TAPESTRY Project
PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
(PMP)
Executive Sponsor – John Monforte
Business Owner – Mark Williams
TRD CIO – Greg Saunders
IT Project Manager – Jan Christine
MVD Business Project Manager – Raul Alvarez
Original Plan Date: November 8, 2013
Revision Date: March 6, 2014
Revision: 7.0
Revision History
1.0 Project Overview
1.1 Executive Summary- rationale for the Project
1.2 funding and sources
1.3 constraints
1.5 ASSUMPTIONS
1.6 Initial Project Risks Identified
2.0 Project Authority and Organizational Structure
2.1 Stakeholders
2.2 Project Governance Structure
2.2.1 Describe the organizational structure – Org Chart
2.2.2 Describe the role and members of the Executive steering committee
2.2.3 Organizational Boundaries, interfaces and responsibilities
2.3 Executive Reporting
3.0 Scope
3.1 Project Objectives
3.1.1 Business Objectives
3.1.2 Technical Objectives
3.2 Project exclusions
3.3 Critical Success Factors
4.0 Project Deliverables and methodology
4.1 Project Management Life Cycle
4.1.1 Project Management Deliverables
4.1.2 Deliverable Approval Authority Designations
4.1.3 Deliverable Acceptance Procedure
4.2 PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE
4.2.1 Technical Strategy
4.2.2 Product and Product Development Deliverables
4.2.3 Deliverable Approval Authority Designations
4.2.4 Deliverable Acceptance Procedure
5.0 Project Work
5.1 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
5.2 Schedule allocation -Project Timeline
5.3 Project Budget (To end of Implementation)
5.4 Project Team
5.4.1 Project Team Organizational Structure
5.4.2 Project Team Roles and Responsibilities
5.5 STAFF PLANNING AND Resource ACQUISITION
5.5.1 Project Staff
5.5.2 Non-Personnel resources
5.6 PROJECT LOGISTICS
5.6.1 Project Team Training
6.0 Project Management and Controls
6.1 Risk and issue Management
6.1.1 Risk Management Strategy
6.1.2 Project Risk Identification
6.1.3 Project Risk Mitigation Approach
6.1.4 Risk Reporting and Escalation Strategy
6.1.5 Project Risk Tracking Approach
6.1.6 ISSUE MANAGEMENT
6.2 INDEPENDENT Verification And Validation - Iv&V
6.3 Scope Management Plan
6.3.1 Change Control
6.4 Project Budget Management
6.4.1 Budget Tracking
6.5 Communication Plan
6.5.1 Communication Matrix
6.6 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT (PROJECT METRICS)
6.6.1 Baselines
6.6.2 Metrics Library
6.7 QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CONTROL
6.7.1 quality Standards
6.7.2 Project and Product Review AND ASSESSMENTS
6.7.3 Agency/Customer Satisfaction
6.7.4 PRODUCT DELIVERABLE ACCEPTANCE PROCESS
6.8 CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT
6.8.1 Version Control
6.8.2 Project Repository (Project Library)
6.9 PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
7. 0 Project Close
7.1 Administrative Close
7.2 Contract Close
AttachmentS
Project Schedule
Revision History
Revision Number / Date / Comment.3 / 11/8/2013 / First Complete Draft
.4 / 11/25/2013 / Update for later start date, & project org chart
.5 / 12/2/2013 / Updated list of deliverables. Removed separate SI budget.
1.0 / 12/15/2013 / Highlighted areas to be discussed 12/15/13
5.0 / 1/27/2014 / Jan Christine and James Viano Updates.
6.0 / 02/01/2014 / Revised Budget. Jan Christine
7.0 / 03/06/2014
04/14/2014 / Revised Assumption 007.
Added budget into this version only available to ESC members.
Updated the schedule to Baseline #1.
1.0 Project Overview
1.1 Executive Summary- rationale for the Project
The Agency faces a situation today in which its driver and vehicle licensing system is aged and increasingly challenged to meet current and future business demands. New Mexico’s Taxation and Revenue Department (TRD), and in particular its Motor Vehicle Division (MVD), has a large investment in a number of interrelated driver, vehicle, administrative control, licensing and registration, and revenue processing information systems. Over time, pressure to maximize the utility and interoperability of these systems and to reduce costs has increased dramatically. These common demands have led to an industryand nationwide movement to increase systems interoperability under a technology architecture that is more modularized and reduces reliance on expensive, highly proprietary service offerings.
