State of Oregon : Oregon.gov Home Page : State of Oregon - … · 2020-01-22 · 0.5 August 2, 2018...

O R E G O N D O T D R I V E R A N D M O T O R V E H I C L E

S E R V I C E S D I V I S I O N

S T P P O R T F O L I O O F P R O J E C T S ’ Q U A L I T Y A S S U R A N C E S E R V I C E S

T A S K 2 . 3 . 5 - M O N T H L Y Q U A L I T Y S T A T U S

R E P O R T A N D T R A C K I N G A S S E S S M E N T F O R T H E M O N T H E N D I N G

J U L Y 2 0 1 8

V E R S I O N : 1 . 0

S T A T U S : F I N A L

D A T E : A U G U S T 1 7 , 2 0 1 8

OR DMV STP OR DMV STP QA SERVICES Task 2.3.5 – Monthly Quality Status Report and Tracking Assessment

August 17, 2018 i

2018 CSG Government Solutions, Inc.

Document Information

Document Title Initial Risk Assessment Report

Version 1.0 Final

Author Shannon Barnes, CSG Government Solutions Project Manager and Linda Ford, CSG Senior Quality Assurance Analyst

Owner (if different from Author)

Hard copies of this document are for information only and are not subject to document control.

Amendment History

Document Version

Date Author/Reviewer Modification

0.1 July 23, 2018 Linda Ford Formatting and Review

0.2 July 27, 2018 Shannon Barnes Update initial draft

0.3 July 30, 2018 Linda Ford Update initial draft

0.4 August 1, 2018 Colleen May Peer review

0.5 August 2, 2018 Shannon Barnes Factual review sent to client

0.6 August 10, 2018 Shannon Barnes Update based on client comments

0.7 August 10, 2018 Colleen May Peer review

0.8 Not used

0.9 August 10, 2018 Colleen May Factual review sent to client

1.0 August 17, 2018 Shannon Barnes Final document sent to client


August 17, 2018 ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Program Health Dashboard ................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Portfolio Health Status by Area ........................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Rolling Risk Matrix by Assessment Area .............................................................................................. 5

1.4 Assessment of High Risks ..................................................................................................................... 6

2. Portfolio Milestones and Deliverables Status .............................................................................................. 7

2.1 Milestones and Deliverables ................................................................................................................ 7

2.2 Progress by Project Management Functional Area ............................................................................. 9

2.3 Identification and Resolution of New Problems Encountered .......................................................... 10

3. STP Portfolio of Projects’ Risks and Recommendation Details .................................................................. 11

3.1 New Risks ........................................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Previously Reported Risks .................................................................................................................. 11

3.3 Resolved Risks .................................................................................................................................... 14

Appendix A - Catalog of Reviews ....................................................................................................................... 15

A.1 Interviews Conducted .............................................................................................................................. 15

A.2 Meetings Attended .................................................................................................................................. 16

A.3 Materials Reviewed ................................................................................................................................. 16

Deliverable Signoff and Approval ...................................................................................................................... 18


August 17, 2018 iii


TABLE OF FIGURES

Table 1: STP Portfolio Health Dashboard .............................................................................................................2

Table 2: Portfolio Health Status by Area ..............................................................................................................3

Table 3: Risk and Trend Indicators .......................................................................................................................5

Table 4: Risk Trend by Assessment Area..............................................................................................................5

Table 5: Milestones & Deliverables for the Current and Upcoming Reporting Periods ......................................7

Table 6: Progress by Project Management Functional Area................................................................................9

Table 7: Previously Reported Risks ................................................................................................................... 11

Table 8: Interviews Conducted ......................................................................................................................... 15

Table 9: Meetings Attended ............................................................................................................................. 16

Table 10: Materials Reviewed ........................................................................................................................... 16

OR DMV STP QA Services

Task 2.3.5 – Monthly Quality Status Report and Tracking Assessment

August 17, 2018 1


1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CSG Government Solutions (CSG) is pleased to present Task 2.3.5 – Monthly Quality Status Report and Tracking Assessment for the Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT), Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division’s (DMV) Service Transformation Program (STP) Portfolio of Projects’. This report provides STP leadership, Office of the State Chief Information Officer (OSCIO), and Legislative Fiscal Office (LFO) analysts, an independent view and status of the Service Transformation Portfolio of Projects’ for the period of July 1, 2018 through July 31, 2018.

