New Mexico Juvenile Justice Screenings Admissions and Releases Application

NEW MEXICO JUVENILE JUSTICE SCREENINGS ADMISSIONS AND RELEASES APPLICATION

(NM JJ SARA OR/AKA SARA)

Project Management Plan
(PMP)

Executive Sponsor – Cabinet Secretary Dorian Dodson

Business Owner – Stephen Archuleta, JDAI Coordinator

Project Manager – Patti Vowell, Assistant JDAI Coordinator

Original Plan Date: July 20, 2007

Revision Date:

Revision:

Project Management Plan – Small Project1

table of contents

table of contents

Table of Figures

Appendices

Revision History

About This Document

1.0 Project Overview

1.1Introduction

1.2Current State

1.3Future State

1.4Need

2.0 Scope

2.1 Project Justification

2.2 Project Objectives

2.3 Deliverables

2.4 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

Project Plan To Be Provided as contract deliverable. Scheduling of resources is responsibility of contractor

3.0 Overall Strategy

3.1 Project Management Life Cycle

3.2 Critical Success Factors

3.3 Project Logistics

3.4 Project Product Life Cycle Model

3.5 Technical Strategy

4.0 Project Organization

4.1 Stakeholders

4.2 Customers

4.3 Project Team

5.0 Project Management and Controls

5.2 Assumptions

5.3 Constraints

5.4 Dependencies

5.5 Risk Management

Probability and Impact - High

Probability and Impact - Low

Probability and Impact -

Probability and Impact - With the short duration, changes in staff are less likely to occur.

5.6 Independent Verification and Validation - IV&V

CYFD will contract with a vendor to provide IV-V services:

5.7 Scope Management Plan

5.8 Project Timeline

5.9 Project Budget

5.10 Communication Plan

5.12 Quality Objectives and Control

6.0 Project Close

6.1 Administrative Close

6.2 Contract Close

Table of Figures

None.

Revision History

Revision Number / Date / Comment
1.0
2.0
2.1
2.2

About This Document

This document is a template that provides the industry accepted guidelines to plan, execute, control, and close a project. This document will need to be tailored and customized to the needs of the project; however, special care should be considered if major sections are “tailored out”.

1. “Tailoring” is the process that modifies the structural components of the template to the needs of a specific project. As an example, the Project Manager may have a standard appendix that does not apply to the project.
2. Customization is the mechanical task of inserting customer or project logos, deliverable identifiers, names, and so on, into a copy of the template. The copy then becomes the live version of the Project Management Plan for the project and will need to be updated, as project conditions require.
3. Any level of tailoring can be applied to the template, as long as the PMO is advised. This notification has several purposes:
4. It allows Quality Assurance to adjust checklists and questionnaires,
5. It allows the Program Management Office (PMO) to adjust its oversight and QA activities to the project’s plan,
6. It allows the PMO to advise the project team of the potential effects and risks that may occur if materials are omitted, and
7. It serves as a trigger for possible improvement of the template by the PMO.

1. Any highlighted text indicates that there are some brief instructions for the completion of that section.

This is a controlled document, refer to the document control index for the latest revision

Revision: 2.0DOIT-PMO-TEM-099 small project1 of vi

Project Management Plan – Small Project1

1.0 Project Overview[OCIO1]

1.1Introduction

In 2003 legislation was passed requiring the screening of any child presented for detention. The purpose of this project (SARA) is to comply with this statute and consistently screen children presented for detention while also accurately tracking admissions into and releases out of detention and movements from one detention center to another. SARA reduces the risk to public safety through unified tracking of client history and outcomes regarding detention and non-secure alternatives. Grant funding was obtained through AECF and JJAC to design and implement an Internet-based system to fulfill this function. SARA will centralize data collection and link all detention centers, CYFD Juvenile Probation and Parole Officers (JPPO) and Judges throughout the state.

1.2CurrentState

The current stand alone legacy system is exceedingly over-extended and currently supports 24 x 7 risk assessment determination for children statewide (except Bernalillo County).

Deficiencies in process and information are driven by continued use of an interim application which was designed in July 2003 as a data collection tool when the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) was launched.

1.3FutureState

A centralized, common software solution that can be shared across agencies statewide to support the screening of children referred for and the tracking of children admitted into detention.

