Forensic IT System Governance Update September 9 2016
Forensic IT System Governance Update September 9, 2016
Agenda • Charter – Review of Key Elements • Project Status • Next Steps • Questions
Review Charter Key Elements
Charter – Review of Key Elements • What’s the point? • Authorize initiative & use of resources • Align on objectives, process • Achieve clarity • Establish approval structure
Project Principles • Deliver value to the Administration a. s. a. p. • Meet requirements in phases of releases, based on Governance prioritization • Create efficiency by: • • Partnering with the courts Improving workflows • Adjust and adapt to changing regulatory or legislative landscape • Example: the August 15, 2016 modified court order • Inform and engage with Governance members re: • • • Status updates Risks & issues – impact, mediation, responsibility and disposition Pending decisions with analysis • Demonstrate accountability • Comply with Project Management Institute (PMI) best practices, DSHS Enterprise Technology (ET) and state OCIO project requirements • Employ & model processes / tools to “raise the bar” for BHA IT • Resulting in a well documented, maintainable system
Quality Assurance Framework Includes: • Project Management • • Governance Board • • Provide Oversight Guidance for Key Decisions Membership to include Key Stakeholders Technical Design Reviews • • Establish & Monitor Project Schedule Risk Management Evaluate Deliverables Reporting Coordination with External Oversight Chair Governance Board Formal BHA IT Design DSHS Enterprise Technology Washington Technology Review Requirements Traceability Matrix • • Ensures the Requirements are addressed in every phase from Preliminary Design through Testing Updated throughout the project Reviewed with court monitor February 29, 2016
System Objectives • Provide a single, reliable database and system covering all interactions with forensic defendants from court order • • Court orders for Mental Competency Evaluation Court orders for Competency Restoration Treatment Adjudications of NGRI Diversion to treatment services in lieu of adjudication • Track all court orders with aging (# of days since signed) • Support electronic document transmission of: • • • Court orders and modifications (entry or direct from AOC system) Discovery documents Competency evaluations • Document all diversions once notified by community provider • Support the full continuum of care through interfaces with the Cerner EHR and BHDS. • Uniquely identify individual defendants & provide forensic history
System Objectives, cont. • Satisfy BHA management and operational reporting needs • Satisfy reporting requirements of the court; i. e. , Trueblood • Current Monthly report data • “Good cause extension” data • Convert and populate selected data from legacy application(s) • Retire FES and MILO Q: Do we include Evaluator Productivity measurements?
Scope Included: • Forensic database including all elements contained in the Data Dictionary, with the exception of calculated values. • Electronic processes to enter and update information from: • • • Courts Evaluators Schedulers (if different from evaluators) Alternate restoration sites Diversion • User-friendly g. u. i. for defendant historical look-up Objectives • Determines Scope Boundaries Requirements • Workflow • Data Elements • Standardized management and operational reports • Report data for monthly Trueblood report Design • Interface between Forensic System and Cerner EHR • Interface between Forensic System and BHDS • Data conversion and pre-population from FES (and MILO? ) – selected elements • Training materials and conduct of training
Updated since presented to the court
Scope Excluded • Treatment information from state hospital stays – stored in Cerner • Treatment information from community treatment – stored in BHDS • Single Bed Cert – not Forensic, but a request came to include Later Phase • Creation of Ad Hoc Reporting Store for: • • Cross-system full defendant / patient / client tracking Analysis of efficacy of various treatment modalities, locations, etc. (Analysis to be performed by ODSE. )
Assumptions • All Forensic Evaluators will utilize laptops in field for: • • • Access to work queue, documents, defendant history Preparation and submission of competency evaluations (opinions) Direct entry into system • If Dragon s/w is used, deploy before Forensic System implementation • Unique identification of defendant will be performed uniformly; workflow and application of algorithm (hospitals, contracted sites, and diversion) Dependencies • Direct electronic feed of court orders and modifications from the courts depend on: • • Approval to interface Judicial Information System (JIS) from AOC Availability of required elements in JIS feed Participation by individual court jurisdictions – Superior courts on track for 1 year out Timely data entry by various courts or OFMHS • Data accuracy at any point in time depends on timely input by stakeholders (courts, evaluators, etc. )
Governance membership • Carla Reyes, Executive Sponsor • Victoria Roberts • Tom Kinlen • Wendi Gunther • Can Du • Sara Tripp, Chair • Paul Davis Thank you for your commitment to our success!