There are currently four risks that are open.

Risk #73: Operational Impacts of Work Flow for Oregon License Issuance Vehicle Registration (OLIVR) outlines the need for the STP COTS Vehicle Rollout Team and DMV Operational Managers to have clear understanding of the scope, resources, and time it will take to implement the operational changes that will result from the OLIVR implementation. The major business process changes have been documented and are being reviewed by the affected teams. Organizational and job descriptions changes are being analyzed.

Risk #78: Operational Backlog Impacts describes the risk of a backlog due to incomplete operational work that must be completed prior to the go live of the STP COTS Vehicle Rollout. Metrics are in place that predict the work will be done prior to go live.

Risk #79: Delay in Oregon State Police LEDS 2020 Interface outlines the challenges of the Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS) interface between Oregon State Police (OSP) and DMV systems. A back-up plan is in place that will assure that the interface between OLIVR and OSP is ready for go live.

Risk #80: Potential Distribution of DMV Fee Variances describes how routine vehicle title, registration, and driver credentialing fees may be calculated differently using data from OLIVR instead of the data from the mainframe. These variances may result in changes in funding distributions to fee recipients.

More information on these risks is provided in Section 3.

To conduct our work from the period of July 1st to July 31st, 2018, the CSG Quality Assurance (QA) Team observed five key project meetings and reviewed 25 project documents and artifacts. We also conducted interviews with 17 key project staff, stakeholders, and FAST staff. Follow-up activities were conducted with various staff to clarify questions as needed. Appendix A provides additional information about these activities. All of the information gathered provided the CSG QA Team with an understanding of the STP Portfolio of Projects’ health, processes, and activities conducted to date.



August 17, 2018 2


1.1 Program Health Dashboard This section provides an overview and status of the DMV STP Portfolio of Projects’ schedule, budget, and health rating. The DMV STP Portfolio of Projects’ has an overall low risk health rating. Table 1 provides the justification of this rating and insights into potential upcoming risks.

Table 1: STP Portfolio Health Dashboard

GENERAL INFORMATION OVERALL PROJECT HEALTH RATING

Program Status "As Of" Date: July 31, 2018 Previous Current Current Trend

Original Portfolio Budget: $90 million Low Low N/C

Current Portfolio Budget: $90 million The STP Portfolio of Projects’ remains at low risk due to the following factors:

There are four open risks in the portfolio; one medium risk and three low risks.

The STP Portfolio of Projects’ is operating within its budget, scope is stable, and it remains on schedule.

Public engagement is ramping up with general communication around the status of the STP project. Additionally, evaluation of customer facing survey responses and reports to external agencies including the Oregon Transportation Commission is underway.

Integration of FileNet with OLIVR has experienced some delays due to the need for a software upgrade that the vendor must perform.

Portfolio Start Date: February 2, 2015

Portfolio End Date: June 30, 2025

Portfolio Status Indicators Trend Indicators

Low On-track, only minor issues + = Improving

Medium One or more areas of concern - = Declining

High Significant issues that limit the success of the Portfolio

N/C = No change

N/A Not applicable



August 17, 2018 3


1.2 Portfolio Health Status by Area This section contains information about the overall STP Portfolio of Projects’ status indicating the causal factors, mitigation efforts, and recommendations.

Table 2: Portfolio Health Status by Area

PORTFOLIO HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS

Agency/ Organization Organizational Change Leadership Communications/ Outreach External Environment

Previous Current Current Trend




Green Green N/C Green Green N/C Green Green N/C Green Green N/C

The Agency/Organization Health Status indicator remains at low risk as a result of the following factor:

Sponsorship and executive support for the project remains high.

