Florida Department of Management Services

Florida Department of Management Services MyFloridaMarketPlace

Change Review Board (CRB) Meeting Minutes 09/28/2006 2:00 PM

Type of meeting: Working session of CRB to discuss upgrade process and selected enhancements. Additionally, the group was asked to review proposed approaches for SIR 422 and the re-issuance of a new Master Agreement for Office Consumables.

Attendees: Ellen Potts (DMS), Robert Notman (DOR), Charles Johnson (DOT), Laura Jennings (DJJ), Rita Tucker (AHCA), Doug McCleeary (DC), Tim Ellinor (DC), Darinda McLaughlin (DEP), David Perrin (DCA), Paul Mauck (DCF), Lisa Punausuia (DOH), Stacy Arias (HSMV)

Project Team Members: Scott Rainey, Rachael Grumme, Lori Potts, Debbie Gries, Garrick Wright, Kim Koegel, Lisa Thompson, Daymon Jensen, Brian Cliburn, Shireen Sackreiter, Melissa Turner, Angela Tilton

Key Discussion Highlights:

. Brian Cliburn discussed SIR 422 which relates to the ability for users to currently edit the ‘contract id’ field on a catalog requisition. The implication is that this change then overwrites the contract id on the enterprise wide Master Agreement for that contract. This ultimately impacts reporting as the data may not all tie to the same contract id (which currently defaults to the State Contract ID). Brian discussed the current options that the project team had discussed, including: (1) at a minimum, breaking the tie between the catalog requisition and the overall State Term Contract Master Agreement, and (2) taking this fix a step further and locking down the ability to edit the ‘contract id’ field for catalog purchases. . The group had discussion on SIR 422, and voted to lock down the edit ability of the ‘contract id’ field for catalog purchases. . Kim Koegel then facilitated a discussion on the going forward approach for the maintenance of the Office Consumables Master Agreement (currently MA 6001). Kim explained that this is the most highly utilized Master Agreement in the system, and that as a result, it has several ‘objects’ (i.e., receipts, orders) tied to it. Logic tells the team that leaving the MA as-is will only increase the number of objects tied to it, and result in a potential performance impact. Specifically, the team has seen instances of issues occurring with this MA that result in a performance impact- the most recent being that a user clicks on the ‘Orders’ tab, and subsequently has a long running session that adversely impacts system performance overall. The MFMP team’s suggestion is to schedule a regularly occurring renewal of the Office Consumables contract effective 10/9/06. Subsequently, this would preferably happen twice yearly, and would include a communication to users prior to the new MA being effective. Additionally, agency users with ‘in process’ transactions would be notified of the list of ‘in process’ transactions that exist so that users are aware of those items that need to be completed prior to the effective date of the new MA. . The group had extensive discussion about the going forward approach for the Office Consumables MA, including feedback from Stacy Arias (HSMV) who stated that HSMV has run into this issue before, and that it was very impactful to her users. She encouraged the CRB members to move forward with agreeing to a regularly scheduled creation of a new MA for this contract. . A vote was called re: the Office Consumables MA, and the final resolution was that the group would like to see an annual creation (as opposed to semi-annual). The group would prefer that the team not move forward with implementing a new MA as of 10/9 (the suggested date), but instead wait until the current contract expires in December. Going forward, the MA would be reissued each January. Garrick thanked the group for their feedback, and did reiterate that while the team will move forward with implementing the new MA after the current one expires, there is risk of a potential performance impact in the interim as a result of not moving forward with a new MA now. . Lisa Thompson then opened the discussion of the Ariba 8.2.2 Upgrade effort, and reviewed some benefits of 8.2.2. Her discussion points included descriptions of catalog enhancements, enhanced login options, session timeout warnings, and the ability to export system search results. . The group did have some questions around the time currently tied to the session timeout feature in MFMP, and whether it could be extended as part of the upgrade. Scott Rainey explained that while Ariba 8.2.2 does have new performance features, this area will be revisited during performance testing, but it is still a necessity to balance process and

1 performance. . Daymon Jensen reviewed the overview of the ‘data scoping’ enhancement to be included as part of the upgrade. System searches will be scoped by entity as a result of this change. Agencies will have levels of scoping available for assignment. Level 1 access will only allow a user to search within their entity. Level 2 would allow someone to search across entities. Level 3 access is a project team access level, and allows the user to search across all entities. Scott Rainey pointed out Data Scoping design is not complete. As part of the design effort, the MFMP team will explore a mechanism and process to associate the permission en masse in lieu of having agency Security Administrators having to individually assign to each user/role. . Debbie Gries provided an update on SIR 376 and that it would be resolved as part of the upgrade. She also reviewed CR #6 (ability to edit a requisition in ‘Hold Until’ status) and explained that the team will have this enhancement in the system prior to year end. . Scott Rainey covered DMS specific initiatives as part of the upgrade, including (1) analyzing workflow for standardization, (2) reviewing roles and permissions, (3) enhancing training, (4) reviewing Reports, and (5) effectively communicating the status of the upgrade. . Scott also covered the phases of the upgrade and the impact to the CRB during each of the phases. (1) During the Planning phase, the CRB will be involved with the evaluation of design change requests and SIRs for removal in 8.2.2; (2) During the Design phase, the CRB will be involved with the evaluation of design of change requests for implementation; (3) During the Build phase, there is no anticipated impact to the CRB; (4) During the Testing phase, CRB members will be involved in UAT; (5) During the Training phase, CRB members will be participating in training sessions, and (6) During the Deployment phase, the upgrade will go live for all agencies. Scott explained that there should be an expectation of approximately 6 months for a stabilization period once the upgrade is live. . As part of the discussion, Scott relayed constraints regarding timing for the upgrade, including constraints around the Aspire timeline. Scott reiterated that the MFMP upgrade will remain ‘subordinate’ to the Aspire timeframe, and that MFMP will not impact the go-live date of Aspire. With this in mind, he explained that the group is looking at the April, 2007 timeframe as a potential date (so that the new functionality is available prior to year end). Alternatively, the group may target October, 2007. A go/no-go checkpoint will be held in the January, 2007 timeframe to review status of Aspire timeline and to more narrowly target the 8.2.2 go-live date. . Lori Potts headed the discussion for SIR 12965 (The ability to receive more items than were ordered). The CRB discussed the need to be able to receive over-shipped items. Some of the members felt that it would significantly impact their agency’s ability to process items correctly. It was decided to table this discussion until the next meeting so that additional information could be provided and an informed decision could be made. . The group then discussed SIR 13268 (Respect and Pride Vendor Logos). After some discussion, the CRB members voted to remove this customization from the upgrade list. . Rachael Grumme presented information regarding the Invoicing Customization that provides an option for viewing exceptions on the IR screens. After some discussion, the CRB decided to table the discussion so that more information could be gathered. Following the CRB meeting, the Process Team learned that this customization is necessary in order to give groups, such as the CSD, the permission to view the IR screens when assisting agencies who call in for assistance. Without this customization, only those users with permission (in the workflow) to view a particular IR would be able to see it. Because of the need to allow the CSD and agency managers who assist users with their IRs, the Process Team felt it necessary to keep this customization. . Lori then asked the group if they would be available to meet again in about two weeks to discuss other customizations for the upgrade. Scott assured the members that the next meeting would solely focus on customization review. After a consensus that most members would be available and there were no other questions, the members were dismissed.