1 / 58

ctcLink Steering Committee

ctcLink Steering Committee. September 24, 2019 Choi Halladay - ctcLink Steering Committee Chair, Vice President for Administrative Services, Pierce College District Christy Campbell – ctcLink Project Director. agenda. Meeting Minutes – Approval. September 10, 2019.

huyen
Télécharger la présentation

ctcLink Steering Committee

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ctcLink Steering Committee September 24, 2019 Choi Halladay - ctcLink Steering Committee Chair, Vice President for Administrative Services, Pierce College District Christy Campbell – ctcLink Project Director

  2. agenda

  3. Meeting Minutes – Approval September 10, 2019

  4. ctcLink Methodology and Quality Gates • Review • Discussion • Next Steps

  5. Ctclink quality gates & milestones Ctclink quality gates & milestones CONSTRUCT STRUCTURE DEPLOY TRANSITION INITIATION Global DesignAdoption (GDA) Determine Exception Solutions Production Cutover Planning Project Planning (Checklists & Templates) Go/No Go Decision Update BP Flows Business Process Fit/Gap (BPFG) Production Environment Prep Pre-User Acceptance Testing Training Start Change Impact Analysis & Change Action Plan Update CEMLIs Update BP Flows Production Cutover User Acceptance Testing Update Configuration Local Configuration Chart of Accounts Redesign (DG2 only) Production Validation End-User Training Convert and Validate Data Training Materials Analysis/Build Build PeopleSoft Environments Security Matrix Mapping Performance Testing Milestone Sign-Off UAT Test Definition Functional Testing Security Redesign (DG2 only) UAT Materials Build Finalize Local Configuration Guides Legacy System Shutdown Procedures in Place Prepare QA Environment Identify Exceptions Organizational Change Management Assessments Begin Prepare Parallel Environment Design Extensions Cutover Mitigation Planning GO LIVE System Integration Testing Prepare or Update Test Scripts GATE 1 PEER REVIEW ProductionGo/No Go Decision Lessons Learned Map Supplemental Systems Data Parallel Testing OCM Assessment, Activities & Deliverables for Colleges & SBCTC

  6. DG2 Go/No-Go Decisions Decision #1DG2 Upgrade (Oct. 11 – 14) • Tacoma Readiness/Recommendation • Community Colleges of Spokane Readiness/Recommendation • SBCTC Operations/Production Support Readiness/Recommendation • ctcLink Project Readiness/Recommendation • Moran Technology Consulting Recommendation Decision #2 DG2 Conversion (Oct. 25 – 28) • Clark Readiness/Recommendation • SBCTC Agency Readiness/Recommendation • SBCTC Operations/Production Support Readiness/Recommendation • ctcLink Project Readiness/Recommendation • Moran Technology Consulting Recommendation

  7. Additional readiness factors • Accessibility Testing • Load Testing

  8. Accessibility Testing Scope • Phase 1 • PeopleSoft Employee Self Service – HCM • PeopleSoft Employee Self Service – FIN • PeopleSoft Student Self Service – CS • HighPoint Mobile & Message Center (Not Complete) • Phase 2 • Online Admissions Application - PeopleSoft CS / Bolt On • OSECE - PeopleSoft CS / Bolt On • CampusCE

  9. Student Self Service Scripts • Sign-in • Student Homepage • My Preferences • Course History • Additional Resources • View My Exam Schedule • Tasks - To Do List • Academic Progress - Requirement Details • View My Classes • Enrollment Dates • Personal Information Verification • High School Transcript • My Academic Requirement • Class Search Results

  10. Employee Self Service Scripts - Finance • NavBar Navigator • Create Travel Authorization • Create Cash Advance Confirm • View Cash Advance • Expense Report History • Location Look-Up • Expense Report Entry