The Organizational Change Leadership status indicator remains at low risk as a result of the following factors:

A checklist has been designed to help managers identify actions needed to support staff through upcoming changes and to help them build a transition plan.

A calendar planning worksheet is provided that helps managers schedule activities over the course of the coming year.

An Organizational Change Leadership Toolkit provides tools, tips, and best practices to answer questions.

The Communications/Outreach Health Status indicator remains at low risk as a result of the following factors:

The Communication Team reviewed feedback from the online open house to identify common themes among survey responses.

DMV staff and stakeholders have been kept abreast of project status, accomplishments, and FAQs in the STP COTS Project Newsletter that is issued monthly.

The Communication Team prepared STP updates to various governance groups including the Oregon Transportation Commission.

The External Environment Health Status indicator remains at low risk as a result of the following factors:

The STP Executive Steering Committee meeting was held on July 27, 2018 and chaired by ODOT Director Garrett. The meeting was well attended and committee members were engaged in the agenda topics.



August 17, 2018 4


Staff Training Operational Readiness Program and Project Management Technical Support/ Infrastructure





Green Green N/C Yellow Yellow N/C Green Green N/C Green Green N/C

The Staff Training Health Status indicator remains at low risk as a result of the following factors:

The training schedule is complete and adequate training facilities for the field offices have been reserved.

The selected 12 DMV trainers began their “training academy” with the FAST staff.

The Operational Readiness Health Status indicator remains at medium risk due to Risk #80 that is specific to fee distribution:

New DMV “to be” workflow processes have been finalized. See risk #73.

DMV has a backlog of work that needs to be completed prior to the January 2019 Rollout. Current metrics indicate that the work will be done prior to the go live date. See Risk #78.

Due to current limitations of the mainframe, some fee distribution information is calculated using manual formulas. The new OLIVR system will provide fee distribution information based on concise financial transaction configurations. The differences in how fees are distributed may cause variances in the amount of monies that are distributed. See Risk #80.

The Program and Project Management Health Status indicator remains at low risk as there are no project management concerns at this time.

The Technical Support/Infrastructure Health Status indicator remains at low as a result of the following factors:

OLIVR testing begins on August 6, 2018.Testing facilities have been set up, test scenarios are being created by the SMEs, and testers are identified and scheduled.

The LEDS interface between Oregon State Police (OSP) and DMV’s systems have an agreed upon solution and a schedule. The primary and backup plan are both proceeding as planned. See Risk #79.

Data validation of over 1300 data elements was completed by the SME’s with a less than 5% error rate. Data validation of different data elements will continue on a monthly basis.

Detailed communications are being sent out to interface partners now that the testing schedule is being finalized.



August 17, 2018 5


1.3 Rolling Risk Matrix by Assessment Area This section provides a rolling risk matrix by assessment area based on the CSG QA Team risks tracked each month. Details about open risks are provided in Section 3 of this report. The risk trend shows the trend in the number and severity of risks in each assessment area risk category.

Table 3: Risk and Trend Indicators

Project Risk Indicators Trend Indicators

Green On-track, only minor issues + Improving

Yellow One or more areas of concern - Declining

Red Significant issues that limit the effectiveness and/or success of the program

N/C No change

Table 4: Risk Trend by Assessment Area

Assessment Area Risk Category Number of Open Risks as of

April 30, 2018

Number of Open Risks as of

May 31, 2018


June 30, 2018


July 31, 2018

Quarter Risk Trend (+ -

N/C)

Business Mission and Goals 0 0 0 0 N/C

Data Management 0 0 0 0 N/C

Design Specification / Management 0 0 0 0 N/C

Development Environment 0 0 0 0 N/C

Leadership and Governance 0 0 0 0 N/C

Operating Environment 0 0 0 0 N/C

Operational Readiness and Support 2 2 2 2

N/C 1 1 1

Operations 0 0 0 0 N/C



August 17, 2018 6


Assessment Area Risk Category Number of Open Risks as of

April 30, 2018


May 31, 2018


June 30, 2018


July 31, 2018

Quarter Risk Trend (+ -

N/C)

