CCIO Capstone - Best Practices

Certified Public Technology Leadership Program

Capstone Project -
The CscForce Application
Meeting the Needs of Tomorrow
By: Jennifer A. Fisch

09

Capstone Project - The CscForce Application 2009

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... 3

Segment 1- Goals, Project Scope and Consequences ................................................................................ 5
Goal of the application.............................................................................................................................. 5
Unintended Consequences of Success ..................................................................................................... 5
Leadership and Professional Goals ........................................................................................................... 5

Segment 2 – Background, Research and Evaluation................................................................................. 6
Background ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Prior to Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 6
Technology ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Advantages/Disadvantages of Alternatives .............................................................................................. 8
Private Sector Applicability ....................................................................................................................... 8
Implications or Considerations ................................................................................................................. 8

Segment 3 – Benefits/Work Plan ............................................................................................................. 10
The Solution ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Overview, timeline and project management considerations ............................................................... 10
Budget Estimates .................................................................................................................................... 11
Human Resources and Communications ................................................................................................ 12
Risk Management ................................................................................................................................... 12

Segment 4: Reflection and Discussion ..................................................................................................... 14
Success Factors ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Reflection/Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................... 14
Potential Hindrances/Obstacles of Others on Implementation ............................................................. 15
Other Collaborative Governance Opportunities ..................................................................................... 15

Attachment A – Project Charter ............................................................................................................... 16

Attachment B – Desired Features, Functionality, Technologies ............................................................ 19

Attachment C – FY2009 Development Plan ............................................................................................ 20

Attachment D – CCIO Material Engagement............................................................................................ 22

Jennifer A. Fisch Page 2


Executive Summary
The purpose of this capstone is to describe how a local special taxing district (The Children’s Board of
Hillsborough County) chose a customized web solution to address the needs of its contracting process.
Discussed in this paper are details of the project (both past and present), alternatives addressed,
reflections and lessons learned both personally and organizationally.
TheChildren’s Board of Hillsborough County (CBHC) has been working on the development of cscForce
application since January 2003. It began with a partnership between Hillsborough County’s newly
formed community-based care organization, Hillsborough Kids, Inc. (HKI) and the Children’s Board to
build a custom web application that would replace our antiquated contract management and Demogeo
software with a more versatile web-based application. Since our CEO recently viewed a demonstration
of a similar web-based product that HKI produced, this individual was contracted to develop the
application.

The initial design phase included an evaluation of a competitor’s software package (SAMIS) that had
been in existence since the late 1990’s. The Juvenile Welfare Board (JWB), a neighboring Children’s
Services Council, developed SAMIS to allow for same type of contract management and data collection
processes that the Children’s Board wished to accomplish. Buy-in to this software consortium was ruled
out early due to extensive user training requirements and heavy partnership fees in excess of $280,000
start-up costs and over $100,000 annually.

The purpose of the cscForce application was to eliminate the need for multiple data entryby Children’s
Board staff and its providers/applicants, streamline the process by which the Children’s Board awards its
program/service dollars and to measure, in real-time, the impact of CBHC dollars within the community
of Hillsborough County.

Also included in the original design of the application was the ability to allow for data input by multiple
Children’s Services Councils (CSCs) in Florida. The Children’s Trust (Miami-Dade) was the most
interested in the initial design, but dropped out in 2005 due to CBHC inability to deliver the contract
management module in a reasonable timeframe.

Development of the application hit multiple stumbling blocks during its initial phase. This
includedsevere scope creep, the assignment of a non-contract management staff to head the project,
and the departure of the developer from the community based care organization, and his employment
at three other organizations. Unfortunate for the Children’s Board, we followed each transition and
continued to contract with the developer through each of his employers with minimal, if any, actual
product delivery. In December of 2005, the Children’s Board terminated its relationship with the
developer due to inferior product performance and its lack of desired features. In January of 2006, a
well known consulting firm was contracted to continue the development of the application. Five
months and three developers later, the new developer recommended the scraping of the current code



due to its unstable nature and lack of cohesiveness. In mid-June 2006, development of the new
cscForce began.
Since 2006, the universal application module has been implemented along with multiple modules that
allowed contracts to be managed from the application through execution and monitoring of fiscal
outcomes and performance. In late February 2008, two FTEs were hired to support the growing needs
of this application among others.

