State of Washington Administrative Office of the Courts Draft 120 Day Action Plan Presentation

1. State of Washington Administrative Office of the Courts Draft 120 Day Action Plan Presentation Engagement: 221051040 October 13, 2005

2. Purpose • The purpose of this presentation is to: • Review the JIS Migration Project Assessment Findings and Recommendations. • Present a Draft 120 Day Action Plan that Addresses the Assessment Findings. • Vet the Action Plan and Incorporate Recommendations. • Agree on Next Steps.

3. JIS Migration Project Risk and Implementation ReadinessAssessment Focus Areas 29 Areas were Assessed and Evaluated against Industry Best Practices

4. Project Risk and Implementation Readiness AssessmentAssessment Methodology • Rating — Gartner’s risk and implementation assessment rating is based upon Project Management Institute’s (PMI) standards. To highlight potential risks to the project for each project management knowledge area, Gartner uses a “red light/yellow light/green light/blue light” reporting strategy as documented below: • “Blue Light” (Exceeding Project Schedule and Quality Standards): The approach exceeds “Best Practices” project standards. The approach has enhanced system delivery success. • “Green Light” (Acceptable to Excellent, i.e., “Low Risk”): The approach meets or exceeds solid project management and systems development standards. To receive this ranking, the approach must present no significant risks to the project. • “Yellow Light” (Caution, i.e., “Medium Risk”): The approach is not clearly defined, and/or presents a risk to the project. Recommendations for risk areas assigned this rating are important to ensure optimal project operation. • “Red Light” (Risk Alert, i.e., “High Risk”): The approach presents serious risks to the project and requires immediate attention. Recommendations for risk areas assigned this rating are essential for mitigating project risk. • Recommendations — Gartner’s recommendations for improvement and risk mitigation.

5. JIS Migration ProjetOverall Risk and Readiness Assessment Ratings • Overall the project is rated RED – High Risk. • There were 13 Red – High Risk areas identified. • There were 16 Yellow– Medium Risk areas identified. • There were no Green – Low Risk areas identified. • There were no areas Blue – Exceeding Project Schedule and Quality Standards identified. JIS Migration Project Assessment Focus Area Summary Overall Project Budget and Schedule Risk Operational Risk Organizational Risk External Risk Business Benefit Risk

6. JIS Migration ProjectOverall Risk and Readiness Assessment Findings Rationale • Overall the Project is Rated RED – High Risk. • Rationale for the rating includes: • There is no clear vision (charter), case for action or project plan in place (and signed off by key stakeholders) that defines the business benefits (in terms of the functionality to be delivered to the specific court levels, the technology improvements to be gained or the metrics by which to measure the system’s success to be achieved through business functionality delivered or process improvement to be provided) by the JIS Migration Project. • AOC does not have a fully fleshed-out architecture for the proposed JIS system, making it difficult to assess overall system complexity, resource requirements (for development as well as ongoing support), project schedule impacts (development and implementation), as well as overall budget requirements. • AOC project management and software development processes and methodologies (although improving in some areas) are not mature and lack the depth needed to ensure the success of such a complex undertaking as the new JIS. • Requirements capture, assessment, management and tracking processes need to be improved significantly. • Testing and systems requirements validation processes need to be improved. • Staff training and awareness of key software development and testing tools to be used on the project is lacking.

7. JIS Migration ProjectOverall Risk and Readiness Assessment Findings Rationale (cont) • Rationale for the rating (cont): • Overall project governance needs to be strengthened at all levels. • The JISC is encouraged to be more proactive and a driving force around: • Defining high-level business requirements. • Establishing the value of business benefits expected. • Prioritizing the functionality to be delivered to the various court levels (phasing). • Requiring budget and tracking cost for the individual solution components. • Requiring a linkage between business benefit value received and the cost for each solution component. • In addition, the JISC needs to facilitate and drive consensus among the various courts, counties and agencies involved in the project. • AOC management needs to take a more “hands on role” in regularly assessing project status, helping to address key issues, providing mentorship and clearly articulating the vision and progress the project is making. • At the “grass-roots level” it is not clear what the new JIS encompasses either from a technology standpoint or business value to be delivered. The team lacks direction and focus.