  11. Employee Self Service Scripts - HCM • Log-in • First User Log-in • Report Time • W-2/W-2c • Direct Deposit • Paycheck • Tax Withholding • Paycheck Modeler • Add Earnings • Request Absence • Request Absence (Partial Day) • Employee SS Homepage • Fluid Timesheet (Week 1 of 3) • Fluid Timesheet (Week 3 of 3)

  12. Accessibility findings – severity Severity measures how large an impact on the user experience a violation of the best practice will have. It is ranked on a scale of 1 to 10 based on user experience analysis; this ranking represents the impact that a violation of the best practice would have on users. A violation of a best practice with a severity of 1would have virtually no impact. A severity of 10 represents an insurmountable obstacle in the user experience. 

  13. Phase 1 – Test Execution Findings

  14. Accessibility Testing Next Steps • College help to prioritize findings for ctcLink • Project Team has logged Sev#2 Service Requests with Oracle • Working with Oracle Rep to set up discussions with Oracle; Product Managers in each pillar to provide the product road map for Oracle to resolve the findings in PeopleSoft • Project and Support have begun working on PeopleSoft login and Self Service priority fixes • Complete Phase 1 – Mobile/Message Center Testing • Begin Phase 2 Accessibility Testing

  15. ctcLink Load Testing - scope • Perform load testing on the technical components of ctcLink (App, Web, database and network) and ensure that Application works as expected under heavy loads • Identify areas where performance is poor and at what conditions • Identify the core business processes including “Fluid” and the performance test scripts for the applications to be tested • Determine application limitations under maximum number of active users performing common transactions and provide recommendations to improve service and delivery

  16. Ctclink Load Testing – Approach • Test frequently used transactions with significant impact to performance of the system • Test system with 30% of the current production population • Execute test scripts on current production-like build and on “projected” like build after recommendations are implemented • Executed scripts on six (6) different machines parallel witheach processing 3516 users • Utilized test cases from multiple user types like Student, Faculty, Staff, Employee and Manager • Followed an incremental/iterative approach to identify the break points for predefined load

  17. Test results for Portal to Campus Solutions “Search for Open Classes” transaction Post recommended Changes. • Test script was executed through iHub for 21100 users with ramp up period of 0.1 seconds • 28% students were able to perform the transaction successfully • 72% students were dropped out at multiple stages of transaction Reasons for failure: • Web server not available/not responding • Gateway timeout • Bad Gateway • 99.99% students were able to complete the transaction successfully • 0.01% students were dropped out

  18. CS Faculty Transactions Results CS Student Testing Transactions Results • All the tests are done through iHUB portal • Tests were performed on 2426 users with ramp-up period of 0.1 seconds

  19. Fin Transactions & Testing Results • All the tests are done through iHUB portal • Testing results for all FIN Transactions

  20. HCM Transactions & Testing Results • All the tests are done through iHUB portal • Tests were performed on 6758 users with ramp-up period of 0.1 seconds

  21. Vendor recommendations (Some Already Implemented) It is assumed that the recommended configuration is maintained 24/7 to meet the anticipated load. Load balancer server was not distributing the load among multiple servers equally; Burgundy addressed this issue. Burgundy reported that the Auto-scaling feature is not enabled on AWS. Therefore, we performed an incremental/iterative approach for load testing. If SBCTC thinks the overall cost to maintain the recommended configuration is too high, data analysis can be carried out after six months or one year to identify the total load on the system, and configuration can be modified accordingly.