On June 17th, a cross departmental representation of the organization made a formal presentation to
the Executive Leadership team to tout the cscForce application’s usefulness and versatility. It was an
overwhelming success and at this writing, the project currently has approved to proceed with its
development as planned.



Segment 1- Goals, Project Scope and Consequences

Goal of the application
The goal of the software application is to automate processes within our organization, create
operational efficiencies within our contract managing process and better manage large scale projects in
our organization through planning, leadership and the implementation of a change control process. By
implementing this type of system, the Children’s Board should have a greater ability to efficiently
manage taxpayer dollars and report the value of our services within our community.

Our vow in developing the cscForce application was that it be user friendly, fairly intuitive, and not
requiring volumes of manuals or a complex series of trainings in order to navigate it.

Unintended Consequences of Success
Potential unintended consequences to the Children’s Board of implementing this application are:
Greater accountability/responsibility to provide value added services on both our partners’ side
as the provider of services and ours as a funding agency.
More processes with the potential for bottlenecks by introducing a change control process to
hopefully minimize the presence of scope creep
Heavier reliance on technology to complete tasks that previously were done manually

Leadership and Professional Goals
I will be able to further my leadership and professional goals by moving this project forward against
multiple threats such as incompetent developers, ineffective to project leads, and unreasonable
userexpectations. I intend to accomplish this by effectively communicating with my internal and
external users by using active listening skills and models of communication and decision making similar
to the Ladder of Inference. I intend to manage the project aggressively and confidently by not allowing
it to manage me or my team. And finally, I intend to establish myself as a leader in the organization by
finally completing the “application to nowhere” that although it has the majority of its modules in
production for the last 2 years and is producing an estimated $30 million worth of contracts annually, it
continues to have the reputation as the application that “never gets done”.



Segment 2–Background, Research and Evaluation

Background
It’s an outcome-based web application based on David Fetterman’s Empowerment Evaluation.
Empowerment Evaluation is a participatory process by which a funder develops expected outcomes in
partnership with its providers. The cscForce application allows a grantee to apply for funding through
our universal application, enter into either a short-term (six month) or continuation (annual) contracting
process for as long as the provider is producing quantifiable, measurable outcomes. During this process,
real-time measures are calculated, via outcome-based formulas, for either participant level (individuals)
or group level data immediately upon entry into the system. The determination of whether or not to
collect individual information (demographics) is generally determined by mutual agreement between
the provider and the CBHC contract manager and the overall feasibility of collecting participant level
information for that outcome.

Prior to Implementation
Previous grant awards and contracting processes were both manual and semi-automated, however all
were separate functions. The grantee process to acquire funds from the Children’s Board was manual, a
completed funding application and submission to the Resource Development Department for manual
processing.

Once the grant was approved, the Contract Manager application was used to set the objectives and
develop the actual service contract. This application was a based on Access 97 and ran as an
independent application on a Microsoft Window 2000 based server. The contract management
processes soon outgrew that application and in 2004 developed into an empowerment evaluation based
model that used MS Word or Excel forms to set goals, develop performance objectives, define
responsible parties, define outcomes, identify data repositories, and set measurement guidelines.
However due to other components still residing in the old Contract Manager application, i.e. standard
verbiage like Terms and Conditions, the application continued to be partially utilized to develop service
based contracts. Contract activities generally associated with the management of these contracts, e.g.
fiscal & performance service levels were routinely reviewed and recorded manually during scheduled
quarterly meetings. Prior to the empowerment model being implemented, program performance
required official reports semi-annually and again at the completion of the contract, generally due 30-60
days after the completion of the contract. As you can see, one of the inherent problems with the
manual process was the lack of a performance reporting until 7 months into the service and then not
again until 30-60 days after the contract had expired.

In addition, contract reimbursements, either fixed or cost reimbursement, for the contracted services
were tracked and recorded manually in two separate electronic systems. Payments were made to the
accounts payable system (Sage MIP)and recorded separately in the Contract Management application as
a central repository for the internal contract management staff. During this process, copies of all
executed documents and associated reports were kept in a physical contract file in accordance with
Florida State Statues and record retention requirements.



Demographic information (Demogeo data) was submitted to the CBHC via a 3½ floppy disk with
aggregate participant information, .e.g. race, gender, ethnicity, and zip code. That data was collected by
our Database Administrator who loaded it manually into the Access 97 database.