Organizational Change Management 0 0 0 0 N/C

Planning Oversight 0 0 0 0 N/C

Platform Components 0 0 0 0 N/C

Program and Project Management Planning 0 0 0 0 N/C

Program and Project Management Processes 0 1 0 0 N/C

Portfolio Parameters 1 1 0 0 N/C

Portfolio Resources 0 0 0 0 N/C

Quality Management 0 0 0 0 N/C

Requirements Management 0 0 0 0 N/C

Security 0 0 0 0 N/C

Software Development 0 0 0 0 N/C

System and Acceptance Testing 0 0 0 0 N/C

Technical Support/Infrastructure 1 1 1 1 N/C

Training 0 0 0 0 N/C

User Involvement 0 0 0 0 N/C

Total 4 6 4 4 N/C

1.4 Assessment of High Risks There are no risks ranked as high in the STP Portfolio of Projects.



August 17, 2018 7


2. PORTFOLIO MILESTONES AND DELIVERABLES STATUS

2.1 Milestones and Deliverables The major STP COTS Vehicle Rollout milestones and deliverables known to the CSG QA Team for the current and upcoming reporting periods are provided in the table below. According to the FAST schedule dated July 30st, 2018, there are no overdue deliverables or work products for the implementation contractor.

Table 5: Milestones & Deliverables for the Current and Upcoming Reporting Periods

Milestone/Deliverable Owner Start Date Date Due Status

CSG Independent Quality Assurance

Deliverable: 2.1a QC Review of Data Conversion Plan CSG June 4, 2018 July 25, 2018 Completed

Deliverable: 2.1c QC Review of FAST Test Plan CSG July 25, 2018 August 14, 2018

(initial draft)

In progress

Deliverable: 3.1.6 Quarterly QA Status and Improvement Report CSG April 1, 2018 August 13, 2018 (final) Completed

Deliverable: 2.3.5 July Monthly Quality Status Report and Tracking Assessment

CSG July 1, 2018 August 7, 2018

(initial draft)

In progress

Deliverable: 2.3.6 August Monthly Quality Status Report and Tracking Assessment

CSG August 1, 2018 September 10,2018

(initial draft)

Not started

Deliverable: 3.1.7 Quarterly QA Status and Improvement Report CSG July 1, 2018 October 12, 2018

(initial draft)

Not started

FAST Implementation Contractor

Project: STP COTS Phase 2 Vehicle Rollout FAST July 31, 2017 March 28, 2019 In progress

Preparation Phase FAST July 31, 2017 September 18, 2017 Complete

Definition Phase FAST August 28, 2017 December 29, 2017 Complete

Base Configuration FAST October 17, 2017 February 9, 2018 Complete

Development Phase FAST December 18, 2017 September 7, 2018 In progress

Work Product: Interface Design Document FAST December 18, 2017 August 3, 2018 In progress

Work Product: Pull List FAST December 18, 2017 August 3, 2018 In progress

Work Product: Application Security Plan FAST July 9, 2018 August 3, 2018 Not started



August 17, 2018 8



Work Product: Change Impact Analysist FAST December 18, 2017 August 3, 2018 In progress

Conversion Phase FAST September 11, 2017 January 21, 2019 In process

Work Product: Conversion Purification Report FAST November 13, 2017 June 15, 2018 Completed

Deliverable: Conversion Reconciliation Report FAST July 2, 2018 January 21, 2018 In process

Testing Phase FAST January 11, 2017 January 9, 2019 In process

Work Product: Preliminary Test Scenarios FAST July 16, 2018 August 10, 2018 In progress

Work Product: Test Results Report FAST December 14, 2018 December 21, 2018 Not started