8. JIS Migration ProjectOverall Risk and Readiness Assessment Findings Rationale (cont) • Rationale for the rating (cont): • Critical resources needed for the project are either not available, or do not have the necessary experience and skill level required, including: • Program Management • System and Application Architect • Database Architect • Systems Security Architect • The courts (due to business workload and resource constraints) are hard pressed to provide the needed resources to support the project, and this situation appears unlikely to change. The courts will need to provide support in a variety of critical areas on the project including: • Requirements definition and review (system functionality, business value metrics, delivery priority, etc.). • In process project reviews and the assessment of key deliverables. • User Acceptance Testing. • Turn Over to Production Planning. • Post Implementation Assessment and Support.

9. JIS Migration Project AssessmentThe Bottom Line • There are unmet business needs within the court system. • The business problems and opportunities that resulted in the original JIS Migration Project represent real business needs. • Some of the current initiatives and solutions would meet these defined needs if they could be executed successfully. • However, no “business case” can be articulated for the entirety of the JIS Migration Plan, which is a strategy and is comprised of multiple IT initiatives that require separate and distinct justifications (e.g., case management, calendaring, e-Citation, public e-Access, data exchange). • While AOC has made progress towards an enterprise JIS, Gartner’s assessment indicates that the program risk of failure is high. • It is not clear if AOC will be able to deliver a finished project within the specified timeframes and within the budget. • Issues associated with definition of scope, prioritization, and execution of those initiatives have introduced risk to project success and full benefit realization of the JIS Migration Project. • The strategy of building an enterprise system is not consistent with similar initiatives other states. • The need for a single enterprise solution to solve the problems of separate courts may not be feasible and would require a very strong governance, which is not present today.

10. Proposed Alternatives A Process to Bridge the Gaps and Reduce Risks • In defining the alternatives, Gartner believes that AOC needs to focus its activities on Strategy first and then Execution: • Strategy Alternatives • Alternative I: Continue As Is But Improve Execution • Alternative II: Reconsider Strategy and Approach • Execution Alternatives • Alternative A: Re-Architect / Re-Host the Legacy JIS • Alternative B: Acquire Best-of-Breed Solutions and Integrate • Alternative C: Initially Focus on Data Exchange*, Then Best-of-Breed *Note: The Data Exchange referenced in this alternative includes a broader scope than the existing JIS Data Exchange initiative. Gartner’s Recommendations are highlighted in Blue

11. Recommended Strategy Alternative Alternative II: Reconsider Strategy and Approach • Reconsider Strategy and Approach • This alternative consists of the following key actions: • Applications Development • Consider pausing all discretionary applications development and enhancement activities. Do not initiate any new applications development or major enhancement activities until the subsequent actions have been completed. • Governance • Take aggressive action to plan for the new JIS by strengthening the governance processes that will foster consensus building and drive accountability: • JISC: Project Prioritization, Business Case Approval, Consensus Building, Expectation Management, Executive Oversight. • AOC: Project Assessment and Corrective Action Reviews, Delivery Assurance. • All: Document and track the measurable business value to be provided through each release to drive accountability. • Gain consensus from all key stakeholders on the business objectives and benefits for the system. • Functionality to be delivered (and its phasing). • Data exchange capability and scope. • Organizational Role • Determine the role that the AOC will fulfill in the delivery of solutions to the courts: • Full Service Provider • Applications Developer • Systems Integrator • Internal Service Company (ISCo)

12. Recommended Strategy Alternative (cont)Alternative II: Reconsider Strategy and Approach • Key actions (cont) • Business Needs and Value of Business Benefits • Define the success metrics and business value that the new system(s) will bring to the courts and State agencies. • Vet the business case with all key stakeholders and incorporate feedback. • Based on the above, prioritize the development and delivery of JIS functionality based on business needs and the value of the benefits to be delivered. Use this as the roadmap for the development of a fully fleshed-out JIS solution architecture and delivery strategy. • Finally, document the delivery strategy and measurable business and operational improvement metrics into an overall project vision and charter to guide the project, set priorities, and focus delivery activities. • Overall Solution Architecture of the new JIS • Define and develop a fully fleshed-out solution architecture and detailed development and implementation plan for the new JIS. • Assess recent systems development successes and how they should be integrated into the overall JIS solution architecture (e.g., JCS). • Application Architecture (including interfaces). • Functional Specification (including use cases). • Database Architecture.

