DOC Electronic Timekeeping System Quarterly Project Oversight Report: Comprehensive Review For Period January March 2015

Transcription

1 Department of Corrections Electronic Timekeeping System Project For Period: January March 2015

2 Quarter Ending: 3/31/2015 Agency Name: Department of Corrections (DOC) Project Name: Electronic Timekeeping System Project Description: The Electronic Timekeeping System project is to improve and streamline DOC s current time management processes, replace paper timesheets, avoid costs related to staff overtime, and have a real-time count of correctional officers. The majority of DOC s correctional institution staff, approximately 18,000, are currently unable to enter their work time into the People First personnel system due to computer access limitations and security reasons. As a result, each employee completes, reviews and signs a paper timesheet at the end of each 28 day period. Supervisors then manually approve and timekeepers manually enter the information into People First. DOC has contracted with Kronos for a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) timekeeping system. Section I: Executive Summary Executive Summary Although it appears best practices planning phase events and artifacts have not been effectively completed, the project is currently in the execution phase. Scope: The project is outside the scope as compared with the Schedule IV-B and the contract s services scope statement for this reporting period. DOC requested $10M for FY ; however, was appropriated $5M. It is unclear how the scope has been adjusted to meet the difference in funding. It appears that both system configuration decisions and changes to goals and objectives have been made without governance review. The Agency for State Technology (AST) has identified deficiencies related to project governance, scope definition and control, requirements documentation and traceability, change control, and contract management practices. Cost: The AST is unable to determine budgetary compliance as there is no spending plan nor have project expenditures been planned over FY Schedule: AST is unable to determine schedule compliance as schedule is incomplete and has never been formally approved by DOC. Risks and Issues: Risks and issues have not remained stable during this reporting period. The project would benefit from active sponsorship, governance, a project management plan and appropriate risk and issues management. AST recommends the immediate charter of a governance body to oversee this project. With active sponsorship, the new leadership team at DOC could enable the alignment of the project with stakeholders needs and objectives. AST and DOC are working closely together on corrective action planning activities to remediate the deficiencies noted herein. 3/31/2015 Page 2

3 Section II: Scope Scope Summary In the absence of project management documentation, AST has used the Schedule IV-B, the Kronos contract, and the Services Scope Statement (SSS). While these sources provide AST with a broad sense of the project s objectives, they are inadequate substitutes for a proper project scope statement that is shared with, and formally approved by, key project stakeholders and team members. Further, since the Kronos agreement was signed, there has been some confusion pertaining to scope (e.g., what is and what is not included in the implementation). A refined scope statement would lend clarity to expectations for success. Although the Schedule IV-B, the Kronos contract, and the Services Scope Statement (SSS) outline minimum requirements and/or success criteria, it is unclear if all requirements will be met since (1) a traceability approach has not been established; and (2) scope has changed without any evidence of change control, governance, or contract amendments. Due to decisions being made without a baselined scope statement and a formal project change control process, it is unclear when decisions were made, by whom they were made, the impact on project objectives, and the impact to contract costs. Scope Variance Discussion There were indications of scope variance when attempting to use the Schedule IV-B, the Kronos contract, and the Services Scope State (SSS) as indicators of intended scope. 1. The contract states the training program is fixed fee and includes all staff training, end-user training, 25 trainthe-trainers and online ongoing training 1. However, rather than planning and tracking the training completed by the number of employees in scope, the training strategy provides consumable training points that do not clearly align to the number of employees, managers, project staff, trainers, etc. found in scope. 2. A contract requirement provides, contractor shall create and provide the department with a web-based tutorial to be used interchangeably where instructor-led training is not feasible, as well as use for ongoing new hire department staff training. However, the employee s training curriculum does not provide for a web-based tutorial. 3. While change management services includes workshops and coaching front-line mangers/supervisors, no direct change management support, coaching or workshop was scheduled prior to the deployment date of June 12, The only change management deliverable provided during this reporting period was an Intranet communication. The Intranet communication may not have been the preferred method for communicating since at least 12,000 employees have limited access to a department computer System testing was scheduled to begin March 1, 2015; however, without requirements traceability, business requirements cannot be traced to design parameters that are included in the delivered system. 1 #C2836; IV. Compensation; A. Payment; Training Program Description; pg. 24 of Schedule IV-B; B. Baseline Analysis; 1 Current Business Process(es); 3 rd paragraph; pg. 5 of 30 3/31/2015 Page 3

4 Scope Variance Discussion 5. Ad hoc reporting is a system requirement. During a Workforce Timekeeper Design Document Review meeting held on March 23, 2015, Kronos stated the system does not provide ad hoc reporting capability. They offered to build ad hoc reports at a cost. 3/31/2015 Page 4