Deliverable: Test Plan FAST June 18, 2018 July 27, 2018 Completed

Business: Testing STP August 6,2018 November 30,2018 Not stated

Training Phase FAST February 5,2018 January 11, 2019 In process

Work Product: Training Materials FAST June 25, 2018 October 5, 2018 In process

Work Product: User Documentation Aids FAST June 25, 2018 October 5, 2018 In process

Work Product: Training Results FAST October 29, 2018 January 11, 2019 Not started

Rollout Phase FAST December 6, 2018 January 22, 2019 Not started

Work Product: Operation and Support Plan FAST December 6, 2018 January 02, 2019 Not started

Work Product: Operations Manual FAST December 6, 2018 January 02, 2019 Not started

Work Product: Updated Disaster Recovery Plan FAST December 6, 2018 January 02, 2019 Not started

Work Product: Cutover Plan FAST December 6, 2018 January 02, 2019 Not started

Work Product: Production Cutover Checklists FAST December 6, 2018 January 02, 2019 Not started

Work Product: Help Desk and Desk-Side Support Plan FAST December 6, 2018 January 02, 2019 Not started

Production Support Phase FAST January 24, 2019 January 24, 2024 Not started

Work Product: System and Maintenance and Support Plan FAST January 14, 2019 January 24, 2019 Not started

Work Product: FAST DS –VS Sql Server Setup Best Practices Guide

FAST January 14, 2019 January 24, 2019 Not started

Work Product: FAST DS –Application Server Setup Guide FAST January 14, 2019 January 24, 2019 Not started

Work Product: FAST DS –File Server Guide FAST January 14, 2019 January 24, 2019 Not started

Work Product: FAST DS –Client Installation Guide FAST January 14, 2019 January 24, 2019 Not started

Work Product: FAST DS Developers Guide– FAST January 14, 2019 January 24, 2019 Not started



August 17, 2018 9



Work Product: FAST DS –High Level Architecture Overview FAST January 14, 2019 January 24, 2019 Not started

Work Product: FAST DS –Database Structure Documentation FAST January 14, 2019 January 24, 2019 Not started

2.2 Progress by Project Management Functional Area The table below provides summaries of the STP Portfolio of Projects’ progress in the following project management functional areas.

Table 6: Progress by Project Management Functional Area

Project Management There are no project management concerns at this time. The project is on schedule, within budget and scope is stable.

Customer Involvement The second quarterly Shifting Gears newsletter was published online and printed copies distributed to DMV field offices across the state.

DMV staff have been kept abreast of project status, accomplishments, FAQ’s, and a summary of DMV process changes in the monthly STP COTS Project Newsletters.

The staff reviewed and evaluated feedback from the May online open house to identify common themes among survey responses. These finding were presented to the DMV Executive Steering Committee.

Technology The LEDS interface between OSP and DMV’s systems is proceeding as planned.

The plan to deploy the additional printers to the field offices in July has been delayed due to production issues by Xerox. As of July 31, 42% of the printers were delivered. A new date of October 1, 2018 has been set to have all printers operational. There is still adequate time to deploy the printers prior to go live in January.

The VIN Decoder RFP is proceeding as scheduled and the work is on schedule to create an interface with the existing VIN Decoder vendor.

Integration of FileNet with OLIVR has experienced some delays due to the need for a software upgrade that the vendor must perform. An RFP must be completed to hire the vendor. This is quick turnaround RFP and it is scheduled to be completed by the end of August and vendor work anticipated to begin in September.



August 17, 2018 10


Deliverable Quality The CSG Quality Assurance (QA) Team completed Quality Control (QC) Reviews on the following deliverables:

STP Task 2.1e QC Review of Requirements Plan had 26 quality criteria that were met, 8 that were partially met, and 2 that were not met.

STP Task 2.1a Data Conversion Plan had 13 quality criteria that were met, 10 that were partially met, and 14 that were not met.

Development and Implementation According to the July 31, 2018 Vehicles Rollout Master Schedule all development, conversion, testing, training, and implementation tasks are expected to be completed as planned.