13. Recommended Strategy Alternative (cont)Alternative II: Reconsider Strategy and Approach • Key actions (cont) • Analysis and Selection of Execution Alternatives • Identify components for statewide or local implementation. • Assess buy vs. build options. • Commercial COTS components (e.g., case management, jury management, financial systems). • Other state and county solutions (e.g., LINX from Pierce County). • Project Prioritization and Phasing • Redefine the JIS Migration as a program with a series of interrelated projects. • Develop a detailed project plan and work breakdown structure. • Develop a detailed project budget. • Identify vendor support requirements. • Execution Capability and Resources • Acquire critical skills needed for enhance execution delivery: • JIS Program Manager (experienced in the management and delivery of complex systems) • Applications Architect • Database Architect • Security Architect • Develop and enhance internal processes and provide in-depth training to ensure the project’s success (e.g., Project Management, Software Development Lifecycle, Financial Management, Vendor Management).

14. Proposed Execution Alternatives • Gartner considered the following critical areas when developing potential Execution Alternative candidates: • Buy vs. Build Options • Sourcing (in-house, staff augmentation, vs. outsource) • Single System vs. Court-specific Systems • Big Bang vs. Phased Implementation • Gartner identified three execution alternatives to evaluate as potential options for the JIS Migration Project: • Alternative A: Re-Architect / Re-Host the Legacy JIS • Alternative B: Acquire Best-of-Breed Solutions and Integrate • Alternative C: Initially Focus on Data Exchange, Then Best-of-Breed Gartner’s Recommendation is highlighted in Blue

15. Recommended Execution Alternative Alternative C: Initially Focus on Data Exchange, Then Best-of-Breed • Initial development and operation of a statewide JIS data integration infrastructure and offer best-of-breed solution services • This alternative consists of: • Continuing to be the preferred solution provider for the vast majority of courts. • Initially focusing on the design and development of a statewide data integration infrastructure. • Performing operation and maintenance of the data infrastructure. • Continuing to maintain the infrastructure and legacy systems and offer best-of-breed solution services using an Internal Service Company (ISCo) Model, thus providing various court levels throughout the State the greatest flexibility. • Acquisition Strategy • Assess the use of: • Commercial off the shelf solutions (e.g., data integration infrastructure components). • Other existing state or county solutions. • Current in-house initiatives (e.g., Data Exchange Project). • Assess build vs. buy options for the above. • Develop the detailed Data Exchange Architecture and Integration Standards. • Define the Enterprise Database Architecture.

16. Recommended Execution Alternative (cont)Alternative C: Initially Focus on Data Exchange, Then Best-of-Breed ISCo Transformation SolutionProvider Business Recovery Services Service-focused, competitive pricing, supply creator Application Services Infrastructure Services Internal Service Company (ISCo) Messaging Services The IS Maturity Path IT Focus Customer Focus Change Mgmt. Proactive, Total Cost of Ownership-optimized Process- Based Asset Mgmt. Application Development Cost Center AOC Data Center Distrib- uted App. Devel- opment Reactive, budget-driven, resource-constrained, acts like a perpetual backlog Silos Telecom

17. Recommended Execution Alternative (cont)Alternative C: Initially Focus on Data Exchange, Then Best-of-Breed • Implementation/Rollout Strategy • Define the business benefits (in terms of the data exchange functionality to be delivered to the specific court levels, the technology improvements to be gained and the metrics by which to measure the system(s)’ success to be achieved through data exchange functionality delivered or process improvement to be provided) by the Data Exchange Project. • Define phased (prioritization) implementation plan to deliver the data exchange functionality to the various court levels and State agencies. • Move to an Internal Service Company (ISCo) delivery model for providing best-of-breed solution services and maintenance support for the courts. Any court that chooses to acquire and support their own systems must comply with AOC data integration requirements. Assess implementation options: • In-house • Hire Systems Integrator(s)

