2006 search symposium n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
2006 SEARCH Symposium PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
2006 SEARCH Symposium

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 41

2006 SEARCH Symposium - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 112 Views
  • Uploaded on

2006 SEARCH Symposium. Justice Interoperability Across the Extended Enterprise: A Wisconsin Case Study. Jim Pingel - WIJIS Director Donna Lewein – Project Manager. Background: Interoperability in Wisconsin An Update on Current Projects Lessons Learned

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '2006 SEARCH Symposium' - tegan


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
2006 search symposium

2006 SEARCH Symposium

Justice Interoperability Across the Extended Enterprise:A Wisconsin Case Study

Jim Pingel - WIJIS DirectorDonna Lewein – Project Manager

agenda
Background: Interoperability in Wisconsin

An Update on Current Projects

Lessons Learned

Seeing the Problem from the Local Perspective

Project Management Across Agencies

Institutionalizing Interoperability

Agenda
terminology
GJXDM is used to accomplish two different types of interoperability:

Information Exchange

Automated case processing; movement of documents electronically, from one system to another.

vs.

Information Sharing

The ability to search for key investigative or case information across multiple individual systems.

THIS IS A STORY ABOUT TRYING TO COLLABORATIVELY ACHIEVE

BOTH !!!

Terminology
background

Background

Interoperability in Wisconsin

wijis overview
Mission

Promote and coordinate automated information systems that are interoperable among, and available to, local, tribal, county, and state justice agencies.

Mandate:

Coordinate Multiple Projects, Leverage Grant Resources

Accomplish both information sharing and exchange with a single infrastructure

WIJIS Overview
governance

SAA (OJA Exec Dir), Chair

WI Dept of Justice

State CIO

State Courts CIO

Dept of Corrections

Police Chief representative

District Attorney representative

Governance
interoperability in wisconsin
Many Ongoing Projects

Enterprise Systems

Information Exchange

Information Sharing

Filling the Remaining Gaps

Statewide Search: Gateway

Shared Infrastructure

Interoperability in Wisconsin
enterprise systems
Enterprise Systems
  • eTIME: First State Hot File System to Exchange xml with NLETS
  • District Attorney Case Management (PROTECT)
  • Consolidated Court Automation Program (CCAP)
  • Integrated Corrections System (ICS)
  • In-Squad Citation/Crash Reporting System (TrACS – DMV)
information exchanges
Information Exchanges

The IEPD Process

  • Law Enforcement-Prosecutor (eReferral)
  • DA Court Case Filings
  • Criminal History Updates (Courts and DAs)
  • Warrants & Protective Orders
  • Conditions of Probation/Parole

Dispositions

Case Filing

No Process

Warrants & Protective Orders

eReferral

Probation/Parole

Caseloads

information sharing the wisconsin justice gateway

TIME/eTIME

Information Sharing: The Wisconsin Justice Gateway

Local Law Enforcement

Records Management Systems

Courts

DA-

PROTECT

Gaps Remain in Seamless, Secure Information Sharing.

Integrated

Corrections

data sharing the wijis justice gateway

TIME/eTIME

Data-Sharing: The WIJIS Justice Gateway

Local Law Enforcement

Records Management Systems

Courts

DA-

PROTECT

A single, secure point of read-only access to disparate state and local justice information resources.

Law

Enforcement

Data

Integrated

Corrections

gateway implementation
Multi-Agency Production Team

Tackling Policy, Standards, Shared Infrastructure Concurrently

Doing Both: Solutions Apply to Exchange Projects

Security, Access and Authentication

Grants to Locals to Fund Implementation

Gateway Implementation
lessons learned

Lessons Learned

The View from Local Law Government

from the local view
Multiple Projects

Different Ways to Solve the Same Problem

Little/No Consistency Multiple State Initiatives, Grant Programs

From the Local View…

Citation/Crash

Reporting

The State

Gateway

NIBRS

eReferral

Local RMS

Warrant

Exchange

solving the problem
Aligning Grant Program Objectives

Investing in a Reusable Infrastructure

Solving the Problem

Citation/Crash

Reporting

Justice

Integration

Layer

Gateway

NIBRS

eReferral

Local RMS

Warrant

Exchange

the justice integration layer

Justice

Integ.

Layer

Source: US Department of Homeland Security… it.ojp.gov

Interfaces= n(n-1)

Interfaces= 2n

The Justice Integration Layer
  • Statewide Infrastructure
    • Justice (Enterprise) Service Bus
    • Registry/Repository
  • GJXML – IEPs
  • Web Service Definitions
  • Messaging Formats/Standards
lessons learned1

Lessons Learned

Project Management in a Multi-Agency, Multi-Project Environment

project management
Team Structure

Options, Issues, Solutions

Partnering

Agile Methodologies

Project Management
invoking a project reset
We reset the expectations.