1.4Need

See Project Justification

2.0 Scope

2.1 Project Justification[OCIO2]

Legislation passed in 2003 § 32A-2-11 NMSA

The business values include:

• Maintain and enhance a mechanism for screening children referred for detention.
• Provide for real-time tracking of children in detention statewide.
• Achieve compliance with Children’s Code and Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) in the most cost-effective manner.
• Use solutions that can be shared across agencies statewide to support our business partners (county detention centers, judges, court expeditors, JPPO staff, management)
• Meet the requirements of the federal Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency & Prevention (OJJDP) and AECF reporting standards.
• Use CYFD supported software (replace MS Access) and plan for recurring support to ensure the system continues to meet changing needs in the most cost-effective manner.
• Remedy deficiencies in current process driven by “interim” system (lack of support, missing data, releases not being recorded, workload burden on Statewide Central Intake (SCI) in manual processes)
• Single statewide system reduces cost of maintenance of separate Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) systems
• More modern design increases ability to change tool
• Internet system expands access to information; reduces paper, faxing, email, labor intensive manual process
• Supports decision making all local or central level with consistently reliable, valid data and unified statewide data

2.2 Project Objectives

2.2.1 Business Objectives[OCIO3]

Number / Description
Bus. Objective 1 / Integrates compliance with state statutes and federal reporting
Bus. Objective 2 / Develops a mechanism for the equitable and consistent screening of children referred for detention statewide
Bus. Objective 3 / Provides real-time tracking of children in detention statewide which can be shared across agencies
Bus. Objective 4 / Provides local and statewide reporting
Bus. Objective 5 / Increase completeness, accuracy and timeliness of data; improve reliability of information

2.2.2 Technical Objectives[OCIO4]

Number / Description
Tech. Objective 1 / Ensures flexibility of design so the system continues to meet changing needs of criminal code statutes and tool validation
Tech. Objective 2 / Integrate modifications into single software application shared by agencies and reducing the need for redundant enhancements which duplicates cost and causes delays in responsiveness to change
Tech. Objective 3 / Replace an application developed in outdated technology (MS Access 2000) with newer technology which moves the Department forward on its strategic IT direction of web-enabled applications in a Service Oriented Architecture arena

2.3 Deliverables

2.3.1 Project Management Deliverables[OCIO5]

2.3.1.1 Project Schedule

Description [OCIO6]- The contractor will develop a detailed project schedule within the timeframes provided. / Deliverable Acceptance Criteria[OCIO7] –

• Project schedule
• Project team approval of project schedule
• Weekly status reports

Standards for Content and Format[OCIO8] –

• Project schedule – Project task & due date
• Weekly status reports – Accomplishments, Issues, Concerns, Next week goals

Quality Review[OCIO9] –

• Project team review of project schedule and weekly status reports
• IV&V review of project schedule and weekly status reports.

2.3.1.2 Scope Management Plan

Description - A scope management plan which will address issue and change management will be developed by the Project Team and approved by the IV-V contractor. / Deliverable Acceptance Criteria –

• Scope management plan
• Project team approval of Scope Management Plan

Standards for Content and Format –

• Defined process for issue and change management.

Quality Review –

• Weekly team status meetings to ensure project objectives are being met.
• IV&V review of Scope Management Plan and management of adherence to project objectives

2.3.1.2 IV&V Reporting

Description - An IV-V contractor will provide independent evaluation of the project deliverables and completion. / Deliverable Acceptance Criteria –

• See IV-V section

Standards for Content and Format –

• Reports will be submitted in MS Word.

Quality Review

• Project team will review IV&V reports and address any reported issues/concerns.

2.3.2 Product Deliverables[OCIO10]

2.3.2.1 System Design Document

Description – The system design document will include: system overview, design considerations, system architecture, interface architecture, detailed subsystem design, data architecture, ER diagrams, file system, access controls, security and constraints. Any conflicts/issues and system requirements should be clearly stated. / Deliverable Acceptance Criteria –

• System design document - completed within five weeks of contract commencement
• Project Team approval of system design document

Standards for Content and Format –

• Address system requirements
• Comply with infrastructure requirements and standards.
• Comply with CYFD, JJS and state standards.
• Includes: System overview, design considerations, system architecture, interface architecture, detailed subsystem design, data architecture, ER diagrams, file system, access controls, security and constraints. Any conflicts/issues and system requirements should be clearly stated.