The Agency is committed to moving forward withthe reengineering and replacement of its current systems with a drivers and vehicles solution that is customer-centric and that provides enhanced access and integration with other State and Federal databases. It is highly desirable that the new solution provide the Agency and its Motor Vehicle Division with the ability to manage technical and business requirements with user-configurable data items and modular application code so as to allow quick and cost-effective adaptation to MVD’s changing business needs.
In October 2009 the Agency published RFP# 00-333-00-06348, Motor Vehicle Division Driver and Vehicle Licensing System Reengineering Project, “to replace the legacy system currently used by the MVD and implement a modern customer-centric commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) driver and vehicle system.” At the conclusion of that RFP process a contract was awarded on April 7, 2010 to Saber Software, Inc. (HP). In May of 2011 that contract was terminated by the Agency.
In July 2011 the Agency issued RFI#10-333-00-10249to gather information to help the Agency determine the most advantageous way to move forward withreplacement of MVD’s legacy Driver and Vehicle systems and with the implementation of a modern, customer-centric Driver and Vehicle system. The information gathering initiated by that RFI continued through October 2012.
A second RFP was issued early in 2013, RFP#30-333-12-12463. Responses to that RFP were aligned with one of two approaches: 1) COTS system, and 2) COTS software for Customer-Relationship-Management (CRM) and Rules Engine with custom development of MVD functions in and on the CRM platform. TRD is still in the process of completing this RFP. The remainder of the document will refer to the system and the system integrator as ‘SI’ in the remainder of this document.
1.2 funding and sources
Source / Amount / Associated restrictions / ApproversLaws of 2010 Special Session, Chapter. 6, Sec. 7, Item 3, reverts 6/30/12
Laws of 2012 Chapter 19, Section 7, extended through fiscal year 2014
Laws of 2009, Chapter 124, Sec. 7, Item 3, reverts 6/30/11
Laws of 2013, Chapter 227, Section 7, extended through fiscal year 2015
1.3 constraints
Constraints are factors that restrict the project by scope, resource, or schedule.
Number / DescriptionConstraint 001 / Currently, funding only exists for FY14 and a portion of FY15 project activities.
A C-2 has been submitted for FY15 funding necessary to complete the project. Project activities after June 30, 2014 will be constrained by the 2014 Legislative Session decision regarding the FY15 request.
The multi-year request was not allowed, therefore, at the end of SFY15, if FY16 funds are not available, the project will be able to finish the implementation of the Driver functionality (Release 1), nor begin the implementation of the Vehicle functionality (Release 2).
1.4 dependencies
Types include the following and should be associated with each dependency listed.
- Mandatory dependencies are dependencies that are inherent to the work being done.
- D- Discretionary dependencies are dependencies defined by the project management team. This may also encompass particular approaches because a specific sequence of activities is preferred, but not mandatory in the project life cycle.
- E-External dependencies are dependencies that involve a relationship between project activities and non-project activities such as purchasing/procurement
Number / Description / Type M,D,E
Dependency 001 / The funding constraint, listed in 1.3 is also a dependency. All planned project activities after the 2QFY15 cannot be completed without the requested funds. / M
1.5 ASSUMPTIONS
Assumptions are planning factors that, for planning purposes, will be considered true, real, or certain.
Number / DescriptionAssumption 001 / The project will use the SI implementation methodology to deliver the new Driver and Vehicle Reengineering Project system, termed ‘TAPESTRY’. The methodology has been proved to be successful for numerous domestic and international projects.
In several critical areas, SI will be required to provide design documents that are usually not included as part of the SI methodology. At the present time this need is anticipated for a minimum of the below:
- Temporary interfaces necessary between the new and legacy systems from the time the first Release for Driver is complete, through completion of the second release for Vehicle.
- Web services agreed with SI that will be exposed from core for use by third parties, such as kiosk and record sales vendors.
- Any interfaces specified as mandatory by the RFP, that require negotiation or change on the part of the external party.
Assumption 002 / TRD will be willing to modify and streamline business procedures in order to take advantage of the out-of-the-box capabilities of the proposed solution, to improve customer service, and to enhance the efficiency of internal agency operations.
Streamlining of the MVD business processes accepted by MVD will not detrimental to the MVD Vision of the Future, solely to use the “out-of-the-box” SI functionality.
Assumption 003 / The maximum amount of hardware that TRD needs to acquire was quoted by SI in the RFP. TRD’s assumption is that there will be no additional expenses for hardware or system (web server, app server, DB server) software other than that quoted in the SI response to RFP.
