| | Exhibit 300 (BY2009) - Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS), Agency for Healthcare Research and QualityPART ONE
OVERVIEW
- 1. Date of Submission:
- 2008-02-04
- 2. Agency:
- 009
- 3. Bureau:
- 33
- 4. Name of this Capital Asset:
- AHRQ Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS)
- 5. Unique Project Identifier:
- 009-33-01-02-01-0011-00
- 6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2009?
- Mixed Life Cycle
- 7. What was the first budget year this investment was submitted to OMB?
- FY2003
- 8. Provide a brief summary and justification for this investment, including a brief description of how this closes in part or in whole an identified agency performance gap.
- The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) is the major Federal source of high-quality data for estimates of healthcare use, expenditures, types of medical services used, healthcare quality and sources of payment for medical care. MEPS, a unique, central, consolidated database is mandated by Title IX of the Public Health Service Act and its 1999 amendment (P.L.106-129). MEPS provides Federal and other governmental policymakers, researchers, healthcare administrators, businesses, and the public with timely, comprehensive information to evaluate health reform policies, the effect of tax code changes on health expenditures and tax revenue, and proposed changes in government health programs such as Medicare. MEPS, the most recent in a series of medical expenditure surveys, has three IT components: 1) survey; 2) data center and analytic capability and 3) a website. It is a mixed life cycle investment: all three components are steady state operations, but the survey is being modernized. The survey consists of a Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) program, related databases and programs that transform the interviews into usable statistical information. The ongoing CAPI software modernization (DME) effort will convert the current proprietary DOS product to a COTS Windows application, thus filling a program GAP since the DOS-base systems will no longer be supported and laptops used in the data collection will no longer be able to properly function in that mode. MEPS helps achieve three AHRQ Strategic Goals: (1) Improve healthcare safety and quality for All Americans - by providing essential data for the National Healthcare Quality Report and the National Healthcare Disparities Report; (2) Achieve wider access to effective healthcare services and reduce healthcare costs - by furnishing vital data on health insurance usage, coverage and cost; and (3) Assure that providers and consumers use beneficial and timely healthcare data to make decisions -by providing timely, accurate information for healthcare purchasers and governmental and business policymakers. MEPS directly supports PMA Initiative, Expanded Electronic Government, by providing extensive, current and comprehensive data to the public, researchers, and policy makers (i.e., government-to-citizen; government-to-business). MEPS was initially approved through the AHRQ CPIC and budget review process and subsequently approved by the HHS ITIRB.
- 9. Did the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee approve this request?
- yes
- 9.a. If "yes," what was the date of this approval?
- 2006-06-23
- 10. Did the Project Manager review this Exhibit?
- yes
- 11.a. What is the current FAC-P/PM certification level of the project/program manager?
- Senior/Expert-level
- 12. Has the agency developed and/or promoted cost effective, energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable techniques or practices for this project.
- no
- 12.a. Will this investment include electronic assets (including computers)?
- yes
- 12.b. Is this investment for new construction or major retrofit of a Federal building or facility? (answer applicable to non-IT assets only)
- no
- 13. Does this investment directly support one of the PMA initiatives?
- yes
- If yes, select the initiatives that apply:
Initiative Name |
---|
Broadening Health Insurance Coverage through State Initiatives | Expanded E-Government |
- 13.a. Briefly and specifically describe for each selected how this asset directly supports the identified initiative(s)? (e.g. If E-Gov is selected, is it an approved shared service provider or the managing partner?)
- MEPS supports both the Expanded E-Government and Broadening Health Insurance Coverage Through State initiatives by providing timely, comprehensive information on the use of and payment for medical care, health insurance and health/chronic conditions. MEPS is also used extensively by nearly 50 State governments in evaluating their population's health insurance profiles, focusing on eligibility, enrollment rates, and respective premium costs for employer sponsored health insurance coverage.
- 14. Does this investment support a program assessed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)?
- yes
- 14.a. If yes, does this investment address a weakness found during the PART review?
- no
- 14.b. If yes, what is the name of the PARTed program?
- 2002: AHRQ - Data Collection and Dissemination
- 14.c. If yes, what rating did the PART receive?
- Moderately Effective
- 15. Is this investment for information technology?
- yes
- 16. What is the level of the IT Project (per CIO Council's PM Guidance)?