Technology
The new application (cscForce) is being developed in VB.Netwith stored procedures accessing an MS SQL
Server 2000 back-end which allows for secure, real-time access and manipulation of data by both
internal staff and external providers. The use of this technology also centralizes the viewing of data in
one central repository therefore minimizing the need for paper files. Also inherent in the new system is
the ability for the contract manager, CBHC staff, and the provider (a vendor of social service related
services for children and families) to jointly develop goals and performance objectives real-time which
shortens the period of contract development substantially. Database encryption and server based SSL
allows for the secure transmission of participant level outcome data which enables real-timereporting
and evaluation of performance level information as opposed to semi-annual and annual reporting as in
the previous contracting process. The use of SQL based queries has eliminated the need for manual dual
entriesand allows contract manager to view “real-time” processing of contract related transactions, i.e.
reimbursements, journal entries, etc.

The implementation of a user friendly grant application enables the grantee to complete their funding
application online and allows real-time tracking of the application through our approval process. This
electronic process as eliminated the need for paper based applications, and files, which inherently
reduced the need for physical space (file cabinets) and increased accountability and responsiveness in
our organization.

The current architectural platform is reflected below:

Hardware Software Function

HP Proliant DL360 MS Windows 2003, Std. Version Physical server &
G5 operating System
3,325.87 MB MS SQL Server 2000 Database (data)
Memory
MS SQL Server 2005 Database (encryption
& other adv. features)
ActivePDF Prints contracts
ApexSQL Allows database
triggers and reporting
ActiveXLS Professional for .NET Allows EDI capability
VeriSign SSL SSL encryption
Sage MIP Accounts Payable Accounts Payable
software
CuteEditor Allows text box editing



Alternatives
There are currently two alternatives. Firstis the continued use of manual reporting which cost the
provider agency and the Children’s Board manpower, physical file space, and inefficiencies related to
data-based decision-making. The other,as mentioned previously,is the performance based application
developed by The Juvenile Welfare Board (JWB), another Children’s Services Council in Pinellas County
Florida. JWB developed SAMISto produce contracts and measure their service providers’ performance.

Advantages/Disadvantages of Alternatives
An advantage of the manual process for contract and provider management would be the staff and
providers doing their job as they know it. Not everyone embraces change, learning a new application is
change and not all are in favor of it.

Disadvantages to a continued manual process are cost to the organization: time/manpower (e.g. man-
hours required to manually review, develop and manage contracts; quality (consistency of managing
contracts and service to the providers, i.e. grants awarded faster, contracts being developed faster and
more efficiently); reduced accountability ( the requirement of the semi-annual and annual reporting
which equates to achievement reporting after the fact and not calculated in a real-time environment.

Disadvantages to the buy-in to SAMIS would be the development by committee model in addition to it
not being based on an empowerment evaluation model, i.e. partnership with the provider.
Modifications to the application are only approved if agreed upon by all participating CSCs. In addition
to being design by committee, modifications, since the application is not developed in-house, are
normally estimated to be between 12-18 months from approval to implementation. To pay for the
external development, the CSC’s are required to pay a “maintenance fee” approximate to a percentage
of the CSC’s total revenue. SAMIS, according to feedback from its end-users, is very cumbersome to use,
has numerous manuals and requires aminimum 2 to 3 day training to learn how to use it.

Private Sector Applicability
The private sector would handle this situation in a similar manner to the public sector. Organizations
always need to evaluate whether or not a customized solution would be better suited for their
organization than a purchased one, or if a manual process would be more efficient than the time and
resources spent on the development of an electronic solution.

Implications or Considerations
Logistical or fiscal implications that need to be considered are adequate resources in order to complete
the project/application development, testing and deployment in a reasonable timeframe.

Logistical considerations of a customized solution are manpower and resources. Whether it’s the
hardware to support the application or the developers to develop it, resources are always required in
order to support and maintain a real-time application.

A consideration not taken into account during the application’s planning phase was a though
understand of user expectations. It’s been my experience with internally developed application that



users expect functionality to just “appear” in the blink of an eye without any consideration for
development time and testing. Frequent and personalized communications are a huge consideration
when implementing an application as critical to your core business as the cscForce application is to our
organization.

Security & legal considerations that need to be considered are unauthorized access to modules that a
user may not have access to view or modify or unauthorized access to the application in general.
Examples of unauthorized user access would be access to confidential participant information, i.e. client
files, or access to screens not authorized to be viewed or manipulated by that particular user or agency.



