STAKEHOLDER KICK-OFF MEETING - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

emily
stakeholder kick off meeting l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
STAKEHOLDER KICK-OFF MEETING PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
STAKEHOLDER KICK-OFF MEETING

play fullscreen
1 / 29
Download Presentation
STAKEHOLDER KICK-OFF MEETING
348 Views
Download Presentation

STAKEHOLDER KICK-OFF MEETING

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. STAKEHOLDERKICK-OFF MEETING December 14, 2001

  2. Opening Remarks from Key Stakeholders • Judge Linda Dalianis • Justice, New Hampshire Supreme Court • Member, ICJJC • Commissioner Richard Flynn • Commissioner Department of Safety • Sponsor for the CJIS Project • Member, ICJJC • Don Veno • Director of Administration, Department of Corrections • Phil McLaughlin • Department of Justice, Attorney General • Member, ICJJC

  3. Welcome and Agenda Review - John Stephen Agenda • Opening Remarks from Key Stakeholders • Welcome and Agenda Review • John Stephen, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Safety • Stakeholder Introductions • Project Overview • Peter Croteau, Director of IT, DOS • Project Consultant – KPMG Consulting • Mary Kurkjian, Engagement Director, KPMG Consulting • Project Update • Governance and Status Reporting • Review of Approach and Schedule • Important Near-term Dates for State Participants • CJIS Goals & Objectives • Lessons Learned from CJIS Efforts in other States • George Hogshead, KPMG Consulting • General Open Forum

  4. KPMG Consulting: Project Consultant • Leading provider of business consulting and systems integration services • Large practice committed to the Public Sector • Focus on Criminal Justice and Public Safety • Integration of business processes, technologies and business systems • Transfer of: • Domain knowledge, experience and expertise • “Best demonstrated” practices, methods and programs • “Best of breed” solutions • Member of IJIS Institute and the Industry Working Group (IWG) for IJIS • Technology Independent • Experienced team of CJIS and Technology specialists for the NH project

  5. What KPMG Consulting Brings to the Project • Independence • Able to bring best practices and best of breed solutions • No proprietary software solutions • Objective analysis of best solution for New Hampshire • Experience • Focused practice on Justice and Public Safety • We have lived the CJIS issues with other clients • We understand the pros and cons of different approaches • Practical Know-How • Committed to solutions that can be implemented • Reputation for detailed, actionable plans and requirements • Adept at aligning business and technology goals and plans

  6. Agenda • Opening Remarks from Key Stakeholders • Welcome and Agenda Review • John Stephen, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Safety • Stakeholder Introductions • Project Overview • Peter Croteau, Director IT, DOS • Project Consultant – KPMG Consulting • Mary Kurkjian, Engagement Director, KPMG Consulting • Project Update • Governance and Status Reporting • Review of Approach and Schedule • Important Near-term Dates for State Participants • CJIS Goals & Objectives • Lessons Learned from CJIS Efforts in other States • George Hogshead, KPMG Consulting • General Open Forum

  7. Project Overview Key Elements Underlying Our Approach 5 1 Realistic Plan and Design Diverse Requirements of Multiple Stakeholders 4 Consider Best Practices 2 Flexible Process for Defining User Requirementsand Logical Design 3 Disciplined Project Schedule

  8. Diverse Requirements of Multiple Stakeholders • Challenge is to balance the requirements and priorities across multiple stakeholders in such a way as to design a useful system • Our Approach • Identify key issues through interviews and workshops • Analyze diverse systems environments • Analyze current / evolving business processes • Focus on interagency needs • Focus on points of commonality • Build from common goals & objectives

  9. Stakeholders Project Roles • Key Stakeholders • Participating Stakeholders • Interested Party Stakeholders • Project Committee • Deliverable Sign-off • User Requirements Meeting/Workshop Participants • Logical Design Business Representatives • Logical Design IT Representatives • Primary IT Contacts

  10. Stakeholder List

  11. Stakeholder List

  12. Stakeholder List

  13. Stakeholder List

  14. Governance and Status Reporting Monthly Written Status • Participating Stakeholders • Interested parties Monthly Written Status and as needed • DOS Commissioner Flynn, Sponsor • DOC Commissioner Stanley • Judge Dalianas (Judiciary) • Phil McLaughlin, AG • John Stephen, DOS • Bob Ness, DOC • Don Goodnow, AOC • Tom Edwards, AOC • Peter Croteau, DOS • Major Fred Booth Meet Every 2 Weeks to Discuss Status Day-to-Day Status & Bi-weekly Status Reports • Carol Houle • Reg Drapeau • KPMG

  15. Flexible Process for Defining User Requirements and Logical Design • Challenge is to capture requirements when not all requirements may be known or agreed • Our Approach • Needs identified through interviews, group workshops and analysis • Leverage studies already completed • UML Methodology proven in CJIS projects • Experience with iterative design and development techniques

  16. Managing Project Staff Quality Management Project Management and Control Project Close Risk Management Change Control and Issue Management Dispute Resolution Project Definition Project Plan Disciplined Project Schedule • Challenge is keeping to the aggressive project schedule • Our approach: • Use of workshops • Cooperative approach to deliverables, review and acceptance • Convergent v. confrontational approach • Schedule in advance and stick to the schedule • Continual communication with State’s Project Manager • Effective use of the Project Committee

  17. Consider Best Practices • Challenge is how to apply relevant best practices for CJIS in New Hampshire from what has been learned by others • Our Approach • IJIS and IWG (Industry Working Group) participation • Knowledge management within KPMG Consulting from other engagements and practitioners • Best Practices and emerging issues offer alternatives • Technology Independence