Quality Review –

• Project team approval of system design document
• IV&V review of system design document

2.3.2.2 Sara Prototype

Description – The web-based prototype must include: 1) Screening tool, 2) Admissions, 3) Releases and 4) Reports / Deliverable Acceptance Criteria –

• Prototype delivered by December 31, 2007

Standards for Content and Format –

• Web-based prototype

Quality Review -

• Project team review and approval of prototype
• ITS Technical staff review of prototype
• IV&V review of prototype

2.3.2.2 SARA Application Development

Description – Fully functional web-based SARA application.
Includes conversion of legacy data. / Deliverable Acceptance Criteria –

• SARA application meets business requirements

Standards for Content and Format –

• Web-based application

Quality Review -

• Project team review and approval of application functionality.
• ITS technical staff will review application functionality.
• IV&V review of application functionality.

2.3.2.2 SARA Application Certification

Description – Application test phase. / Deliverable Acceptance Criteria –

• SARA application completes testing phase.

Standards for Content and Format –

• Web-based application

Quality Review -

• Project team performs user acceptance testing.
• ITS technical staff performs quality review.
• IV&V performs quality review.
• Project team certifies software for implementation.

2.3.2.2 SARA Implementation & Support

Description – Implementation into production environment. / Deliverable Acceptance Criteria –

• Implementation Plan
• Implementation of SARA into production environment.
• End-user documentation
• Program staff training
• SARA presentation to CYFD management.

Standards for Content and Format –

• Documentation will be delivered in MS Word.
• SARA – web-based application in production environment

Quality Review -

• Project team approves functionality and performance in production environment.
• IV&V performs quality review.

2.4 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

Project schedule will be provided as contract deliverable. Scheduling of resources is the responsibility of contractor.

3.0 Overall Strategy[OCIO11]

SARA will be developed by an out-of-house development team. This decision was based on budgetary and time constraints and the current, successful relationship CYFD has with the vendor. The cost benefit is substantial as we will be afforded a development team to include a technical project manager which will allow us to meet our target date.

3.1 Project Management Life Cycle

The organizational commitment of resources to the completion of the project:

• Designed Project Sponsor, Project Manager, Technical Manager and Project Team
• Required status reports and meetings with vendor and project team
• Signoff and approval of deliverables

[OCIO12]

3.2 Critical Success Factors

Success factors:

• Funding and approval
• Documented System Design
• Development of prototype
• Testing and certification of software
• Implementation by June 30, 2008

[OCIO13]

3.3 Project Logistics

The communication plan will provide documented agreements, resolution of issues and monitor project progress.

• Project Manager is single point of contact

Status Meetings

• At deliverable checkpoints
• Monthly - August through December,
• Scheduled as needed during certification
• Weekly/daily during implementation phase

Project Status Reports

• Weekly by contractor
• Monthly by Project Manager August through December,
• bi-weekly during SARA certification
• Weekly/daily during implementation phase

Provided and reviewed weekly and at time of project deliverables.

[OCIO14]

SARA Application Review

• System modules will be presented and reviewed via the Internet.

3.4 Project Product Life Cycle Model

[OCIO15]The Waterfall product life cycle will used to include the following steps:

• Requirements
• System analysis and design
• Development
• Testing
• Deployment
• Post-Implementation

3.5 Technical Strategy[OCIO16]

We selected a vendor that has worked with us on our mission critical FACTS System since 1999. They understand our work ethic, our emphasis on quality software delivered on time within budget. This relationship has been enhanced by their exemplary performance. We have a management team that will be dedicated to the success of this project: program and information technology (IT) and program staff that have worked with IT since the inception of CYFD.

The overall development process by our vendor will be based on SEI-CMM (Software Engineering Institute Capability Maturity Model developed at CarnegieMellonUniversity in Pittsburgh) standards that they have achieved corporate recognition which will ensure project and product quality.