Segment 3 – Benefits/Work Plan

The Solution
The solution is to build a customized web application that incorporates all the functions of our
contracting process into one easy to use, customer friendly, accountability system. By building this
application, external customers would have the ability to login to the cscForce application to apply for
Children’s Board funding, internal customers would have the ability to generate contracts based on the
grant application or not, program managers would have the ability to easily manage the partnership
between the CB and the provider, and finally the CB would have to the ability to show residents of
Hillsborough County how their tax dollars are being spent and/or generating additional dollars for our
community.

Listed below are the various components in the application.

Universal Application – previously paper based, the new web-based application provides the ability
to apply for funding online. When completed, notification is automatically sent to the Resource
Development department for review and tracking, via a dashboard. When approved, select data is
automatically transferred to a draft contract for processing where a contract manager is assigned.
Contract Management system – enables program support staff to electronically develop and
manage provider’s contracts and data. The application includes user administration portion,
contract management component, data entry component (either direct entry or an EDI interface),
outcome reporting, fiscal tracking component, an unintended return on investment component for
technical assistance type contracts, and last but certainly not least reports.

Overview, timeline and project management considerations
As stated previously, the development began in 2003 with an external consultant. Development
continued through 2005 with the project being directed by a non-project management trained staff and
an unqualified developer. The result was an inferior product that did not meet quality standards and an
attempt was made to hire a professional staffing organization to salvage the product. After months and
literally dozens of attempts to plug holes in the codes, the code was scrapped and development was
began again with a different, yet still external, developer. In late 2006 the Universal application process
was redesigned and implemented. Spring 2007 yielded a new contracting process with continuation
contracts being completed in the system by July 2007. Development was slow with a single developer
with the outcome/indicator component being completed during the next 6-8 months. In February of
2008, an internal developer was hired to continue the evolution of the application.

See Attachment A for the Project Charter (developed approx. 3 years after initial implementation)
See Attachment B for the Desired Features, Functionality, and Technologies

Since January 2009, the CEO & COO of our organization have questioned the reliability and usability of
the application. In the last three months, we’ve been in the process of re-evaluating the usefulness of
the application with the alternate again being a scrap and a complete redesign. Beginning in May of



2009, the MIS team has met with internal users to ask what the application is currently doing well
and/or what features is it still missing. In the interim development has continued as normal. In June
2009, a short presentation was done to the Executive Team to tout the application’s capabilities and
ease of use since the majority of users sing praises about it. An expanded presentation was given to our
Board of Directors on June 25, 2009 at our annual Board Workshop and the result was a resounding
“great job”, “we love it”, “this is fantastic”. As a result of this feedback, development will continue as
planned and features will continue to be added as originally scheduled.

See Attachment C for the FY2009 Development Plan

Budget Estimates
True historical costs for this application are difficult to document due to the project beginning over six
years ago.However, documentation found included initial equipment estimates in order to begin
development, i.e., two servers, operating system licenses and MS SQL 2000 enterprise licensing, in
addition to infrastructure upgrades, e.g. upgraded switches, and higher capacity data trunk. Initially one
internal staff member was assigned to the project, estimated .45 FTE man-hours of staffing. Other staff
was engaged during the requirement gathering process in addition to the review of products as they
were delivered and evaluated for acceptance. When the product was scrapped in 2006, the project
reinitialized to the design phase and weeks were spent with users to either re-establish original
requirements or gather new ones.

Historical Costs (Estimation only)

Stage of Development Timeframe Estimated Costs
Feasibility and Evaluation with HKI (1/2003 – 6/2003) $10,000
Initial Infrastructure Costs 05/2003 $ 19,800
Development Costs (initial developer) (7/2003 – 9/2005) $147,055
Development Costs (2nd& 3rdconsultant) (12/2005 – 3/2006) # $45,000
Development Costs (4thconsultant) (3/2006 – 9/2006) $60,000
Upgraded Infrastructure Costs (server) 06/2006 $ 6,000
Development Cost (continued (10/2006 – 9/2007) $107,300
4thconsultant)
Phase-out Consultant & Internal (10/2007 – 9/2008) $60,000
Developer Cost
Implemented test server environment 10/2008 $ 6,000
Estimated Internal Development Costs 10/2008 – 9/2009 $ 95,948
*Estimated Total $557,103
Note:
# Point after which application code was scrapped.
*Does not include internal/external user requirements, testing and/or evaluation time, IT administrative
support, management support, or normal operating expenses.