TRD will identify existing resources that could be used for the project in lieu of the hardware\software included in the SI response. SI and TRD will mutually agree on any substitutions.
Assumption 004 / Current TRD policy will be upheld for requests by contractors for a) remote access to the TRD network, b) database or other server administrative access, c) after-hours access to the project site, and d) internet or TRD network access from personal laptops. Current policy is that application for these access privileges be made to the TRD CIO on an individual basis. Decisions for granting such access will be province of the TRD CIO.
Assumption 005 / The SI will obtain the project space within the constraints of the current budget. Budget available supplied to SI 11/04/2013.
Assumption 006 / The SI will use the current DMS, Qmatic, photo capture, and central issuance COTS software as specified by the RFP.
Assumption 007 / The solution provided will requireminimal (less than 10%) additional TRD desktop support, network support, ITD support, call center support or Partner Management support currently provided by record sales, vehicle transaction, and IVR Third Party vendors.
Baseline support TRD FTEs for all SAMBA and NMI users today:
- Zero support FTEs today for the frontend web
- Zero desktop support for either SAMBA or NMI application users
- (1 – 1.5) FTE to support the backend of file transfers and programming to the mainframe.
- Zero Active Directory Accounts.
- Zero direct connections to the TRD network.
- Zero network support personnel
- Zero training support
- Five (5) partner management personnel for all partners. There is no way to separate out how many FTEs are used to support SAMBA and NMI users vs. PRAs.
Assumption 008 / Data Conversion
TRD is responsible for extraction of the data from existing data sources, cleansing, and an unformatted dump to SQL server staging table(s).
SI is responsible for all other data conversion activities including transform and load of the data into SI data structures
Assumption 009 / All full time project team members – including TRD business representatives, IT staff, SI staff, project administrative support, and project managers – will be co-located in the same project space, as the available space allows.
Assumption 010 / SI will provide all the interfaces listed in the RFP. TRD will provide any temporary interfaces necessary to concurrently run Driver functions in the new system and Vehicle functions from the legacy systems.
Assumption 011 / The Department will accept the best practices inherent in the SI’s FastDS‐VS product, without detriment to the MVD Vision of the Future, solely to use the “out-of-the-box” functionality.
Assumption 012 / The Department will make decisions within the parameters established by the contract.
1.6 Initial Project Risks Identified
In this section identify and describe how each risk will be managed. Include the steps that will be taken to maximize activity that will result in minimizing probability and impact of each risk.
Risk 1 – Funds Availabiltiy
Description - / Probability: Medium / Impact highMitigation Strategy
C2 request has been made, but will not be acted on until after all contracts are approved.
Contingency Plan
None available. MVD would have to stop the project during Driver implementation if additional funds are not forthcoming.
Risk 2 –On-time, On-Budget System Delivery
MVD System Modernization project is not delivered on-time, on-budget and in scope. / Probability: Low / Impact: HighMitigation Strategy
- The vendor selected has an excellent on-time, on-budget record, with high customer satisfaction ratings.
- Scope, Cost and Schedule management will be performed by the ITD PMO and the Business Project Manager (MVD Project Manager).
- The selected product is a ‘true’ COTS product, mitigating the risk for late delivery or budget overruns.
Contingency Plan : TRD has already taken measures to mitigate this risk.
Risk 3 – Near Term, COTS Architecture will constrain the Vision of the Future
Near Term, the selected COTS software will constrain the MVD Vision of the Future / Probability: Low / Impact: HighMitigation Strategy
- The Technical (Systems) Architecture function will be responsible for ensuring the best decisions are made regarding architectural options available within the COTS architecture, and ensuring compliance with the previously selected options during development and implementation.
- TRD needs to assume responsibility for continuing dialogue with the SI and other states implementing the same COTS software, in order to continue a strategy that will allow MVD to have 80% of the transactions via virtual channels and 20% of the transactions via MVD field or partner offices.
Contingency Plan : None.
2.0 Project Authority and Organizational Structure
2.1 Stakeholders
List all of the major stakeholders in this project, and state why they have a stake. . Stakeholders are individuals and organizations that are actively involved in the project, or whose interests may be positively or negatively affected as a result of project execution or project completion. They may also exert influence over the project and its results.
name / Stake in Project / Organization / TitleTRD Internal Stakeholders
John Monforte / Executive Sponsor / TRD / Deputy Cabinet Secretary
Mark Williams / Business Owner / TRD\MVD / MVD Director
Greg Saunders / CIO / TRD / CIO, TRD
Lee Baca / Manager of the ITD personnel currently supporting the MVD systems. / TRD\ITD / Manager
Raul Alvarez / Provide and schedule the activities of all business participants from all TRD divisions.
