# Presentation: 103853

## Child Support Systems

- “Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”

**a presentation by the Office of Child Support Enforcement**

## Child Support Systems“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”

**Our Guests Today Are:**
**Nancy Starling Ross***President, PSI Technologies (a Division of PSI, Inc.)*
**Joseph Bodmer***Senior IT Specialist, OCSE*

## Our Topics Today Are:
Aging Platforms And ArchitecturesState paths to redesigning their systems
When Redesign Isn’t Enough Developing a new CSE system
Common Planning Mistakes To Avoid A discussion of examples of mistakes that can cause rework, or worse, rejection of your Feasibility Study

**Aging Platforms And Architectures**State paths to redesigning their systems
**When Redesign Isn’t Enough **Developing a new CSE system
**Common Planning Mistakes To Avoid **A discussion of examples of mistakes that can cause rework, or worse, rejection of your Feasibility Study

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Aging Platforms and Architectures 
State paths to redesigning their systemsData Warehousing and data martsGraphical User Interfaces and redesigned front-endsDatabase replacementsDocument generation and imaging Enterprise architectures and Object-oriententation

**State paths to redesigning their systems**Data Warehousing and data martsGraphical User Interfaces and redesigned front-endsDatabase replacementsDocument generation and imaging Enterprise architectures and Object-oriententation

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## State paths to redesigning their systems Data Warehousing and Data Marts
Who:     AR, MI, NC, FL, WI, WA, WY, VT, etc.How:     APD’s, SIP Grants Why:     Program incentives, performance, researchWhen:   Most have taken 1-3 years to implement fullyWhere:   http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/stsys/tab7.htmCosts:    Development - $500,000 to $5,000,000	       M&O - $50,000 to $500,000 annuallyRisks:     Though not terribly expensive, they require	       detailed planning and design, or costs soar.

- Who:     AR, MI, NC, FL, WI, WA, WY, VT, etc.How:     APD’s, SIP Grants Why:     Program incentives, performance, researchWhen:   Most have taken 1-3 years to implement fullyWhere:   _[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/stsys/tab7.htm](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/stsys/tab7.htm)_Costs:    Development - $500,000 to $5,000,000	       M&O - $50,000 to $500,000 annuallyRisks:     Though not terribly expensive, they require	       detailed planning and design, or costs soar.

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## State paths to redesigning their systems Graphical User Interfaces and Front-ends
Who:     ME, MI, NH, MA, TX, FL, MD, etc.How:     APD’s Why:     Most are Browser-based using Java, XMLWhen:   Most have taken 2-3 years to implement fullyWhere:  http://www.igs.net/~mjw/xgd/ Costs:    Development - $3,000,000 to $20,000,000	       M&O - $200,000 to $2,000,000 annuallyRisks:     Detailed planning and design work is critical 	       to success.  Ensure resources are committed.  

- Who:     ME, MI, NH, MA, TX, FL, MD, etc.How:     APD’s Why:     Most are Browser-based using Java, XMLWhen:   Most have taken 2-3 years to implement fullyWhere:  _[http://www.igs.net/~mjw/xgd/](http://www.igs.net/~mjw/xgd/)__ __Costs:    Development - $3,000,000 to $20,000,000__	__       M&O - $200,000 to $2,000,000 annually__Risks:     Detailed planning and design work is critical__ __	__       to success.  Ensure resources are committed.  _

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## State paths to redesigning their systems Database Replacements
Who:     MI, FL, MA, etc.How:     APD’s Why:     Need for relational versus heirarchical or flatWhen:   Most have taken 2-3 years to implementWhere:   http://www.rpbourret.com/xml/XMLAndDatabases.htmCosts:    Development - $10,000,000 to $30,000,000	       M&O - $2,000,000 to $25,000,000 annuallyRisks:     Though expensive, without detailed planning,	       design, and testing, risks and costs can soar.

- Who:     MI, FL, MA, etc.How:     APD’s Why:     Need for relational versus heirarchical or flatWhen:   Most have taken 2-3 years to implementWhere:   _[http://](http://www.rpbourret.com/xml/XMLAndDatabases.htm)__[www.rpbourret.com/xml/XMLAndDatabases.htm](http://www.rpbourret.com/xml/XMLAndDatabases.htm)_Costs:    Development - $10,000,000 to $30,000,000	       M&O - $2,000,000 to $25,000,000 annuallyRisks:     Though expensive, without detailed planning,	       design, and testing, risks and costs can soar.