Human Resources and Communications
In March 2007, an additional FTE was assigned part-time (.50) to assist with the provider (external) and
internal training process. In April of that year, the original FTE assigned to manage the project resigned
and the department manager assumed a temporary project management role. By May of 2007, the
part-time FTE took full-time responsibility for the external consultant and success of the project.
Countless hours were spent developing, testing, implementing and soliciting internal user feedback. In
February 2008, CBHC recognized the need to retain internal expertise and hired its first web developer
and began the process of transitioning full-time development responsibility in-house.

Departments heavily involved in the design, testing & quality assurance of the product have been: Fiscal,
Finance, Resource Development, Program Administration Team, Research Team, Program Support
Team, Knowledge Management (training coordination) and obviously IT. Alternate meetings are held
every two weeks to discuss the both the contracting process itself and best practice outcome
development. Formalized trainings are typically held semi-annually to educate new users on new
features of the application and/or contracting process.

Currently the project is supported by .90 FT developer and a .85 FT program manager with internal
and/or external users pulled in as needed or when required for testing.

Communication issues are handled via bi-weekly user’s group meetings to communicate project
progress in addition to a continuously accessible SharePoint “punch-list” tracking and post. External
customers (providers) and internal users are solicited for their input to ensure user friendliness and the
identification of cumbersome or non-working features.

To assist with troubleshooting and/or communications,an online helpdesk and help screens wereadded
to the application to assist users, (helpdesk@childrensboard.org).

Risk Management
Low risks include technology changes or the unavailability of software solutions intended to meet the
user’s needs.

Medium risks include possible conflicts with internal/external customer requirements. If this situation
occurs, compromises will be made wherever possible with executive leadership agreeing to make the
final decision if a compromise is unable to be reached. Also identified as medium risk is the possibility of
competing priorities for development staff as the excitement of web-based technology proliferates
throughout the organization. Ideally, this risk would be mitigated through an IT Governance structure.
However, it is not currently in existence at the Children’s Board, which speaks to organizational
readiness. At this time, if competing priorities exist, the matter is escalated to the COO and resolved at
the Executive Leadership level.

High risks include executive management’s lack of patience for the proper development process which
includes user requirements gathering, development, developer testing, user acceptance phase,



production implementation. Also included in high risks are CBHC staff reassignments or changes in user
functions or requirements once development of that component is underway.

Possible hurdles include the users’ inability or unwillingness to test features as they are developed. This
hurdle will hopefully be mitigated with a timed acceptance period combined with a pre-approved
escalation process that will allow development and acceptance to continue.

These threats can be managed through continuous communications and quality assurance between the
internal/external customers, the MIS team, and the executive leadership at the Children’s Board.



Segment 4: Reflection and Discussion

Success Factors
Factors that influence the success of our work (custom designed application) would be:

o Useful features/capabilities for the end user
o User friendliness of the application
o Ease of maintenance
o Data reliability
o Cost effectiveness for the organization
o Organizational support
o Executive leadership support

Reflection/Lessons Learned
Others can learn by the mistakes we’ve made (organizationally & departmentally) early on in the
development of our application. They include:

Mistake Impact on Project Recommendation
Lack of clearly defined scope of Could never determine what Do not begin a project of this
service “done” meant. Inability to phase magnitude without a clear
application development (Project definition of what features
Charter remains unsigned) are/are not included in the
project
Inexperienced developer Delays in development due to re- Hire an experienced developer
work or inferior products (check credentials and
references)

No formalized change control Competiveness among users for Institute a change control
process or system the implementation of features or council with user and executive
modifications leadership representation (keep
it manageable, 5-7 people max.)
No clear leadership (driver) or Lack of organizational ownership Obtain leadership buy-in via a
governance system to guide and commitment project sponsor, use in
development & prioritization of cooperation with council to
modifications or enhancements keep leadership informed and
participatory
Inexperienced project manager Communications suffered, features Strong project management will
(no project management training) not delivered to spec., users bad ensure good communication
mouthed project, Lack of and leadership
communications with executive
leaders and users on project status
Lack of or little organizational Becomes solely an IT project, users Keep users involved
buy-in or executive level support unable or unwilling to dedicate
resources necessary to
test/implement new features



The combination of all these mistakes lead to a continued bad reputation for the application, some
rightfully deserved. However, none contributed more than the last two bullets, an inexperienced
project manager and the lack of executive leadership support. After the executive decision was made to
scrap the initial application, which required extensive pleading on my part, organizational leaders finally
allowed the IT department to take control of the development process and hire a professional
developer.

