DATE



|Project Governance |

|Project Name |Retirement Information Online (RIO) Enhancement |

|Date |01/25/2017 |

|Lead Agency |Public Employees Retirement Association of NM |

|Other Agencies |None |

|Executive Sponsor |Greg Trujillo |

|Agency Head |Wayne Propst |

|Agency CIO/IT Lead |Greg Portillos |

|Project Manager |Greg Portillos |

|Project Abstract (Provide a brief description and purpose for this project) |

|In FY15 PERA utilized a pension administration vendor (Linea) with extensive knowledge in state wide pension administration system |

|implementations and assessments to review the Retirement Information Online (RIO) system. Linea has determined that the RIO system is |

|meeting the requirements based on PERA rules and can be enhanced, rather than replacing the system, which would cost between 13.5 million |

|to 20 million. Linea has recommended a three pronged approach that consists of making enhancements to the RIO system, addressing data |

|integrity issues and improving business processes. In FY17 PERA received a C2 request for 4200.0 to enhance the mission critical RIO |

|system. |

|New functionality has been implemented in jClarety which is the framework that RIO is based on. Since RIO is ten years old and major |

|functionality has not been implemented, PERA will review and implement this new functionality. The business processes that are in place |

|have not had any major improvements since implementation. PERA will consult with a pension administration system consultant Linea that has |

|extensive experience and knowledge with business process improvement and design a plan to modernize and improve required processes. Some |

|data issues exist from the original conversion and as a result of edits not being enforced for employers reporting member contributions. |

|PERA will work with a data consulting firm that has extensive experience in pension administration systems data to assess and |

|systematically fix data based on business rules. |

|The objectives for these enhancements will be to implement new functionality based on the new technology, implement business processes |

|improvements that will enhance data integrity, and review data and systematically fix data based on business rules. All three components |

|will greatly improve customer service. |

|Planned Start Date |September 5, 2016 |Planned End Date |August 13, 2018 |

|Amount Requested this Certification |$ 2,042,300 |

|Amount Previously Certified |$ 2,157,700 |

|Remaining Appropriation not Certified |$ 0 |

|Total Appropriated Amount |$ 4,200,000 |

|Certification History (Include any previous project or phase certifications and this request) |

|Date |Amount |Funding Source(s) (use specific citations to laws, grants, etc.) |

|7//27/16 – Initiation & |$ 2,157,700 |Laws 2016, CH 11, Section 7(11) |

|Planning | | |

|1/11/17 – Implementation|$2,042,300 |Laws 2016, CH 11, Section 7(11) |

|Phase (This request) | | |

|Total: |$4,200,000 | |

|Appropriation History (Include all Funding sources, e.g. Federal, State, County, Municipal laws or grants) |

|Fiscal Year |Amount |Funding Source |

|FY17 |$4,200,000 |Laws 2016, CH 11, Section 7(11) |

| | | |

|Proposed Major Deliverable Schedule and Performance Measure |

|Major Project Deliverable and Performance Measure |Budget |Due Date |Project Phase |

|Project Management |850,000 |06/30/2018 |Planning |

|SHARE System Analysis |0 |12/01/2016 |Implementation |

|Business Process Improvement |350,000 |07/01/2017 |Implementation |

|Data Cleansing and Data Governance |831,300 |04/01/2018 |Implementation |

|Independent Validation & Verification |97,500 |06/30/2018 |Implementation |

|Customer Relationship Management Software |990,000 |06/30/2108 |Implementation |

|User Interface HTML5 Struts 2.3 |914,210 |02/15/2017 |Implementation |

|Total: |4,033,010 | | |

|Budget |

|Comments: |

| |Description |FYxx & Prior |FY17 |FY18 |FYxx |Total |

|Staff - Internal | | | | | | |

|Consulting Services|Project Management, BPI| |584,960 |615,040 | |1,200,000 |

| |Data Cleansing Data | | | | | |

| |Governance, | | | | | |

| |IV&V | |592,300 |239,000 | |831,300 |

| |CRM | | | | | |

| |UI Upgrade | | | | | |

| | | |54,000 |43500 | |97,500 |

| | | | |990,000 | |990,000 |

| | | | |914,210 | |914,210 |

|Hardware | | | | | | |

| Software | | | | | | |

|Total | | |1,231,260 |2,801,750 | |4,033,010 |

|IT System Analysis (On this document, or as an attachment, provide a summary description of the technical architecture) |

| Software Architecture |

|The RIO system utilizes a three tier architecture with a presentation layer, application layer and data access layer. The presentation |

|layer is Microsoft Internet Information Server and the application layer is IBM Websphere with java code, and the data access layer is |

|Microsoft SQL server for both data and document images. |

|Hardware Architectures |

|The RIO system utilizes blade servers in a chassis connected with fiber channel to a storage area network (SAN). Two chassis with blade |

|servers and a SAN are located in the PERA Santa Fe data center and one chassis with blade servers and a SAN is located in the Albuquerque |

|Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity (DR/BC) data center. |

|This architecture was presented to and approved by the Technical Architecture Review Committee on January 12, 2017. |

|Independent Verification & Validation (Include Status of IV & V Process) |

| |

|FusionSTO was selected as an IV&V vendor and they have been submitting IV&V reports to the PERA Executive Director and DoIT EPMO. |

|FusionSTO has provided an overall status as yellow due to the fact that PERA has not requested the additional funds for certification. |

|Also some documentation is missing from the repository and these need to be kept up to date. |

|Significant Risks and Mitigation Strategy |

|Risk 1: Hewlett Packard ENTERPRISE (HPE) merger with CSC could cause a change in HPE staffing including their commitment to the pension |

|administration system business. |

|Mitigation 1: Commitment with HPE on long term agreement to complete project. |

|Risk 2: Customer Relationship Management software has not been used in the pension administration system implementations. |

|Mitigation 2: Start with one workflow and confirm the software and workflow will work before attempting the overall CRM system. |

|Interoperability (Describe If/how this project interfaces with existing systems/Applications) |

|The RIO System interfaces will not be changing. |

| |

|Transition to Operations: (Describe agency plan to migrate project solution to production. include agency plans to fund and maintain this |

|project after deployment. ) |

|PERA IT staff will test the RIO system within the test environment. If IT discovers any problems, HPE and IT will work together to resolve|

|the issue. Once the system is running in the test environment, PERA staff will test the application to ensure the functionality. If PERA |

|staff encounters problems with the system, the problem will be reported to PERA IT. If the problem is with the PERA environment, PERA IT |

|will resolve the problem internally and if need be enlist HPE’s assistance. If the problem that PERA staff finds is in the business code, |

|then an incident report will be raised and HP will work on resolving the problem. PERA IT does not have access to the code, so business |

|code problems need to be addressed by HP. Once the test system has received user acceptance, work will begin in the production environment|

|and this same process will be repeated for the migration to production. PERA staff will also review all documentation prior to project |

|completion. |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download