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## State paths to redesigning their systems Document Generation and Imaging
Who:     FL, MI, SD, WI, HI, etc.How:     APD’sWhy:     Improved system performance, lower costsWhen:   Most have taken 1-11⁄2 years to implementWhere:  http://www.knowledgestorm.com/search/keyword/	        document%20imaging/GAW03/document%20imagingCosts:    Development - $200,000 to $5,000,000	       M&O - $50,000 to $500,000 annuallyRisks:     Though not real expensive, careful planning is	       needed to ensure future support for product.

- Who:     FL, MI, SD, WI, HI, etc.How:     APD’sWhy:     Improved system performance, lower costsWhen:   Most have taken 1-11⁄2 years to implementWhere:  http://www.knowledgestorm.com/search/keyword/	        document%20imaging/GAW03/document%20imagingCosts:    Development - $200,000 to $5,000,000	       M&O - $50,000 to $500,000 annuallyRisks:     Though not real expensive, careful planning is	       needed to ensure future support for product.

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## State paths to redesigning their systems Enterprise Architectures and Object Orientation
Who:     FL, TX, LA How:     APD’sWhy:     Ease of maintenance, code reuse, lower costs When:   None have yet been implemented; unknownWhere:   http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/descriptions/distcoll.htmlCosts:    Development - $20,000,000 to $100,000,000	       M&O - $5,000,000 to $25,000,000 annuallyRisks:     Expensive, complex platforms.  Multiple	       interdependent components.  New technology.

- Who:     FL, TX, LA How:     APD’sWhy:     Ease of maintenance, code reuse, lower costs When:   None have yet been implemented; unknownWhere:   _[http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/descriptions/distcoll.html](http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/descriptions/distcoll.html)_Costs:    Development - $20,000,000 to $100,000,000	       M&O - $5,000,000 to $25,000,000 annuallyRisks:     Expensive, complex platforms.  Multiple	       interdependent components.  New technology.

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Our Topics Today Are:
Aging Platforms And ArchitecturesState paths to redesigning their systems
When Redesign Isn’t Enough Developing a new CSE system
Common Planning Mistakes To Avoid A discussion of examples of mistakes that can cause rework, or worse, rejection of your Feasibility Study

**Aging Platforms And Architectures**State paths to redesigning their systems
**When Redesign Isn’t Enough **Developing a new CSE system
**Common Planning Mistakes To Avoid **A discussion of examples of mistakes that can cause rework, or worse, rejection of your Feasibility Study

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## When Redesign Isn’t Enough:
Developing A New CSE System
Planning Phase FundingA Planning APD can provide needed funding for conducting detailed analyses of the available options – including hiring a contractor to help 
Conduct Rigorous PlanningConduct a Feasibility Studies, including an Analyses of Alternatives with a Cost-Benefit Analysis of each alternative being considered

***Developing A New CSE System***
_**Planning Phase Funding**_A ***Planning APD*** can provide needed funding for conducting detailed analyses of the available options – including hiring a contractor to help
_**Conduct Rigorous Planning**_Conduct a Feasibility Studies, including an Analyses of Alternatives with a Cost-Benefit Analysis of each alternative being considered

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Developing A New CSE System:
Step 1:  The Requirements Definition

Document program functional requirements
Many requirements are already defined in your current automated CSE system 
System architecture requirements
Document current architecture, future directions, 
Define leading edge, not bleeding edge
Conduct market surveys and look at vendor support

***Step 1:  The Requirements Definition***
_**Document program functional requirements**_
- Many requirements are already defined in your current automated CSE system
_**System architecture requirements**_
- Document current architecture, future directions,
- Define leading edge, not bleeding edge
- Conduct market surveys and look at vendor support

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Developing A New CSE System:
Step 1:  The Requirements Definition

Operations and Maintenance Requirements
Consider who will maintain your system
What platforms can/will your State support

Document your organizational requirements
State administered?  County operated?  Clerks?  DA’s?
County or State infrastructures:  telecom, networks
Numbers of users, locations, unique issues such as geography

***Step 1:  The Requirements Definition***
_**Operations and Maintenance Requirements**_
- Consider who will maintain your system
- What platforms can/will your State support
_**Document your organizational requirements**_
- State administered?  County operated?  Clerks?  DA’s?
- County or State infrastructures:  telecom, networks
- Numbers of users, locations, unique issues such as geography

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Developing A New CSE System:
Step 1:  The Requirements Definition