5 Section III: Cost Management Cost Management Summary AST is unable to determine budgetary compliance since there is no spending plan nor have project expenditures been planned over FY Cost Variance Discussion Without a spending plan, AST can only note and speculate specific items that may impact the approved allocation. The vendor charged DOC for training classes without DOC s knowledge or approval and without following DOC training procedures. Training should be for defined audiences at a fixed fee; however, the training approach, training classes, training audience, training objectives, etc. were not clearly defined in the training strategy or in the project schedule. The use of consumable training points rather than the training audiences in scope could result in unanticipated training costs. There may be additional charges for multiple administrator licenses (e.g., Workforce HR/Payroll Administrator 1:100 Ratio) or an additional Human Resource/Payroll license bundle 1. The Product Design documents and training strategy provide for several administrator roles for system configurations. The current Workforce Timekeeper license bundle does not include an administrator 2 and the contract states, the parties agree that department is not licensing Workforce Payroll Software under this contract. 3 As a result, it is unclear if the administrator roles will have the rights to use the system. Organizational Change Management (OCM) referred to as Change Management Services in the Services Scope Statement (SSS) is part of the fixed fee professional services provided by Momentum Enterprise, a subcontractor to Kronos. The fixed fee is $1,363, There are clearly defined Change Management deliverables in the SSS; however, the vendor has submitted an invoice with hours worked rather than associating their invoicing with Change Management deliverables. 1 Contract #C2836; 1. Rights to Use; 1.5; The parties agree that the Department is not licensing Workforce Payroll Software under this Contract. Pg. 38 of81 2 SSS; Order Form; Applications (Invoiced in arrears); Part #/Module column; pg. 80 of 81 3 Contract; VIII. Conditions; M. Copyrights, Right to Use, Patents; 1. Rights to Use; 1.2; pg. 37 of 81. 3/31/2015 Page 5

6 Section IV: Schedule Management Schedule Management Summary The project schedule is managed by the project s vendor, Kronos. The project schedule has not been baselined, has fluctuated and has not been formally approved by DOC. Changes to omissions and deletions, as well as edits to dates of major deliverables have been observed. These changes have occurred without traceability, formal notification or governance action. There was no formal change control process. Omitted deliverables without tasks related to delivery, review, or acceptance, include: Finalize Project Plan/Timeline Project Governance Procedures General Assessment readiness and Pre-Assessment Learning Kronos Quality Assurance Standards Project Governance Signoff Requirements Project Management Procedures Document configuration elements Document recommended processes Document access requirements Training Strategy Testing Strategy Communication Strategy/Plan Detailed Deployment Checklist Plan/Assess Phase Review Deleted Deliverables: Customer Implementation Guide January 19, February 2, Project Workbook or Checklist January 19, February 2, 2015 Edited Deliverables: WTK - Configure and Show Prototypes February 17, March 3, 2015 WTK Configure and Show Security Prototypes February 17, March 4, 2015 The project schedule does not contain all task and deliverable dependencies. 3/31/2015 Page 6

7 Schedule Variance Discussion AST cannot apply best practice methodologies to assess the schedule variance since the schedule is not baselined and appears to be incomplete. 3/31/2015 Page 7

8 Section V: Risk Assessment Evaluation of Project Risks and Issues Kronos maintains an Issue Tracking and Risk Assessment spreadsheet; however, the log does not appear to contain all known risks and issues of the project, nor those identified by DOC. DOC does not have a plan or approach to manage risks and issues that includes an escalation process. As a result, some risks and issues identified in various forums are undocumented, unassigned, and unmanaged. Risk Management Discussion 1. The DOC timekeeping process future state will increase the Officer In Charges daily responsibilities to include any correctional officers exception time reporting (e.g., missed login/log out, sick leave, etc.); whereas, today they only approve officers timesheets every 28 days. 2. DOC has not demonstrated the use of a standard project management methodology in this project. 3. The deliverable review of project artifacts does not indicate executive management involvement. 4. Governance and Change Control was undefined and ad hoc. 5. It does not appear that a DOC contract manager is monitoring the Kronos contract. 6. A DOC testing lead has not been appointed and there is no evidence of testing best practices. 7. This is a configurable system with multiple administrators without the benefit of an operations and maintenance plan or approach. 8. Requirements traceability is non-existent. 9. The only status reporting is provided by the vendor and it may not reflect DOC s risks, issues or view of the current status. 10. Human Resource policies and procedures need to be updated by DOC staff to build in changes due to the new equipment and software. 11. There was insufficient project team manpower for the effort. The engaged project manager was trying to lead the project and the testing and training efforts, control contracted deliverable reviews, mitigate all project risks, manage data quality and scope creep, and serve in his assigned Office of Information Technology duties as the System Programming Administrator for all regions. 3/31/2015 Page 8