Security Not evaluated at this time. According to the July 31, 2018 version of the STP COTS Vehicle Rollout schedule Application Security Plan will be completed in August 2018.

Resources and Staff DMV field offices are in the process of hiring 32 new limited duration positions to backfill for staff who are working on the project team. The addition of the limited duration staff will help maintain the existing level of customer service.

Facilities and Support Testing and training facilities have been set up to accommodate the testing and training needs of the OLIVR system rollout.

Project Scope Project scope is stable at this time.

Business Impact The new OLIVR system will have a significant impact on DMV’s business practices. Project teams are working to identify, plan and implement the changes.

Schedule The project is on schedule at this time.

2.3 Identification and Resolution of New Problems Encountered The CSG QA Team did not encounter any problems during the performance of its work activities.



August 17, 2018 11


3. STP PORTFOLIO OF PROJECTS’ RISKS AND RECOMMENDATION DETAILS The entirety of Section 3 details the current portfolio risks tracked by the CSG QA Team in each Assessment Area Risk Category from the approved quality standards. Categories where no risks were identified are not listed in this section. The details about significant risks shall include the description, the factors used to determine the risk, the probability of occurrence, the potential impact, the risk rank, previous and current analysis, and a recommended resolution strategy

3.1 New Risks No new risks were identified during this review period.

3.2 Previously Reported Risks The risks below were opened during a previous reporting period.

Table 7: Previously Reported Risks

Open Risks

#79: Delay in Oregon State Police LEDS 2020 Interface Low Risk Rank Low Risk Rank

Current Low

Probability High

Impact Previous

Low Probability

High Impact

Risk: The Oregon State Police (OSP) are upgrading their Law Enforcement Data Systems (LEDS). LEDS must interface with the STP COTS Phase 2 Vehicle Rollout and also maintain an interface with the DMV mainframe for driver inquiries until the new STP COTS Phase 3 Drivers Rollout is completed. The interface between OSP and DMV’s systems provide critical public safety information for law enforcement officers. The STP Team was informed in February 2018 that OSP may not meet its November 2018 LEDS implementation date. To date, an agreed upon solution, an implementation plan and schedule have not been agreed upon between the STP COTS Project Team and OSP. As a

Recommendations: July 2018- Continue to meet with OSP on a monthly basis and closely monitor the progress of their project.

Current Analysis: July 2018 - No change. The LEDS interface work continues as planned. Previous Analysis: June 2018 - The COTS Vehicle Rollout has a schedule and plan to implement the LEDS interface with the Oregon State Police. If a delay occurs, a back-up plan is also in place that will assure that the interface is ready for go live. Due to the two options to mitigate this risk it has been moved to low risk.



August 17, 2018 12


result, there is not a clear path to completion for LEDS/OLIVR interface. OSP also informed the STP Team that they only planned for one interface between LEDS and OLIVR leaving the question of how driver’s information will be shared with OSP. Technical workarounds are available to solve these problems, but the solutions are high risk as they create several single points of failure between to two systems. These high risk solutions could result in a delay of current public safety information being sent to OSP officers and/or a delay in the project schedule.

#73: Operational Impacts of OLIVR Work Flow Changes Low Risk Rank Low Risk Rank

Current Low

Probability Medium Impact

Previous Low


Risk: The level of impact to DMV operations specific to workflow and procedure changes is becoming clearer as the project team begins to understand the implications of implementing the new Oregon License and Issuance Vehicle Registration (OLIVR) system. Individuals on the STP Team and DMV staff have independently estimated that 80-90% of the current DMV business processes are manual and will likely become automated once OLIVR is fully operational. Without a clear understanding of the impacts and duration needed to implement the operational changes that will result from the new system; DMV operations is at risk of not being prepared to operate the new system at a level that will maintain their existing level of customer service.

Recommendations: July 2018 - Continue working with the DMV operation’s managers and staff to identify and implement operational changes, identify organizational changes, and job descriptions.