Risk Management
Define your assumptions and constraints
Define the risks: technical, program, cost, resources, support 
Define procurement strategies
In-house, body-shop, or prime contractor support
Ensure competition in all procurement strategies
Create evaluation criteria and weighting = Selection

***Step 1:  The Requirements Definition***
_**Risk Management**_
- Define your assumptions and constraints
- Define the risks: technical, program, cost, resources, support
_**Define procurement strategies**_
- In-house, body-shop, or prime contractor support
- Ensure competition in all procurement strategies
- Create evaluation criteria and weighting = Selection

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Developing A New CSE System:
Step 2:  The Feasibility Study
Allow for broad consideration of all alternatives 
State system transfer, new system development, major redesign of your current system, a hybrid approach 
Identify the universe of potential transfer candidates

***Step 2:  The Feasibility Study***
_**Allow for broad consideration of all alternatives**__** **_
- State system transfer, new system development, major redesign of your current system, a hybrid approach
- Identify the universe of potential transfer candidates

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Developing A New CSE System:
Step 2:  The Feasibility Study

Create Evaluation Criteria – High and Low level 
Create high level criteria based on requirements definition
Create weighting of high level criteria
Create detailed (low level) evaluation criteria that build upon and further define high level criteria – be consistent
Create weighting for evaluation scoring of the detailed, low level evaluation criteria – again, be consistent
Consider using questionnaire or other user-friendly format for evaluation process – include systems and program staff as evaluators

***Step 2:  The Feasibility Study***
_**Create Evaluation Criteria – High and Low level**__** **_
- Create high level criteria based on requirements definition
- Create weighting of high level criteria
- Create detailed (low level) evaluation criteria that build upon and further define high level criteria – be consistent
- Create weighting for evaluation scoring of the detailed, low level evaluation criteria – again, be consistent
- Consider using questionnaire or other user-friendly format for evaluation process – include systems and program staff as evaluators

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Developing A New CSE System:
Step 3:  The Alternatives Analysis
Define and narrow your options 
Using the high-level criteria – narrow the potential universe of transfer candidates 
Visit the remaining viable transfer candidates – score them using the detailed, low-level weighted evaluation criteria and/or questionnaires

***Step 3:  The Alternatives Analysis***
_**Define and narrow your options**__** **_
- Using the high-level criteria – narrow the potential universe of transfer candidates
- Visit the remaining viable transfer candidates – score them using the detailed, low-level weighted evaluation criteria and/or questionnaires

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Developing A New CSE System:
Step 3:  The Alternatives Analysis
Create other alternative(s) – New Development, Hybrid, Redesign 
Ensure consistency – define each alternative to the same level of detail as was used to evaluate the transfer candidates  
Select the two or three most viable, highest scoring alternatives 
Transfer doesn’t necessarily need to make the cut of the two or three most viable – but it must have been considered

***Step 3:  The Alternatives Analysis***
_**Create other alternative(s) – New Development, Hybrid, Redesign**__** **_
- Ensure consistency – define each alternative to the same level of detail as was used to evaluate the transfer candidates ** **
_**Select the two or three most viable, highest scoring alternatives**__** **_
- Transfer doesn’t necessarily need to make the cut of the two or three most viable – but it must have been considered

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Developing A New CSE System:
Step 3:  The Alternatives Analysis
Document and evaluate the status quo 
Document the costs, benefits of the current automation 
Score the status quo using the already defined, low-level, weighted evaluation criteria used for the alternatives 
Score, including a cost-benefit analysis, each alternative
Use detailed, low-level weighted criteria, now including weighting for costs and benefits, and rescore the two or three viable alternatives against the status quo.

***Step 3:  The Alternatives Analysis***
_**Document and evaluate the status quo**_** **
- Document the costs, benefits of the current automation
- Score the status quo using the already defined, low-level, weighted evaluation criteria used for the alternatives
_**Score, including a cost-benefit analysis, each alternative**_
- Use detailed, low-level weighted criteria, now including weighting for costs and benefits, and rescore the two or three viable alternatives against the status quo.