Two years into the re-write process, numeroususers’ group discussions were held with medium to high
satisfaction ratings regarding the application’s functionality. However, executive leadership (the CEO
and COO) were still unconvinced of cscForce’s feasibility. IT, in partnership with Fiscal, Program
Administration, Program Supportand Research band together to actively promote the application’s
features and capacity. The group saw this as an opportunity to positively communicate the applications
features and usability. In response, reports were generated, quick updates were made and cosmetic
changes were done to update the software application’s appearance and basic functionality. Within two
weeks, a cross departmental representation made a formal presentation to the Executive Leadership
team to tout the application’s usefulness and versatility. It was an overwhelming success and at this
writing the project currently has agreen light to proceed with its development as planned.

Potential Hindrances/Obstacles of Others on Implementation
No hindrances/obstacles are known at this time other than the requirement for Sage MIP
accountspayable software.

Other Collaborative Governance Opportunities
Our application has the potential to be used not only at other Children’s Services Councils (CSCs)
throughout the state, but other not-for-profits, funders or governmental agencies that are interested in
measuring impact with their dollars.



Attachment A – Project Charter
Form Instructions:Bring together a group of vested stakeholders such as other units within the organization,
consultants, customers or sponsors and other industry groups to answer the bulleted statements in the space
provided. Use “N/A” for statements that do not apply and delete extra space as you go. As we start this process it
might be helpful to document the length of time it takes to develop the charter and the number of people involved.
(10:23 am -) Slake, Amy, Jennifer

Brief Description/Challenge Statement:
To eliminate multiple data entry required by CBHC Staff and its providers/applicants and streamline the
process by which the CBHC awards its program/service dollars (from application to award to contract
management).

Driver Not Flexible Somewhat Flexible Most Flexible
Resources Cannot be exceeded Willing to exceed original budget by a small Willing to exceed original budget estimates if necessary
amount, only if necessary
Schedule Cannot be exceeded Willing to exceed original schedule by a small Willing to exceed original schedule estimates if necessary
amount, only if necessary
Scope Cannot be exceeded Willing to expand/reduce original requirements Willing to exceed original requirements, without compromising
somewhat, without compromising quality quality, if necessary.

Business Justification:

cscForce would allow CBHC to easily identify who in the community was receiving CBHC funded services
and the impact of those services.

How does this project align to the 2012 Plan & what are the internal
competencies to move this project forward?
Competency

High

Low

Low High
2012 Plan Alignment
Major Components/Scope Boundaries:

cscForce will demonstrate the CBHC’s philosophical approach of Empowerment Evaluation
Universal Application
Data Collection
Contract Management
Executive Reporting
cscForce will integrate the functions of Contract Manager software, Universal Application, DemoGeo,
and MIPS (accounting systems into an integrated user friendly data collection system to increase
efficiency and access to data (i.e. web-based systems) by CBHC staff and its provider community.
NOT in cscForce Phase #1
o Reimbursement Request Form
o Budget Modification Form
o User Administrator Functionality
o Narrative reporting on EE matrix outcome level
o Ability to measure & calculate system (e.g. collaborative) and product deliverable outcomes
o Digital signature approval on contract/budget/ee matrix levels



Project Objectives/Milestones: (SMART: Specific, Measurable, Agreed to , Realistic and Time-
Bound)

Contracts payable will only be entered in one system by June 2008.
Online Universal Application by 2004.
Preliminary contract documents (scope, EE Matrix, budget) are harvested through the electronic
Universal Application by June 2008.
Electronic storage and easy access to all “program/service dollars” contract and related
documentation by June 2008.
A process to calculate and measure individual client level programmatic outcomes by June 2008.
An automated reporting function that describes individuals served, programmatic achievements and
progress towards the CBHC Strategic Plan by June 2008.