Current Analysis: July 2018 - The major business process changes have been designed and are being reviewed by the teams that are affected by the changes. Organizational changes and job description impacts are in being analyzed. Previous Analysis: June 2018 - Work continues to design the future business process and determine the future organizational structure.

#78: Operational Backlog Impacts Low Risk Rank Low Risk Rank

Current Low


Previous Low




August 17, 2018 13


Risk: DMV operations has an operational backlog of work that according to staff is increasing due to new legislative mandates that went into effect in January 2018. While DMV is aware of the operational work backlog, there are no formal processes or a plan in place to complete the work. Failure to understand the scope, the time, and resources needed to reduce/eliminate the backlog, may lead to a delay in implementing the new streamlined business processes, delay employee job transitions, and affect system quality resulting in the Phase 2 Vehicle Rollout of OLIVR not meeting the expectations of DMV staff and stakeholders.

Recommendations: July 2018 – continue to monitor the metrics provided by DMV operations to assure that work is being completed as planned.

Current Analysis: July 2018 - Metrics continue to validate that the backlog/incomplete work will be done in advance of the OLIVR go live date in January 2019. Previous Analysis: June 2018 - Metrics are indicating that the backlog/incomplete work that is critical for go live will be done well in advance of the implementation date.

#80: Potential Distribution of DMV Fee Variances Medium Risk Rank Medium Risk Rank

Current Medium


Previous Medium


Risk: The Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division collects fees as a part of their routine vehicle title, registration, and driver credentialing processes. Fee calculation and distribution is a complicated manual process. The amount and distribution of fees is determined by the type of transaction, the current date, and the address of the customer. Once collected, the fees are distributed to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), counties, cities, and state agencies. Currently, fee transaction information from the mainframe is used by ODOT to determine the distribution of the funds. Due to current limitations of the mainframe, some distribution information is calculated using manual formulas. The new OLIVR system will provide fee distribution information based on automated financial transaction configurations. Based on project team interviews, our industry knowledge, and our experience with DMV system implementations, the CSG QA Team believes that

Recommendations: Prior to the new OLIVR system going live determine if there will be changes to fee distribution that will impact stakeholders. Consider the following:

Work with FAST and ODOT Financial staff to conduct parallel testing that will compare the existing fee distribution results from the mainframe to the new OLIVR results.

Compare the results and contact any impacted stakeholder as soon as possible.

Current Analysis: July 2018 - No change. Previous Analysis: June 2018 - The project has chosen to accept the portion of the risk that affects ODOT and focus their mitigation efforts on entities outside of ODOT that receive funds. This will significantly impact the time and resources needed to mitigate the risk.



August 17, 2018 14


there is a significant possibility that the current distribution of fees may differ from the new distribution calculations that will result from OLIVR. The STP COTS Financial Team has already identified one error in distribution. These variances may result in changes in funding distributions to fee recipients.

3.3 Resolved Risks No risks were closed during this reporting period.



August 17, 2018 15


APPENDIX A - CATALOG OF REVIEWS This appendix identifies the STP Portfolio of Projects’ materials reviewed, meetings attended, and the individuals interviewed by the CSG QA Team during this reporting period. Over the course of the project’s life cycle, materials may be reviewed multiple times as they support the independent quality assurance activities.

A.1 Interviews Conducted The CSG QA Team conducted 17 interviews from July 1st to July 31st, 2018. A list of interviewees, their organization, and the date interview occurred, are provided in the table below.