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Developing A New CSE System:
Step 3:  The Alternatives Analysis

Pick a winner and document everything you did 
Prepare all documentation for Federal review 
Prepare a summary for inclusion in the upcoming Implementation Advance Planning Document 
Bear in mind that when you have alternatives that are extremely close in scoring, creating what is essentially a “toss-up”, the state can select either of the alternatives 
Only when the choice is clear will the Federal government challenge a failure to select the most cost-beneficial, efficient and effective solution

***Step 3:  The Alternatives Analysis***
_**Pick a winner and document everything you did**__** **_
- Prepare all documentation for Federal review
- Prepare a summary for inclusion in the upcoming Implementation Advance Planning Document
- Bear in mind that when you have alternatives that are extremely close in scoring, creating what is essentially a “toss-up”, the state can select either of the alternatives
- Only when the choice is clear will the Federal government challenge a failure to select the most cost-beneficial, efficient and effective solution

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## New Jersey’s IT Challenges:
Conduct Feasibility Study While Assuring All Federal Criteria For Such Studies Are Addressed 
Address Need For Cost Reasonableness While Achieving System Effectiveness 
Move The State Forward Into A New, Supportable Technical Architecture 
Leverage Existing State And Contractor Skills and Resources 
Develop and Deploy A Single CSE System

**Conduct Feasibility Study While Assuring All Federal Criteria For Such Studies Are Addressed**** **
**Address Need For Cost Reasonableness While Achieving System Effectiveness**** **
**Move The State Forward Into A New, Supportable Technical Architecture**** **
**Leverage Existing State And Contractor Skills and Resources**** **
**Develop and Deploy A Single CSE System**

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## New Jersey’s Planning Phase:
Still In The Planning Phase
Requirements analysis was completed based on current system functionality and new program and system requirements 
Feasibility Study and Analysis of Alternatives completed and submitted to Federal OCSE 
Alternatives examined were a system transfer, a whole new development effort and a hybrid of the two

***Still In The Planning Phase***
**Requirements analysis was completed based on current system functionality and new program and system requirements**** **
**Feasibility Study and Analysis of Alternatives completed and submitted to Federal OCSE**** **
**Alternatives examined were a system transfer, a whole new development ****effort and a hybrid of the two**

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## New Jersey’s Planning Phase:
Current Status
Submitted Feasibility Study to OCSE in October 2003 
OCSE conducted a detailed IV&V review of the Feasibility Study 
The IV&V review took 2 weeks of documentation review by OCSE of the Feasibility Study prior to a 3-day on-site review.  

***Current Status***
**Submitted Feasibility Study to OCSE in October 2003**** **
**OCSE conducted a detailed IV&V review of the Feasibility Study**** **
**The IV&V review took 2 weeks of documentation review by OCSE of the Feasibility Study prior to a 3-day on-site review.  **

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## New Jersey’s Planning Phase:
Current Status
The on-site review included interviews of State and contractor staff who performed the Feasibility Study as well as performing collection of more financial and evaluation criteria data and analysis information. 
OCSE subsequently spent 5 more weeks analyzing the data collected on-site and compiling their report of findings. 

***Current Status***
**The on-site review included interviews of State and contractor staff who performed the Feasibility Study as well as performing collection of more financial and evaluation criteria data and analysis information.**** **
**OCSE subsequently spent 5 more weeks analyzing the data collected on-site and compiling their report of findings.**** **

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## New Jersey’s Planning Phase:
Current Status
OCSE accepted the Feasibility Study in a report submitted to the State in March 2004. 
OCSE’s IV&V report included findings of errors and recommendations for perfecting inaccuracies found  
Primary OCSE recommendation was that if after correcting errors the system alternative didn’t change, then to submit an IAPD

***Current Status***
**OCSE accepted the Feasibility Study in a report submitted to the State in March 2004.**** **
**OCSE’s IV&V report included findings of errors and recommendations for perfecting inaccuracies found **** **
**Primary OCSE recommendation was that if after correcting errors the system alternative didn’t change, then to submit an IAPD**

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## New Jersey’s Planning Phase:
Current Status
State submitted an Implementation APD to OCSE in July 2004.  It is under review. 
A Request for Proposal is under final preparation and review. We hope to release the RFP to the vendor community in the coming months.  The RFP will also first require CSE review and approval before it’s release for bids.  OCSE has promised an expedited review. 