Project Organization & Key Resources:

The key members of the project organization are:

Sponsors (the person who will approve the project & scope changes):Don Dixon, COO
Project Manager (the person assigned by the Sponsor to achieve the project objectives): Jennifer
Fisch, PMP
Project Manager Back-Up: Angie Young
Project Stakeholders (Persons that are actively involved in the project): Fiscal, Research Team,
Program Support (Contract Managers),
Other Team Members/Consults: (Persons who may be involved with the Project from time to time,
e.g. Subject Matter Experts (SME), Vendors, End-Users, etc.): Sandy Terminey, Tonia Williams,
Tracy Hall, Wendy Watson, Slake Counts, Amy Haile, Christine Caffray-Kreines, Kathy Maes, Bobbie
Davis, Irene Hill, Mike Lawless (Vendor)
Budget:(Identify the expected budget required for project)

FY2003 - $ 26,040
FY2004 - $ 94,720
FY2005 - $ 31,695
FY2006 - $105,000
FY2007 - $107,300
FY2008 - $ 60,000
FY2009 - $95,948 (in-house)
FY2010 - TBD
Defining Constraints & Assumptions:

An organizational culture that in an attempt to be inclusive and democratic can cause significant
delays throughout the planning process and changes to expectations throughout the design and
implementation.
Heavily dependent outside competency and skills for development.
Organizational table of organization changes has created confusion on project direction.
Dedication of human resource allocation with competing priorities
Existing procedures to govern purchasing of services and supplies, e.g. computer consulting, capital
purchases.
CBHC has flexibility with regards to its funding and project deadlines.
Controlling for scope creep will be critical for success and historically is a known issue.
Multiple views and/or contradictions or requests outside of this phase impede progress
HIPPA Requirements



Known Risks (Positive and Negative):

List known risks or those already identified (risk analysis and response planning will be documented
separately.)
Identify the initial risk assessment

Change in vendor for software development
CBHC Staff re-allocation/One person project
Loss of or impacts to Funding
Change in technology for web-based software

Qualitative Risk Analysis: What is the likelihood of an event occurring (high, medium, low) and what is the effect (Impact)
that it will have on the cost, schedule or performance if it happens?
High
Probability of Risk

Medium

Low

Low Medium High

Potential Impact of Risk

Other Comments:

Commitment:

_________________________________ Date:_________________
Project Sponsor



Attachment B –Desired Features, Functionality, Technologies
Following is a list Feature / Functionality items desired by interviewed staff at CBHC. This is a starting
point as production and hands-on effort will drive creative synergies in the design process.

Provide core demographics on who the CBHC is serving.
Ability to store source data onsite, or utilize community data warehouse / repository
Eliminate paper reporting and re-keying of data by enabling the Providers to feed data through
Internet web based interface – either with direct key or upload / download process.
Provide Program support “staging area” for data approval and commitment.
Make program outcomes quantifiable and integrated into the data gathering and reporting
functions.
Allow outcomes to be fed by demographic data.
Increase the frequency of data collection from providers.
Enable online budget to actual reporting.
Enable online reimbursement request.
Align fiscal transactions to MIP database programmatically.
Enable automatic fiscal deposit process.
Provide data import functionality to allow periodic data feeds from providers with existing
populated data systems, eliminating the re-keying of data for CBHC.
Provide basic client tracking functions for smaller providers similar to what DemoGeo provides
currently.
Provide ability to report against any level of granularity from client to CSC.
Consider including all contract types in new system using EE driven design.

Technology considerations:

Web Based front-end to ensure ubiquitous access, performance, and manageability.
Tier-3 Architecture to ensure performance and scalability.
Canned & Ad-hoc reporting environments.
Sustainable development environment allowing long-term enhancement and operational
support by existing technical staff.
Dynamic design environment.
Electronic signature functionality.



Attachment C – FY2009 Development Plan
Title hrs customer status Comments
Continuation 09 175 Program Admin 7 in use - incorporate recently added areas into
enhancements renewal function
- attachment 5s for subcontractors
- still need to add New budget option for subs
- disable previous FY budget columns
- internal process routing checklist
- "submit" button added with auto functions
- expedite renewal feature interface
- enhancements to contracts list display
- automatic user access to renewed contracts
- various minor tweaks
Demographics changes - 97 Research 6 in testing (customer) CURRENTLY BEING TESTED BY MIS
participant entry logic Includes:EncryptionSSN/UID logic EDI and
formsIndividual entry interface and logic Total
Number Served logic
Demographics - 12 Research 6 in testing (customer)
Evaluation logic
Demographics changes - 71 Research 6 in testing (customer) Includes:
logic formulas and new formula-creation mechanism to expand
performance evaluation formula capabilities
Reimbursements 25 Program Admin 5 installed (MIS)
Demographics changes - 48 Research 4 in development (MIS) Addresses:Deactivated Outcomes / moving
participant reassignment participantsParticipants continuing to next FY
Demographics changes - 28 Research 4 in development (MIS) - change requests
other - "approved by research" indicator- service
level dashboards
Demographics Pilot MIS; Research; PCs 4 in development (MIS) Pilot participants have been identified. A few
kinks need to be ironed out with the system to
begin the Pilot by late June / early July.
Incorporation of third- all users 4 in development (MIS) Includes DevExpress grids applied to various
party interface/usability list displays throughout the application.