  22. DG2 gate 5: college readiness Discussion & Recommendation for Go-Live ctcLink Steering Committee September 24, 2019

  23. DG2 readiness ASSESSMENT development August 2019 Mid-August to early Sept. 2019 Sept. 9, 2019 Sept. 10, 2019 Sept. 18, 2019 Sept. 24, 2019 ctcLink Steering Committee review, discussion, approval College readiness spreadsheet developed by ctcLink PMO team Reviewed by: ctcLink Team; DG2 (PMs, Exec Sponsors, college project team, SMEs; Quality Assurance (Moran & OCIO) ctcLink Steering Committee reviewed and approved Feedback incorporated and spreadsheet updated DG2 PMs complete readiness spreadsheet, submit to Project Management Office KEY ELEMENTS OF QUALITY COLLEGE READINESS ASSESSMENT • Accuracy: true measurement of go-live readiness • Consistency: one tracking tool • Identification of Gaps (for college-specific items) • Establishment of Mitigation Plans • Collaborative Process: Involvement/Assessment by DG2 PMs, ctcLink & SBCTC teams • Transparency: Report Readiness to all levels of ctcLink Governance Resource Links ~ Go-Live DG (Deployment Group) Readiness Criteria spreadsheet (sample) Go-Live Recommendation Form (sample)

  24. DG2 Upgrade go-live recommendation forms • Tacoma Community College • Community Colleges of Spokane • ctcLink Project / SBCTC Production Support

  25. Tacoma Community College Form

  26. Community Colleges of Spokane Form

  27. SBCTC Production Support Team Form Organization's comments to above signature, if any: The production support group represents the Campus Solutions, Finance and Human Capital Management pillars, along with data services, security, training, testing, application services and legacy teams. Overall, the production support group is in support of a Go decision for the DG2 deployment both at the organizational and software perspectives. The largest concern is the lack of knowledge transfer around new features/functions of Campus Solutions 9.2, fluid navigation, configuration guides, and the go-live support model for post-upgrade and conversion activities. The production support and project team leadership will be meeting on October 1, 2019 to address the needs and develop a plan moving forward. Other concerns are addressed in the DG2 Readiness Criteria workbook under the SBCTC support checklist worksheet.

  28. DG2 Upgrade INDIVIDUAL READINESS ASSESSMENTS • Tacoma Community College • Community Colleges of Spokane • ctcLink Project Team / SBCTC Production Support

  29. *Refer to Readiness Spreadsheet tabs for additional details and comments.

  30. Spokane’s Additional Concerns

  31. Spokane’s Additional Concerns

  32. Spokane’s Additional Concerns

  33. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSPECTIVE • Moran Technology Consulting

  34. GO-LIVE DISCUSSION & DECISION FOR UPGRADE COLLEGES • Tacoma Community College • Community Colleges of Spokane

  35. DG2 conversion go-live recommendation forms • Clark College • SBCTC Agency (implementation) • ctcLink Project / SBCTC Production support

  36. Clark College Form

  37. SBCTC Agency Form

  38. SBCTC Production Support Team Form Organization's comments to above signature, if any: The production support group represents the Campus Solutions, Finance and Human Capital Management pillars, along with data services, security, training, testing, application services and legacy teams. Overall, the production support group is in support of a Go decision for the DG2 deployment both at the organizational and software perspectives. The largest concern is the lack of knowledge transfer around new features/functions of Campus Solutions 9.2, fluid navigation, configuration guides, and the go-live support model for post-upgrade and conversion activities. The production support and project team leadership will be meeting on October 1, 2019 to address the needs and develop a plan moving forward. Other concerns are addressed in the DG2 Readiness Criteria workbook under the SBCTC support checklist worksheet.

  39. DG2 conversionINDIVIDUAL READINESS ASSESSMENTS

  40. *Refer to Readiness Spreadsheet tabs for additional details and comments.

  41. Clarks Conditions

  42. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSPECTIVE • Moran Technology Consulting

  43. GO-LIVE DISCUSSION & DECISION FOR conversion organization • Clark College • SBCTC Agency

  44. Ctclink program status • Program Risk • Implementation Colleges • Pre-Implementation Colleges

  45. LEGEND: Critical High Moderate Low H M C L LEGEND: High Moderate Low H M L 47

  46. ctcLink Quality Assurance Scorecard - Moran Technology Consulting , November 2018 48

  47. 49

  48. Deployment Group 4 Dashboard Reports – September 2 to 13, 2019

More Related