***Current Status***
**State submitted an Implementation APD to OCSE in July 2004.  It is under review.**** **
**A Request for Proposal is under final preparation and review. We hope to release the RFP to the vendor community in the coming months.  The RFP will also first require CSE review and approval before it’s release for bids.  OCSE has promised an expedited review.**** **

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Our Topics Today Are:
Aging Platforms And ArchitecturesState paths to redesigning their systems
When Redesign Isn’t Enough Developing a new CSE system
Common Planning Mistakes To Avoid A discussion of examples of mistakes that can cause rework, or worse, rejection of your Feasibility Study

**Aging Platforms And Architectures**State paths to redesigning their systems
**When Redesign Isn’t Enough **Developing a new CSE system
**Common Planning Mistakes To Avoid **A discussion of examples of mistakes that can cause rework, or worse, rejection of your Feasibility Study

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Common Mistakes In Planning
	What are the five factors that OCSE examines as part of its IV&V efforts
Accuracy
Measurability
Repeatability
Consistency
Reasonableness

**	*****What are the five factors that OCSE examines as part of its IV&V efforts***
- Accuracy
- Measurability
- Repeatability
- Consistency
- Reasonableness

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Common Mistakes In Planning
	Mistakes:  Inaccuracy
Mathematical errors
Incorrect formulae and algorithms
Carryover errors compounded
Missing math executions

**	*****Mistakes:  Inaccuracy***
- Mathematical errors
- Incorrect formulae and algorithms
- Carryover errors compounded
- Missing math executions

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Common Mistakes In Planning
	Mistakes:  Lack of Measurability
Missing or unpublished sources
Lack of explanation for decisions
Assumptions used versus real data
Personal experience as foundation
Assumptions and constraints are undefined

**	*****Mistakes:  Lack of Measurability***
- Missing or unpublished sources
- Lack of explanation for decisions
- Assumptions used versus real data
- Personal experience as foundation
- Assumptions and constraints are undefined

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Common Mistakes In Planning
	 Mistakes:  Lack of Repeatability
Missing data sources
Missing formulae and algorithms
Answers lack underlying math
Assumptions and constraints are undocumented
Personal experience as foundation

**	**** *****Mistakes:  Lack of Repeatability***
- Missing data sources
- Missing formulae and algorithms
- Answers lack underlying math
- Assumptions and constraints are undocumented
- Personal experience as foundation

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Common Mistakes In Planning
	 Mistakes:  Lack of Consistency
Same underlying sources not used
Inconsistent application of criteria used in evaluating alternatives
Weighting changes over time
Different evaluators used for each of the various alternatives examined

**	**** *****Mistakes:  Lack of Consistency***
- Same underlying sources not used
- Inconsistent application of criteria used in evaluating alternatives
- Weighting changes over time
- Different evaluators used for each of the various alternatives examined

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Common Mistakes In Planning
	 Mistakes:  Lack of Reasonableness
Weighting variation is too extreme
Unreasonable assumptions
Too few criteria or lack of critical evaluation criteria (risk)
Double counting of scores, benefits, etc., by using criteria different in name only 

**	**** *****Mistakes:  Lack of Reasonableness***
- Weighting variation is too extreme
- Unreasonable assumptions
- Too few criteria or lack of critical evaluation criteria (risk)
- Double counting of scores, benefits, etc., by using criteria different in name only

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Common Mistakes In Planning
	How does OCSE analyze the Study? 
“What-if” analyses (scoring, criteria)
Correct math errors and recalculate
Eliminate unsupported scoring, faulty benefits, unfounded assumptions)
Determine if errors are cumulative, and if so, whether Study is fatally flawed

**	*****How does OCSE analyze the Study? ***
- “What-if” analyses (scoring, criteria)
- Correct math errors and recalculate
- Eliminate unsupported scoring, faulty benefits, unfounded assumptions)
- Determine if errors are cumulative, and if so, whether Study is fatally flawed

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Common Mistakes In Planning
	What happens after OCSE’s IV&V?
A report is issued to the State
The report will explain the weaknesses found, ask they be corrected, and:
If the resultant selection didn’t change, to submit an IAPD as soon as possible
If the result did change, well ....
IAPD’s receive Federal funding approval, not Feasibility Studies

**	*****What happens after OCSE’s IV&V?***
- A report is issued to the State
- The report will explain the weaknesses found, ask they be corrected, and:
- If the resultant selection didn’t change, to submit an IAPD as soon as possible
- If the result did change, well ....
- IAPD’s receive Federal funding approval, not Feasibility Studies

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Questions and Answers

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**

## Child Support Systems“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”

**Thanks to our Guests:**
**Nancy Starling Ross***President, PSI Technologies (a Division of PSI, Inc.)*
**Joseph Bodmer***Senior IT Specialist, OCSE*

## ... and ... 
Thank
You

**Thank**
**You**

- Child Support Systems**“Identifying Alternatives for Replacement Systems”**