Washington Health Benefit Exchange

Transcription

1 Washington Health Benefit Exchange Results of Architecture and Technical Review Exchange Board Meeting March 26, 2015 Jayne Wuerch, CIO

2 Architecture Review - Background Exchange Board requested an independent architecture and technical assessment of HealthPlanFinder Vendor identified to conduct assessment First phase of the assessment included: Reviewing the overall application architecture and technical design Conducting in-depth analysis of the code, database design, and infrastructure components Documenting findings and improvement recommendations Providing an implementation roadmap for the recommendations High-level improvement opportunity areas: Performance Code Quality and Maintainability Architecture and Design

3 Architecture Review - Key Topline Findings The overall system foundation is sound Many opportunities were identified to improve the overall code quality, future system growth and Healthplanfinder response time A phased approach for changes was recommended as the best path forward, starting with quick wins Deloitte is planning to incorporate many of the findings in the next few releases Additional study is needed to better understand the costbenefit analysis and timing of the more significant recommended improvements 3

4 Analysis and Measurement Results Washington Healthplanfinder scored below average on quality characteristics compared to the defined industry benchmark Quality Attribute HPF Benchmark* Score Total Quality Index (TQI) Robustness Efficiency Platform scalability Transferability Changeability Scale Compliance 4 High 3 Moderate 2 Low 1 Very Low * Benchmark was created from quality comparison to 696 Java Enterprise Edition applications, across 151 companies, representing nearly 210 million lines of code. Assessment and measurement was done using CAST code analysis technology. This technology measures the software quality across systems to include work of multiple technologies and system releases. It also evaluates interactions between system components that cannot be detected at the individual developer level. 4

5 Performance Assessment Needs in Key Issue Areas Improve how Healthplanfinder sends web page information upon request Modify server configurations for better connectivity in the system Change design to enable more efficient data runs Code and Maintainability Improve error messages to highlight issue or issue area Clean code to remove unused/duplicate code to improve system speed Better standards to ensure high-quality code to eliminate potential errors Architecture and Design Move static images/elements to Web server to increase screen speed Increase reporting speed related to any system failures or potential for failure Implement strategy to both accommodate and archive future data needs

6 Recommend Phased Approach for Path Forward Short Term Medium Term Long Term Current State Phase 1 (Code Changes) Month 1 4 Phase 2 (Code & Platform changes) Phase 3 (Strategic changes) Month 3 7 Month 5 12 The timeline is a representation only and would need to be revised after workload is estimated 6

7 Architecture Review - Next Steps Analyze the assessment finding report Further determine the cost/benefit analysis regarding system improvement recommendations Address issues that are quick wins Find those items that require less effort but will provide big business benefits Conduct impact analysis of medium and long term items Understand what effort/ resource level is required to perform such changes Establish coordinated plan with current system integrator Continue to work with Deloitte to develop implementation schedule Explore opportunities for additional review and assessment Examine key issue areas in relation to Healthplanfinder as well as working with the state system, federal hub, carriers, etc. Schedule the next planned phase to assess detailed performance monitoring and benchmarking on production servers using performance engineering tool

8 Appendix 8

9