enhancements

Archive contract state 40 Program Admin 3 processing requirements (MIS)
Budget Modifications 40 Program Admin 3 processing requirements (MIS)
(amendments)
Independent Contractor 32 Program Admin 3 processing requirements (MIS)
Contracts
Matrix modifications 40 Program Support 3 processing requirements (MIS)
(amendments)
Replace ActivePDF with MIS 3 processing requirements (MIS) To address problems we have with the current
another product Print functionality
Replace CuteEditor with MIS 3 processing requirements (MIS) To address problems with cross-application
another product text formatting.
Email distribution feature CBHC 2 researching requirements (customer) Provides the ability to auto-feed into Exchange
provider contacts' emails (agency heads, fiscal
contacts, programmatic contacts and EE
matrix officials)
Digital signatures Program Admin 2 researching requirements (customer)
Reports for PAT Program Admin 2 researching requirements (customer) -- due to addition of onsite development staff
we may only produce ad hoc reports rather
than create modules
Reporting interface CBHC 1 request accepted
Tracking - Phase 3 Program Admin 1 request accepted This alerts PAT to upcoming deadlines.
(Annual Ticklers)
Tracking - Phase 4 Program Admin 1 request accepted
(Contact Record / Site
Visits)
Tracking - Phase 5 Program Admin 1 request accepted
(Program Review)
System administration MIS 1 request accepted Includes User Management, Agency
enhancements Management, auditing, better error
transaction reporting etc.



Attachment D –CCIO Material Engagement
Module I – Leading from the Before the Project After the Project
Inside Out
Your Role as a Public Technology Knew nothing about the League League of Cities is huge resource
Leader of Cities for knowledge and assistance
Growing Your Leadership Functioned more as a manager Vision, SMART goals and
Capacity than a leader purposeful attempts to function
as a leader
Presentations That Succeed Lack of confidence in speaking Good tips for both speaking &
presentations
Leading from the Inside Out Lack of understanding of Better understanding of listening
leadership and listening techniques, greater comfort with
techniques silence while speaking
Leadership, Values and Heart Ignorance of understanding Better understanding of varying
personality differences and personalities
personal drive
Module II – Understanding the Before the Project After the Project
Enterprise
Understanding Local Unaware of charters, home rule Better awareness of government
Government typical county structure structure and special taxing
districts
Alternative Funding Solutions Didn’t think about technology Will inquire about technology
grants in private industry for our grants for providers
providers
Negotiation and Procurement Aware of general procurement No new knowledge
procedure
Project Leadership with an Currently Project Management Will provider great leadership in
Enterprise Focus Professional certified current & future projects
Module III – Leading to Results Before the Project After the Project
The Legal Environment of IT Took two previous courses in FL Wow, the best! RMLO is critical
Management Records Management function within government
Human Resources and Ethical Ignorant of labor laws dealing Also great! More aware of
Issues with hourly personnel and restrictions on hourly personnel
exemptions
Information Technology as a Viewed client identical. Basic View IT more of a service model.
Customer Service Business understanding IT governance Looking to implement IT
governance in the org.
Module IV – Leading a World of Before the Project After the Project
Change
IT Talent Management Understood recruiting, retaining No new knowledge
practices
Creating a Business Thinking Unaware of other municipalities Wow, great. Very impressive
Culture practicing outcome based view government more in a
initiates business mindset
Your Role as CIO Knew basic info. on value of Great. Will concentrate on
certification and CIO positioning promoting IT visibility and
strategic positioning.



Emerging Trends Limited new technology &social Wealth of information and
network knowledge looking to collaborate locally in
the County
Web 2.0/Social Networking Limited knowledge of social Becoming more involved in
networking social networking regarding
meeting the needs of
government


CCIO Capstone - Best Practices

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to CCIO Capstone - Best Practices

Similar to CCIO Capstone - Best Practices (20)

CCIO Capstone - Best Practices