Key Governance Decisions • Project Principles • Success Criteria • Scope Boundaries • • Success In and Out Requirements Prioritization • Must vs. Nice • Potential Phasing • Major Workflow Changes • Staffing Escalations / Remediation • Go / No Go Criteria Decisions Scope Questions Expectation: 1 week for document / decision review
Proposed Project Staffing Role Project Management Sara Tripp (20%) Paul Davis (60%) Business Analyst Michael Davis (5 – 20%) Technical Development Team Vacant HQ Web Developer (100%) – Trueblood funding Vacant Lead Developer (100%) – Trueblood funding WSH developer tbd (40 – 50%) Richard Montes, Current System SME (10%) Jerry Britcher, Architectural Oversight (10%) Subject Matter Experts Barry Ward (10%) Randall Strandquist (10%) Al Bouvier (10%) OFMHS others? Testing Team Al Bouvier (++10%) Clint Catron (10%) Michael Davis Ingrid Lewis (5%) Tim Hunter (5%) Theresa Becker (10%) Seth Greenfest (15%) Participation %’s vary dependent on phase.
R. A. C. I. Responsible Accountable Consult Inform Determine Scope Sara / Paul Sara OFMHS, DSE, Governance Court Monitor, ET, OCIO Prioritize Requirements Draft – Paul / Sara Governance Approval OFMHS & DSE SMEs & Techs Full Project Team Perform User Acceptance Tests Work Group of SMEs & Business Analysts Paul Design Technical Solution Tech Team Paul Jerry Britcher ET Satisfy Technical Design Review Tech Team Jerry ET & Wa. Tech Governance (Results) Maintain Data Dictionary Michael Paul Work Group of SMEs & Business Analysts OFMHS, DSE, Governance, Tech Team Maintain RTM Michael Paul Tech Team & Testing Team Sara Prepare External Communications Sara / Michael / Paul Sara Carla Governance Prepare & Chair Governance meetings Sara / Paul Sara Paul, Tech Team, Business Analysts Governance Prepare Status Reports & update Share. Point Paul / Michael Sara Tech Team, SMEs Governance Provide “eyes and ears” to Project Team – alert new Forensic requirements Tom / Tim / Barry / Ingrid Tom Project Managers & BA Governance (Results)
Project Status
Proposed Status Reporting • Bi-weekly status report • • • Monthly Governance Meeting • • • Paul to send out To Governance and full project team Page 1 as sample shows Page 2 filtered from MS Project May be weekly in later phases Update to timeline Key changes or obstacles Required decisions Share. Point repository • All Project status reports, Governance PPTs • Project documents – Requirements, RTM, MS Project plan, Risk Assessment, etc. • • Governance and full team access Others? Trueblood court monitor report updates
Forensic System Status • Provided to Trueblood Court Monitor • • • Initiated Contact with AOC • • Requirements Document with original DD Power. Point Briefing – February 29 Gap Analysis between existing systems and requirements – March 7 Timeline and Project Activities – March 7 Approval in theory for courts to send data to DSHS BHA Working through the details of what may be sent Requires Design Security Review with AOC & ET CISOs Restarted Project • Reviews held with OFMHS and ODSE • • • New Data Dictionary • • Generated additional requirements Raised privacy / legality concerns re: keeping defendant data if not found guilty Focused on future, not cross-walk to past systems Added elements for Diversion, Contracted Restoration, Contested Competency Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) & granular expansion begun Diversion Workflow validated
Current Challenges • System - Closing the Loop • Outcome of court proceedings • • • Give opinion as to competency, but courts rule When charges are dropped Response to Good Cause extension requests Location of defendant when in jail / community Notification of defendants’ diversion Technical Project Staffing • Business Analyst up to speed; time constrained • • Continued BHDS work Upcoming paternity leave Mitigation: Sara / Paul temporarily covering Lead Developer vacancy • • Advanced. Net skills required Mitigations: • • Alter Data Architect position – repost HQ position in Class & Comp Posting WSH position Contract with Wa. Tech or other external sources Web Developer vacancy • Mitigations: • • Recruitment initiated for HQ – RIF candidate referred Checking WSH availability (SIA & EHR compete) Later: Determine the extent of data conversion effort
Outstanding Questions • Evaluator Scheduling – Centralize or continue as is? • • • Evaluator Productivity – Will tracking / evaluating productivity be included in scope? • • Concern raised by evaluators Privacy – Legal constraints on maintaining data on individuals charged with crimes • • Currently they self schedule from queue Potential efficiency gains Assignment: Analyze and provide Contrast Grid to Governance If not convicted? Record retention requirements? Federal standards? Court Order uniformity – Will uniform court orders will be employed?
Next Steps
Upcoming (this month) • Plan • Redo project plan through Design Phase with firm dates • Update project plan Development Phase tied to: • Recruitment milestone & • Approval by DSHS ET & OCIO Provide Governance with RTM for prioritization • • Design • Conduct Use Case sessions with SMEs • Diagram / validate workflows • Complete Entity Relationship Diagrams • External Approvals • Project risk level assessment (0 – 3)– DSHS ET at least a 2 • OCIO consultant assignment – requested KPR • External oversight level determined • Finalize Technical Team resources Goal: Ready for DEV
Questions
- Slides: 25