18. Recommended Roadmap First 120 Days On Going Focus Strategic Focus (Reconsider Strategy and Approach) Execution Focus (Focus on Data Exchange) • Establish a robust Governance and Project Oversight Process. • Determine the role that the AOC will fulfill in the delivery of solutions to the courts. • Define the success metrics and business value that each initiative will bring to the courts. Vet each business case with all key stakeholders. • Define and fully develop an overall solution architecture and detailed plan for the new JIS. • Identify components for statewide or local implementation and analyze buy vs. build for each. • Redefine the JIS Migration as a program with a series of interrelated, prioritized projects, each with a budget and detailed project plan. • Establish comprehensive delivery processes and acquire needed critical skills. • Continue to be the preferred solution provider for the vast majority of courts. • Focus on the design and development of a statewide data integration infrastructure. • Develop detailed Data Exchange Architecture. • Assess Buy vs. Build Alternatives. • Develop Integration Standards. • Define the Enterprise Database Architecture. • Defined Phased Implementation Plan. • Focus on the operation and maintenance of the data infrastructure by AOC. • Move to an Internal Service Company (ISCo) delivery model providing best-of-breed solution services and maintenance support for the courts. • Any court that chooses to acquire and support their own systems must comply with AOC data integration requirements.

19. Draft 120 Day Action Plan

20. Action Plan DevelopmentGuiding Principals • Address All Key Elements of the Recommendation Roadmap: • Define the role that the AOC will fulfill in the delivery of solutions to the courts. • Continue to be the preferred solution provider for the vast majority of courts. • Establish a robust Governance and Project Oversight Process. • Focus on the design and development of a statewide data integration infrastructure. • Focus on the operation and maintenance of the data infrastructure by AOC. • Define and fully develop an overall solution architecture and detailed plan for the new JIS. • Define the success metrics and business value that each initiative will bring to the courts. • Redefine the JIS Migration as a program with a series of interrelated, prioritized projects, each with a budget and detailed project plan. • Identify components for statewide or local implementation and analyze buy vs. build for each. • Establish comprehensive delivery processes and acquire needed critical skills. • Move to an Internal Service Company (ISCo) delivery model providing best-of-breed solution services and maintenance support for the courts. Define a “Team Focused” Plan that addresses issues impacting the: • Organization • Governance • Delivery Processes and Tools • Current Projects • Definition of a Statewide Data Integration Infrastructure Solution Architecture and Implementation Plan • Definition of the JIS Solution Architecture and Implementation Plan

21. Action PlanInitial Planning Activities

22. Action PlanTeam 1 Activities

23. Action PlanTeam 2 Activities

24. Action PlanTeam 3 Activities

25. Action PlanTeam 4 Activities

26. Action PlanTeam 5 Activities

27. Action PlanTeam 6 Activities

28. Suggested Next StepsTo be completed by next Wednesday - October 19th • Finalize (Friday): • Plan Owner. • Team Leaders. • Team Leads – Develop Detailed Plans (by COB next Tuesday): • Review and update plan as needed (add, modify, update tasks). • Identify and assign required resources to each task (time, staff members, etc.). • Identify key milestones and delivery dates. • Update plan and present individual team plans for approval. • Plan Owner – Review and Approve Team Plans (by COB next Thursday) • Review and approval individual team plans • Integrate and publish 120 Action Plan • Schedule weekly action Plan review and assessment meetings • Present Action Plan to JISC and JISAC and provide monthly progress reports • All - Execute the Plan

29. Questions or Comments

30. Engagement Manager • Richard Flowerree • Office: 619-542-4815 • Mobile: 619-517-1500 • email: richard.flowerree@gartner.com • Project Manager • Rosy Spraker • Office: 808-206-9405 • Mobile: 808-388-0818 • email: rosemary.spraker@gartner.com Gartner