1/18

Thu 12/27/18

Auto Scheduled

Scope 3.5 days Tue 5/1/18 Fri 5/4/18

Auto Scheduled

Analysis/Software Requirements

14 days Fri 5/4/18Thu 5/24/18

1

Auto Scheduled

Design 14.5 daysThu 5/24/18

Wed 6/13/18

7

Manually Scheduled

Development 45 daysThu 6/14/18

Wed 8/15/18

17

Auto Testing 31 days Thu Thu 25

PAGE 14


Scheduled 8/16/18 9/27/18Auto Scheduled

Training 27 days Fri 9/28/18Mon 11/5/18

32

Auto Scheduled

Documentation 21 daysTue 11/6/18

Tue 12/4/18

48

Auto Scheduled

Pilot 9 daysWed 12/5/18

Mon 12/17/18

57

Auto Scheduled

Deployment 5 daysTue 12/18/18

Mon 12/24/18

67

Auto Scheduled

Post Implementation Review

3 daysTue 12/25/18

Thu 12/27/18

74

Auto Scheduled

Software development template complete

0 daysThu 12/27/18

Thu 12/27/18

85,81

MAJOR PROJECT DELIVERABLE AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE

DUE DATE PROJECT PHASE

Software

Licenses


Project Charter

Project plan






Develop application portal 7/1/2018 Planning

PAGE 15






Integrate document management (for plan review and historical documents)

And Implementation









Training


Move to Production



5.0 BUDGET ESTIMATE

PAGE 16


5.1 FUNDING SOURCE(S)

SOURCE AMOUNT ASSOCIATED RESTRICTIONS

C-2 $967,000 THE FUNDS WILL ONLY BE USED FOR ACCELA REPLACEMENT PROJECT

5.2. BUDGET BY MAJOR DELIVERABLE OR TYPE OF EXPENSE

ITEM COST ESTIMATE Software

Licenses


Project Charter

Project plan





$482,000 INITIATION

Develop application portal





$195,000 PLANNING

PAGE 17


ITEM COST ESTIMATE Integrate document

management (for plan review and historical documents)









Training


Move to Production


$290,000 IMPLEMENTATION

5.3 BUDGET BY PROJECT PHASE OR CERTIFICATION PHASE

ITEM COST ESTIMATE

INITIATION $482,000

PLANNING $195,000

PAGE 18


ITEM COST ESTIMATE

IMPLEMENTATION $290,000

TOTAL $967,000

6.0 PROJECT AUTHORITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

6.1 STAKEHOLDERS

NAME STAKE IN PROJECT ORGANIZATION

PERMIT APPLICANTS ABILITY TO APPLY FOR PERMITS AND PAY ONLINE

GENERAL PUBLIC REQUIRING PERMITS

Robert Unthank SUPERINTENDENT OF RLD

RLD

Jesus Carrasco MANAGER OF THE MHD. SUPERVIES

RLD

Clay Bailey MANAGER OF LPG RLD

Amanda Roybal MANAGER OF CMS RLD

Richard Lucero MANAGER OF PRM RLD

6.2 PROJECT GOVERNANCE PLAN

The following is a diagram of the organization structure including steering committee members, project manager and technical/business teams.

PAGE 19


6.3 PROJECT MANAGER

6.3.1 PROJECT MANAGER CONTACT INFORMATION

NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE #(S) EMAIL

CHUCK SLOCTER

NEW MEXICO REGULATION AND LICENSING DEPARTMENT

505-470-3332 [email protected]

6.3.2 PROJECT MANAGER BACKGROUND

Chuck Slocter has over 10 years as a project manager for the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT).

6.4 PROJECT TEAM ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

ROLE RESPONSIBILITY

Project Manager The project manager plays a primary role in the project, and is responsible for its successful completion. The manager’s job is to

PAGE 20


ROLE RESPONSIBILITY

ensure that the project proceeds within the specified time frame and under the established budget, while achieving its objectives. Project managers make sure that projects are given sufficient resources, while managing relationships with contributors and stakeholders.

Project Team Member Project team members are the individuals who actively work on one or more phases of the project. They may be in-house staff or external consultants, working on the project on a full-time or part-time basis. Team member roles can vary according to each project.

Executive Sponsor The executive sponsor is ideally a high-ranking member of management. He or she is the visible champion of the project with the management team and is the ultimate decision-maker, with final approval on all phases, deliverables and scope changes.

IT Project Team Member

IT Project team members are the individuals who actively work on one or more phases of the project. They may be in-house staff or external consultants, working on the project on a full-time or part-time basis. Team member roles can vary according to each project.

Business Operations Review Team

Business Operations Review team members are the individuals who actively work on one or more phases of the project. They may be in-house staff or external consultants, working on the project on a full-time or part-time basis. Team member roles can vary according to each project.