Project Organization[OCIO17]

4.1 Stakeholders[OCIO18]

name / Stake in Project / Organization / Title
Tom Swisstack / AECF Model Site and legislator of reform / BCJDC / Director
Steve Archuletta / Funding and grant administration, reporting to executive staff and AECF foundation on use of funds / CYFD / JDAI Statewide Coordinator
Crawford Spooner / Compliance with DoIT and CYFD IT Standards / CYFD / CIO

4.2 Customers

• Juvenile Probation and Parole Officers
• Judges
• Detention Centers

[OCIO19]

4.3 Project Team

4.3.1 Project Team Organizational Breakdown Structure

[OCIO20]

4.3.2 Project Team Roles and Responsibilities

[OCIO21]

Role / Responsibility / Name / Functional Manager
Project Sponsor / Funding and Budget, Resolutio of issues, obtaining resources and priorities / Tom Swisstack
Steve Archuleta
Project Manager / Project Manager / Patti Vowell ,Asst JDAI Coordinator / Steve Archuleta
Project Team / Reliability and usability of data, continuity with JJS business functions / Fran Bunker, CYFD, JJS FACTS IT Liasion, / Patti Vowell
Reliability and usability of data, continuity with BCJDC business functions / Nicole Moreland, Ph.D. / Tom Swisstack
IT Support and training (subject matter expert) / Paul Ussery / Tom Swisstack
Manager of screening and detention intake (subject matter expert) / Leslie Jiron, BCJDC, Intake Supervisor / Tom Swisstack
Manager of screening and detention recording (subject matter expert) / Jeremy Brazfield, CYFD, SCI Supervisor / Patti Vowell
Technical Review Team / Amey Govekar / Crawford Spooner

5.0 Project Management and Controls

5.2 Assumptions[OCIO22][1]

Number / Description
1 / No delays or changes in project and contract approval processes;
2 / Current technologies and strategies will remain stable.
3 / Executive management will not change and/or not change priorites
4 / Detention centers, judges, JPPOs will utilize the software

5.3 Constraints[OCIO23][2]

Number / Description
1 / Leveraging various funding sources with different expiration dates
2 / Contract expiration
3 / Priorities and team availability

5.4 Dependencies

5.4.1 Mandatory Dependencies

Number / Description
1 / Grant funding is required for application development.

5.4.2 Discretionary Dependencies

Number / Description

5.4.3 External Dependencies

Number / Description
1 / Contract staffing is required for project success.

5.5 Risk Management

5.5.3 Project Risk Analysis Comments:

5.5.3.1 Project delay

Description[OCIO24] - We are targeting March 30th for project completion. We will procure programming and IV&V services beginning in August 2007. /

Probability and Impact[OCIO25] - High

Mitigation Strategy[OCIO26] - Seek extension of funding.
Contingency Plan[OCIO27] - Reschedule reporting function to be delivered and tested after the online functionality is ready

5.5.3.2 Scalability of System

Description[OCIO28] - Scalability of system and the ability to allow for future JJS requirements. / Probability and Impact[OCIO29] – Low
Mitigation Strategy[OCIO30] - Use of proper software development methodologies to ensure that resulting system can be scaled according to future requirements.
Contingency Plan[OCIO31] – Prioritize to meet JJS’ future requirements and timeframes.

5.5.3.2 System Performance][OCIO32]

Description[OCIO33] - The system is not expected to draw heavy concurrent network traffic / Probability and Impact[OCIO34] – Medium
Mitigation Strategy[OCIO35] - Constant evaluation of system resources and threshold measurements should be carried out and software/hardware should be upgraded if necessary.
Contingency Plan[OCIO36] - Infrastructure upgrades should be considered – load balancing, clustering, memory upgrades, etc.

5.5.3.2 Scope Management

Description[OCIO37] - Change in requirements and/or personnel /

Probability and Impact[OCIO38] – Low. With the short duration, changes in staff are less likely to occur.

Multiple agency involvement increases the possibility of requested changes to requirements.
Mitigation Strategy[OCIO39] – Communicate early on project delays to team and key personnel.
Contingency Plan[OCIO40] - Review and sign-off on Scope Management Plan.

5.5.6 Project Risk Tracking Approach

Project team will meet weekly to discuss any current issues and determine mitigation strategy. Project manager will track identified risks and outcomes in a risk management document.

5.6 Independent Verification and Validation - IV&V

CYFD will contract with a vendor to provide IV-V services:

Following is a brief description of the IV&V Deliverables set forth in this contract, followed by a more detailed description of required IV&V activities in preparation development of the Deliverables.

Copies of all IV&V Deliverables shall be delivered by the Contractor simultaneously and solely to the Executive Level Representative and the CYFD Information Technology Services (ITS). All Deliverables, standards, processes, plans, and applicable reference material shall be available for inspection upon request by the Executive Level Representative or ITD.