  18. Realistic Plan and Design • Challenge is to develop User Requirements and Logical Design that can be implemented in phases with available budgets, and that can be enhanced over time • Our Approach • Leverage past investments as feasible • Design for Iterative Development and Implementation over time • Design for Budget • Leverage Best Practices and Technology Trends

  19. Nov 28 - Project Start Nov 30 - Project Plan Dec 4 - Internal Kick-off Meeting Dec 14- Stakeholder Kick-off Meeting Goals & Objectives Interviews Hi-level IT Meetings Nov 29-Jan 25 - User Requirements Interviews Workshops Meetings Jan 28-Feb 1 - User Requirements Sign-off Sign-off Meetings Jan 28-Mar 22 - Logical Design Interviews/Meetings Workshops User Walkthrough IT Walkthrough Mar 25-Mar 29 - Logical Design Sign-off Sign-off Meetings Feb 4- Apr 5 - Project Plan & Cost Estimates, Management Presentation Deliverable #1 - Project Plan Deliverable #2 - Goals & Objectives Report Deliverable #3 - User Requirements Package Deliverable #4 - User Requirements Sign-off Deliverable #5 - Logical Design Deliverable #6 - Logical Design Sign-off Deliverable #8 - Project Plan & Cost Deliverable #7 - Management Presentation Key Project Activities and Deliverables Key Project Activities Project Deliverables

  20. Important Near-term Dates for State Participants • Agency User Requirements Meetings • December 10 – 18 • Before, between and after workshops • User Requirements Workshops Schedule Arrests & Incidents January 2 and 14 Bench Warrants & Restraining Orders January 2 and 14 Dispositions and Sentencing January 3 and 15 Prosecution and Case Scheduling January 3 and 15 Pre-sentence Investigation January 4 and 16 • State Acceptance of User Requirements • January 21 - 25

  21. CJIS Goals and Objectives • Various goals and objectives have been documented in the past • CJIS Master Plan (Feb 1995) • ICJJC • Justiceworks Blue Book (Apr 2001) • We’ve re-visited them in recent interviews • Department of Safety • Department of Corrections • Judiciary • Department of Justice • Latest compiled list follows • Framework for clarifying what we’ve heard • Important to focusing User Requirements • Discussion and validation today • Your suggestions will be brought forward to Key Stakeholders

  22. Goals and Objectives Framework for Articulating the Intent of this Project Guiding Principles Overall Goal Intended Results Objectives Primary Aim of the Project Measurable Achievements to be Prioritized and Phased Outcomes from Achieving the Goal Baseline “Givens”

  23. Goals and Objectives Intended Results Guiding Principles Objectives Overall Goal Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the CJ agencies and the Judiciary through the capture of data at its source and the sharing of information electronically

  24. Goals and Objectives Intended Results Guiding Principles Objectives Overall Goal • Data security, integrity and privacy must be achieved • Data Owners, CJ agencies and the Judiciary, must maintain and control their own data while enabling interagency data sharing • Access to data that now is available must be preserved

  25. Goals and Objectives Intended Results Guiding Principles Objectives Overall Goal • Provide accurate, up-to-date and timely information on offenders, including status, as they move through the CJ process • Put necessary information at the fingertips of law enforcement • Enable accelerated case processing within the courts • Enable timely electronic transmittal of dispositions to CHR • Provide timely access to Domestic Violence Restraining Orders • Support the timely provision of information to victims of crime • Provide the technical infrastructure to support information sharing • Allow for the infrastructure to grow over time as business and technology change • Create an inter-agency CJ data dictionary to facilitate info sharing

  26. Goals and Objectives Intended Results Guiding Principles Objectives Overall Goal • Improved public safety • More effective law enforcement • Improved safety for law enforcement officers • More accurate identification and timely processing of offenders • More expedient judicial processing • Improved analysis of crime and criminal justice processing • Reduced or contained operational costs associated with inter-agency Public Safety and Criminal Justice processes

  27. Agenda • Opening Remarks from Key Stakeholders • Welcome and Agenda Review • John Stephen, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Safety • Stakeholder Introductions • Project Overview • Peter Croteau, Director IT, DOS • Project Consultant – KPMG Consulting • Mary Kurkjian, Engagement Director, KPMG Consulting • Project Update • Governance and Status Reporting • Review of Approach and Schedule • Important Near-term Dates for State Participants • CJIS Goals & Objectives • Lessons Learned from CJIS Efforts in other States • George Hogshead, KPMG Consulting • General Open Forum

  28. George HogsheadJPS Practice Director • Background: • Over 35 years experience in public safety, security and justice systems development, operations and management. • Currently Treasurer and member of Board of Directors of the IJIS Institute. • Founding member of the IJIS Industry Working Group (IWG), industry and academic advisors to Office of Justice Systems (OJP) USDOJ. • Fellow of the Institute for Court Management (ICM) and a Certified Court Executive Officer. • Relevant Justice & Public Safety Experience: • Has directed the design, engineering and deployment of IJIS and CJIS solutions for the following jurisdictions of government: • State of Louisiana Los Angeles County, California • Maricopa County, Arizona Volusia County, Florida • Alachua County, Florida Lake County (Toledo), Ohio • DeKalb & Cobb Counties, Georgia Hennepin (Minneapolis) County, MN • Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Milwaukee County, Wisconsin • Monterey County, California Santa Clara County, California • King County, Washington Ministry of Justice, British Columbia • Ministry of Justice, Ontario Canada

  29. General Open Forum Open Discussion