PAGE 21


6.5 PROJECT MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY

Phase Summary of Phase

Initiate During initiate, the project manager of the delivery team will kick-off the project, validate the scope, facilitate the logistic, and initiate the project plan

Analyze The CID project team will conduct the analysis of permit types and requirements and define the architecture and design of the solution. The requirements include business requirements, functional requirements, and infrastructure requirements.

Build In Build, the IT team and the vendor will actually build the proposed system. It includes the installation, development, and configuration, and testing of components and sub-systems comprising the proposed solution. The CID team and IT team will configure the software to the permitting and business needs of the division and RLD.

Train In this phase, the vendor project team will train the subject matter experts of each group for the end user training. The delivery team will also train the admin staff to prepare them for the system maintenance

PAGE 22


and the application support. The vendor team will then lead the subject matter experts in training the CID staff.

Deploy In this phase, the delivery team ports the system from a Test environment to Production environment and conduct the system roll out for successful “Go-Live”.

Close In this phase, the project manager and team ensure that every detail of the project has been addressed and proper closure is attained.

7.0 CONSTRAINTS

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

CONSTRAINT 1

TIME

MILSTRONES COMPLETED ON TIME.

CONSTRAINT 2

RESOURCE

NEED TO COMPLETE PROJECT IN A VERY SHORT TIMELINE

CONSTRAINT 3

QUALITY

HIGH QUALITY WILL BE MANTAINED THROUGHT THE PROJECT

CONSTRAINT 4

COST

COST OF THE PROJECT MUST STAY WITHIN BUDGET

8.0 DEPENDENCIES

NUMBER DESCRIPTION TYPE M,D,E

DEPENDENC PROJECT INITIATION. RLD WILL NOT ALLOWED M

PAGE 23


NUMBER DESCRIPTION TYPE M,D,E

Y 1 TO START PROJECT IF THE PROJECT CERTIFICATION COMMITTEE (PCC) DOES NOT CERTIFY PROJECT

DEPENDENCY 2

SUCCEFULL CONTRACT CREATION AND SIGNAGE.

9.0 ASSUMPTIONS

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

ASSUMPTION 1 CONTRACT WILL REQUIRE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT VENDOR WILL STAY WITH PROJECT TO COMPLETION.

ASSUMPTION 2 RLD AND VENDOR STAFF WILL ENSURE MULTIPLE MEMBERS OF EACH ORGANIZATION ARE PRESENT DURING REQUIREMENTS GATHERING AND DESIGN PHASES.

10.0 SIGNIFICANT RISKS AND MITIGATION STRATEGY

Risk 1

Description - Vendor abandonment (software development): If the contracted vendor were to abandon the project then the project would be halted or seriously delayed.

Probability UNLIKELY Impact HIGH

Mitigation Strategy: Continue with reliable vendorContingency Plan: If the vendor were to abandon the project early in the process, before funds were used then another developer could be brought in. If the vendor were to abandon the project late in the development process it would be possible for existing RLD IT staff to finish the required software development work to finish the project. If neither of these were feasible we would need to turn to one of the other alternatives listed.

Risk 2

PAGE 24


Description - Vendor abandonment (payment page provider): If CyberSource, our payment page provider, were to remove or significantly alter their hosted payment page service then additional development work may be required to adapt to new provider or to the page changes.

Probability Unlikely Impact MEDIUM

Mitigation Strategy: Our financial service provider would likely have a new recommended payment page host.Contingency Plan: Payment gateway providers are numerous and our financial service provider would likely have a new recommended payment page host. RLD IT would likely be able to make the small required changes to the application to accommodate a different payment page host given that most of the initial integration has been completed.

Risk 3

Description - Inadequate or incomplete requirements gathering: If project requirements are not fully understood or updated early in the process the final product may not address the true needs of the project or additional time or funding would be required to remedy the situation.

Probability UNLIKELY Impact HIGH

Mitigation Strategy: Proper Project ManagementContingency Plan: Project management would occur both inside the contracted organization, System Automation and Accela Replacement, and from RLD IT with cross-checking occurring between each organization throughout the requirements gathering and design phases. This has worked well in past endeavors.

11.0 COMMUNICATION PLAN FOR EXECUTIVE REPORTING

Bi-weekly project planning meetings are being held and upon project initiation, executive steering committee meetings shall be held on a weekly basis through project completion.

PAGE 25


12.0 INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION - IV&V

Project/Product Area Include –Yes/No

Project Management Yes

Quality Management Yes

Training Yes

Requirements Management Yes

Operating Environment Yes

Development Environment Yes

Software Development Yes

System and Acceptance Testing Yes

Data Management Yes

Operations Oversight Yes

Business Process Impact Yes

PAGE 26


13.0 PROJECT CHARTER AGENCY APPROVAL SIGNATURES

SIGNATURE DATE

EXECUTIVE SPONSOR

BUSINESS OWNER

PROJECT MANAGER

14.0 PROJECT CHARTER CERTIFICATION APPROVAL SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE DATE

DOIT / PCC APPROVAL

PAGE 27