Reports to the Director of MVD / TRD\MVD / Deputy Director, Special Projects
Jan Christine
& (ITD PMO) / Provide and schedule the activities of all information technology participants from TRD\ITD.
Reports to the TRD CIO. / TRD\ITD / ITD PMO Lead
Other TRD Divisions
- TFID
- ACD
- RPD
TRD-External Stakeholder
Existing Third Partners / Provider of services using the base system or local proprietary systems. / Munis
PRAs
STSC
NMI
SAMBA
Existing Users of Third Party User Interfaces / Providers of vehicle and temp tag transactions. / Dealers (1000+ dealers)
TSCs (1800 SAMBA users)
Data Sales Customers
Other State Agencies / Users of Driver compliance and vehicle title information / Various
AAMVA / Supplier of nationwide information and collector of state information.
Must test and accept all new uses of services. / AAMVA
Law Enforcement / Consumers of Driver and Vehicle information.
Provider of NCIC service. / DPS
All NM Local LEs
Administration of the Courts / Provide court decisions regarding citations.
Are consumers of MVD data regarding drivers. / AOC
2.2 Project Governance Structure
2.2.1 Describe the organizational structure – Org Chart
2.2.2 Describe the role and members of the Executive steering committee
name / role / Organization / TitleJohn Monforte / Chair / TRD / Deputy Cabinet Secretary
Mark Williams / Member / TRD\MVD / MVD Director
Greg Saunders / Member / TRD / CIO, TRD
Lee Baca / Convener / TRD\ITD / Manager
Raul Alvarez / Member / TRD\MVD / Deputy Director
Special Projects
David Robbins / Member / TRD\ASD / CFO
Connie Torres / Member / TRD\MVD / Bureau Chief
Adam Diamond / Member / TRD\MVD / Special Projects PM
Sandra Martinez / Member / TRD\MVD / MVD Finance
Mac Lewis / Member / TRD\MVD / MVD Procurement Manager
Venkata Dodda / Member / TRD\MVD / Supervisor
Ragha Mulakal / Member / TRD\MVD / Supervisor
Jan Christine / Member / TRD\ITD / ITD PMO Lead
James Viano / Non-Voting Member / FAST / FAST PM
2.2.3 Organizational Boundaries, interfaces and responsibilities
External Entity / Description of relationship-all are based on actual electronic interfaces and crossover admin/operational jurisdiction / Currently responsibleAAMVA / DLDV/Administrative / Alicia Ortiz
AAMVA / NMVTIS / Kenric Hindi/Adam Diamond
DOT / TSB/TRACS/Manuals / Adam Diamond/Mac Lewis/Kenric Hindi
DPS / NCIC/NMLETS / Adam Diamond
Magistrate/Muni Courts / Multiple CMS's- / Connie Torres/Bernadette Gonzales/Angel Martinez/Adam
AOC/JID / Odyssey- / Adam Diamond
Metro Court / Stored procedure-moving to web service for Odyssey / Connie Torres/Adam Diamond
FBI / access to data / Alicia Ortiz/Angel Martinez
County Treasurers / Custom application portal / Leonard Garcia
County Assessors / 2.0 – access to view records / Leonard Garcia
TSC's/STC's / 2.0 and Samba related / Margaret Williams/Angel Martinez
Game And Fish / ATV's / Adam Diamond/Barbara Roybal
ASD/UTC / Paper Citations / Adam Diamond
Energy Minerals and Natural Resources/Parks Division / Boats / Adam Diamond/Barbara Roybal
RPD / Processing/data entry / Connie Torres/Adam Diamond
Other Law enforcement / data access / Angel Martinez/Adam Diamond
Human Services Division / data access / Adam Diamond
Municipalities, Gov fleets/other Gov entities / data access/VRS / Adam Diamond/Angel Martinez
GSD / data access/titling/registering / Leonard Garcia
All LEA's for undercover vehicles / titling/registering / Leonard Garcia
NMADA / titling/registering / Margaret Williams
NMIADA / titling/registering / Margaret Williams
2.3 Executive Reporting
Reporting requirements will remain the same as for every other certified project. A status report is provided to the Executive Steering Committee biweekly. Monthly reports are due to DoIT. Status reports are due to the PCC upon request or agreed upon schedule.