Table 8: Interviews Conducted

STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED DATE OF INTERVIEW ORGANIZATON

Sheryl Mills 7/3/2018 STP

Derek Janke 7/11/2018 FAST

Stephanie Zellner 7/12/2018 STP

Jon Colavito 7/12/2018 FAST

Nina Junco 7/12/2018 STP

Michelle Nguyen 7/12/2018 FAST

David Jacobson 7/17/20188 STP

Dave Franks 7/17/2018 STP

Scott Jones 7/17/2018 FAST

Victoria Tao 7/17/2018 FAST

Geoff Timm 7/17/2018 FAST

Jefre Schmidt 7/17/2018 STP

Tom McClellan 7/18/2018 DMV

Sheryl Mills 7/18/2018 STP

Jenna Pourciau 7/18/2018 FAST



August 17, 2018 16


STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED DATE OF INTERVIEW ORGANIZATON

David Parker 7/18/2018 FAST

Jim Klopfer 7/24/2018 OSCIO

A.2 Meetings Attended The CSG QA Team attended 5 meetings from July 1st to July 31st, 2018. Provided in the table below is a list of meetings, the date the meeting occurred, and the name of attending CGS consultant.

Table 9: Meetings Attended

STP MEETINGS OBSERVED DATE CSG PARTICPANT(S)

STP PM Meeting 7/5/2018 Shannon Barnes

STP Leadership Team Meeting 7/10/2018 Shannon Barnes

User Council 7/12/2018 Shannon Barnes

Data Conversion Plan Walk Through 7/17/2018 Shannon Barnes and Linda Ford

Executive Steering Committee 7/27/2018 Colleen May

A.3 Materials Reviewed The CSG QA Team reviewed 25 project documents or artifacts from July 1st to July 31st, 2018. A list of reviewed materials is provided in the table below.

Table 10: Materials Reviewed

MATERIALS REVIEWED

06-14-18_UC_Minutes_Draft Project_Ownership

06-28-18_UC_Agenda STP_COTS_Veh_Status_2018-06

07-26-18_UC_Agenda STP_Leadership_Meeting_Agenda_2018_7_10

17-19_Tactical_Planning_Schedule STP_Leadership_Meeting_Agenda_2018_7_25 Draft



August 17, 2018 17


MATERIALS REVIEWED

180702_D14_OCLPlanReptVehRoll_v1.4 STP_Leadership_Meeting_Minutes_2018-6-26_Final

DLIR_QA_Report_32_07-15-18 STP_Leadership_Meeting_Minutes_2018-7-10_Draft_v1

DMV STP Exec. Steering Comm. Agenda 2018-7-27 STP_News_July-2018_FINAL

DMV STP Exec. Steering Comm. Minutes 2018_5_9_final STP_OCL_Status_2018-06

DMV STP News and Updates Shifting Gears STP_Status_Summary_2018-06

DMV STP Program Milestones Schedule OCL_Toolkit_FINAL

July 2.3.5 Notes Vehicle Business Test Schedule 07-17-2018

Vehicles Rollout Master Schedule 07-30-2018 Vehicles Rollout Supporting Schedules 07-30-2018

PSG Dashboard 2018-7-31



August 17, 2018 21


DELIVERABLE SIGNOFF AND APPROVAL The following signatures indicate all the necessary stakeholders have reviewed STP Task 2.3.5 Monthly Quality Status and Tracking Assessment Report, and the authorized signers accept the deliverable as complete.

Contract No.: DASPS-1520-16 and Contract No. DASPS-1520-18

Deliverable Number: 2.3.5

Deliverable Name: Task 2.3.5 – Monthly Quality Status Report and Tracking Assessment Report

Last version reviewed: 0.5

For Quality Control Reports, name of document reviewed: N/A

Management letter appended to version 1.0? N/A

CSG QA Project Manager

Acceptance Requested by:

Shannon Barnes

CSG QA Project Manager

DMV Service Transformation Program

___ Approved

___ Not Approved (reasons attached)

David Jacobson, DMV Projects Director

_______________________________

Date

Office of the State Chief Information Officer

___ Approved

___ Not Approved (reasons attached)

James Klopfer, OSCIO IT Investment Oversight Analyst

_______________________________

Date

State of Oregon : Oregon.gov Home Page : State of Oregon - … · 2020-01-22 · 0.5 August 2, 2018...

Documents

Transcript of State of Oregon : Oregon.gov Home Page : State of Oregon - … · 2020-01-22 · 0.5 August 2, 2018...