9 Section VI: Corrective Action Plan for Out of Variance Projects AST s Recommended Corrective Action Plan (CAP) # Description Action Completion Date Scope S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Schedule Institute a chartered project governance structure that includes defined roles and responsibilities for each member of the governance team and ensures involvement from executive management. Primary stakeholder identification and involvement in governance is a best practice. A detailed project scope statement must be articulated in a Project Management Plan. Scope should be refined in consultation with the contractor and based on the agreement with the vendor. This statement needs to eliminate any confusion about which deliverables are included and what are excluded. Develop a Project Management Plan that includes scope, risk and issue management (defining escalation to the executive governance team), change management (as described above), a communications plan (the frequency and manner of status reporting to executive governance), quality assurance (how work will be monitored to ensure conformance with best practices), as well as requirements for schedule management. Define and implement a change management process for identifying, escalating, approving (by the executive governance team) project changes related to project scope, schedule, and cost baselines or a change to any project deliverables. Develop a Deliverable Review Plan identifying all the contracted deliverables, identify membership for the deliverable review teams for each deliverable, provide an approach for documenting and aggregating all the deliverable review feedback, develop the process and communications for approving or rejecting deliverables, and develop an escalation process. Identify a Project Sponsor to: 1. Authorize the allocation of resources to the project; 2. Champion the project; 3. Endow the project manager and contract manager with project execution authority. (Planned) Completed 5/4/2015 5/4/2015 In progress 5/22/2015 Completion Date (Actual) Completed 5/4/2015 5/4/2015

10 T1 Cost C1 C2 Risk R1 R2 R3 Update, approve and baseline the project schedule to include: 1. Delivery, review and acceptance of all contract deliverables; 2. All dependencies; and, 3. Capable of utilizing Earned Value Management 1. Assign a contract manager to focus on the contract management obligations associated with this contract. Services Scope Statement s Order Form attached in Contract #C2836 needs to be reviewed for consistency with the Services Scope Statement. Retain a project manager who is: 1. Dedicated to this project, i.e., not splitting time performing other duties 2. PMP certified 3. Experienced managing large, complex projects utilizing a contractor/vendor. Assign a training lead to manage the contracted training effort to ensure: 1. Contractor is training as per contract; 2. The training effort is not exceeding training points; 3. Training staff are assigned to train-the-trainer; and, 4. All 18,200 employees, software administrators, 1,820 supervisors, 25 trainer, and 10 project staff are trained effectively to assume their assigned user roles without increased training costs. Assign a data analyst to: 1. Manage the data quality effort (e.g., inventorying existing data, profiles, cleansing source system data defects, define new drivers, parameters, data objects, number of tables, number of critical data elements); and Completed 4/20/2015 4/20/2015 Completed 5/5/2015 5/5/2015 Pending Click here to 1 The State Term Contract for Information Technology Consulting; RFP No K; Task Order Recommendations. Performance Management System: For Task Orders in Project Areas 1-3, the Department recommends that the Customer require Contractor to have a performance management system to track project cost, schedule, deviations, and status. Such systems should be similar to the earned value project management system that complies with the ANSI Standard on "Earned Value Management Systems Guidelines". Examples can be found at: and 3/31/2015 Page 10

11 R5 R6 R7 R9 2. Ensure all interfaces are importing and exporting data without defects. (e.g., map source data to new system data warehouses, number of tests to be performed, execute migration, test interfaces, test exception reporting capability, address deficiencies and ultimately ensure report reliability (e.g., People First, Roster Management, etc.). Develop an Operations and Maintenance Plan providing support personnel with the information necessary to maintain the system effectively. This document should define the support environment, roles and responsibilities, and scheduled activities essential to support and maintenance. A biweekly status report must be developed and provided to the governance team during scheduled bi-weekly meetings. Select the DOC business process owner to: 1. Ensure there is optimal business fit between people, process, and technology (tool); and 2. Ensure proper key performance indicators are set and achieved. Develop a Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) to: 1. Document all system and hardware requirements; 2. Link requirements from their origin to the deliverables that satisfy them; and 3. Capture the progressive detail of the requirements and linkage throughout the project. Pending Click here to Click here to Completed 4/20/2015 4/20/2015 In progress 5/29/2015 Click here to 3/31/2015 Page 11

12 Document Version Control Version Date Change(s).01 3/26/2015 Original Draft.04 4/13/2015 Updated.05 4/20/2014 Updated with Curtis Unruh edits.06 5/6/2015 Updated with DOC edits.07 5/7/2015 Updated with AST & DOC agreed upon edits.08 5/8/2015 Updated with ES, TSK, SM, and BB edits 3/31/2015 Page 12