Simplified the requirements for Phase I:

Limit initial user and submitted participation to pilot law enforcement agencies (5 consortia; 40 agencies)

Sharing only selected RMS data

Prioritized features “wish list” over several future phases

Invoking a Project Reset
invoking a project reset1
Obtained buy-in from governance group and local sharing partners for a phased approach

Identified overarching issues for resolution beyond this group

Reset the expectation to focuson producing the Gateway tool

Invoking a Project Reset
to staff or not to staff
The question involves various options:

Hire in-house IT staff to create the tool

Contract out entire project to a vendor

Utilize other state agency personnel

To Staff or Not to Staff?
to staff or not to staff2
We chose a hybrid approach:

Contracted for key IT persons, varying length contracts

Negotiated the time of persons from other state agencies

Shifted roles of the permanent staff

To Staff or Not to Staff?
managing an interagency team1
Staff time contributed or contracted from:

WI Dept of Administration

District Attorneys-Info Technology (DA-IT)

Division of Enterprise Technology (DET)

WI Dept of Justice

Managing an Interagency Team
managing an interagency team2
Institutional factors that add risk to the interagency project:

Conflicting priorities with other duties

Competing bosses

Lack of traditional contracting leverage

Residual conflicts between team members

Politics and the motives created

Historic distrust between agencies

Managing an Interagency Team
managing an interagency team3
Speaking of challenges…

Possibility of impression by locals of the lumbering state vs. a lean contractor

Managing an Interagency Team
managing an interagency team4
Key Strategies:

Communicate often & widely though adds overhead (compared to total outsourcing) itself can cause risk

Value team members’ specific experience with locals on other state Justice projects: builds trust of locals and a tight team

Reinforce the reusability of infrastructures, code, processes, documentation

Managing an Interagency Team
managing an interagency team5
The WIJIS Forum — a Geeklog tool

Provides secured Internet access fordispersed local and state users to:

Project documentation, schemas, specs

Topical, threaded discussions

Collaborative glossaries

Links to justice sharing articles

Private messaging

http://sourceforge.net/projects/geeklogplugins/

Managing an Interagency Team
take me to your leader
Cultivate trusting relationships with agency leaders

Include people of the appropriate levels

Be a trustworthy partner:

Make productive use of people’s time

Be focused on the product

Be inclusive in decision-making

Be inclusive in giving credit where it’s due

Take me to your leader!
managing an agile interagency team
Employing Agile Methods in dispersed team

Daily stand-ups – phone conferenced

Weekly production team meetings

Visual system diagramming

Just-in-time requirements definition

Some paired programming

Self-organized development team

Managing an Agile Interagency Team
managing an agile interagency team1
Employing agile methods in a dispersed team

Iterative churn cycles:

lightly define/quickly create example/test/review with users/refine/test

Repeated exposure to prototypes with various types of users

Managing an Agile Interagency Team
slide33

Managing an Agile Interagency Team

Experienced pushback against agile methods from team members in other agencies:

…a “teach by example” opportunity

The local partners have liked the flexibility of the agile style;their feedback is quickly implemented.

lessons learned2

Lessons Learned

Institutionalizing Interoperability

reusable assets
Technical and Business Implementation Guides

Start with Gateway – expandable to encompass all State initiatives

GJXDM Training – cross-pollinate business & technical staff, state & local agencies

WIJIS Forum/Geeklog

Requirements Definition

Data Modeling & Mapping Techniques

Reusable Assets
wisconsin justice xml data model
Wisconsin Justice XML Data Model
  • Cooperative Undertaking, but…
  • ..someone has to own it…
  • …should be on neutral turf!
  • Consistent use and re-use of standards
  • Change Management
justice interoperability workgroup
IT Leaders from State agencies

Tired of reinventing different solutions for the same problems

Take “religious wars” about turf, products and methods out of critical paths

No ownership

No statutory authority

No funding

Justice Interoperability Workgroup
justice interoperability workgroup1
Wisconsin’s IT Justice armchair quarterbacks – in a good way 

Don’t interrupt ongoing projects

But ready use projects as case studies to propose standard solutions to recurring problems

Justice Interoperability Workgroup
a potential deal killer disclosure of sensitive info
Don’t Share Sensitive Data

De-values the information-sharing effort.

If the rules change, start over!

Write Restrictions Into Each Application.

Rigid system design.

If the rules change, re-write many lines of code.

Cascading Disclosure Control Language

Write rules once, reuse them in many situations.

A policy change means changing a config file – rather than a new software project.

Data providers have flexibility to write their own rules.

A Potential Deal-Killer: Disclosure of Sensitive Info
conclusion
Don’t Isolate Projects (exchange vs. sharing)

Invest in Infrastructure

Work hard to build and maintain partnerships –and it is hard work!

Acknowledge the “religious wars.” Create a process for taking conflicts out of critical paths.

Conclusion
thanks questions

Thanks!Questions?

For more information please visit:

http://oja.state.wi.us/wijis

Or contact us:

james.pingel@wisconsin.gov

donna.lewein@wisconsin.gov