- Level 2
- 17. What project management qualifications does the Project Manager have? (per CIO Council's PM Guidance)
- (1) Project manager has been validated as qualified for this investment
- 18. Is this investment identified as high risk on the Q4 - FY 2007 agency high risk report (per OMB memorandum M-05-23)?
- no
- 19. Is this a financial management system?
- no
- 19.a.2. If no, what does it address?
- Health Care Survey information.
- 20. What is the percentage breakout for the total FY2009 funding request for the following? (This should total 100%)
Area | Percentage |
---|
Hardware | 0 | Software | 0 | Services | 0 | Other | 100 |
- 21. If this project produces information dissemination products for the public, are these products published to the Internet in conformance with OMB Memorandum 05-04 and included in your agency inventory, schedules and priorities?
- n/a
- 22. Contact information of individual responsible for privacy related questions.
Name | Timothy Erny | Phone Number | 301-427-1760 | Title | Senior Official for Privacy | Email | Tim.Erny@ahrq.hhs.gov |
- 23. Are the records produced by this investment appropriately scheduled with the National Archives and Records Administration's approval?
- yes
- 24. Does this investment directly support one of the GAO High Risk Areas?
- no
SUMMARY OF SPEND
- 1. Provide the total estimated life-cycle cost for this investment by completing the following table. All amounts represent budget authority in millions, and are rounded to three decimal places. Federal personnel costs should be included only in the row designated Government FTE Cost, and should be excluded from the amounts shown for Planning, Full Acquisition, and Operation/Maintenance. The total estimated annual cost of the investment is the sum of costs for Planning, Full Acquisition, and Operation/Maintenance. For Federal buildings and facilities, life-cycle costs should include long term energy, environmental, decommissioning, and/or restoration costs. The costs associated with the entire life-cycle of the investment should be included in this report.
All amounts represent Budget Authority
Note: For the cross-agency investments, this table should include all funding (both managing partner and partner agencies).
Government FTE Costs should not be included as part of the TOTAL represented. Cost Type | Py-1 & Earlier -2006 | PY 2007 | CY 2008 | BY 2009 |
---|
Planning Budgetary Resources | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | Acquisition Budgetary Resources | 8.500 | 2.100 | 0.300 | 0.000 | Maintenance Budgetary Resources | 40.903 | 20.633 | 21.094 | 21.587 | Government FTE Cost | 0.568 | 0.301 | 0.313 | 0.000 | # of FTEs | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
- 2. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's?
- no
- 3. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2008 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes.
- (1) Current contracts do not extend beyond 2010 and hence can not be accurately estimated beyond then. It is anticipated, however, that MEPS will continue in some form because of the importance of the data and analyses to many customers and stakeholders. (2) Totals are for 2002 to 2010 (historical funding not represented totals $155.409) (2011 is an estimate), the "modern" era of the MEPS project.
PERFORMANCE In order to successfully address this area of the exhibit 300, performance goals must be provided for the agency and be linked to the annual performance plan. The investment must discuss the agency's mission and strategic goals, and performance measures (indicators) must be provided. These goals need to map to the gap in the agency's strategic goals and objectives this investment is designed to fill. They are the internal and external performance benefits this investment is expected to deliver to the agency (e.g., improve efficiency by 60 percent, increase citizen participation by 300 percent a year to achieve an overall citizen participation rate of 75 percent by FY 2xxx, etc.). The goals must be clearly measurable investment outcomes, and if applicable, investment outputs. They do not include the completion date of the module, milestones, or investment, or general goals, such as, significant, better, improved that do not have a quantitative measure.
- Agencies must use the following table to report performance goals and measures for the major investment and use the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Performance Reference Model (PRM). Map all Measurement Indicators to the corresponding Measurement Area and Measurement Grouping identified in the PRM. There should be at least one Measurement Indicator for each of the four different Measurement Areas (for each fiscal year). The PRM is available at www.egov.gov. The table can be extended to include performance measures for years beyond FY 2009.
Row | Fiscal Year | Strategic Goal Supported | Measurement Area | Measurement Grouping | Measurement Indicator | Baseline | Planned Improvement to the Baseline | Actual Results |
---|
1 | 2005 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Mission and Business Results | Health Care Research and Practitioner Education | Establish MEPS Data Center for User statistics | None | New Service and support area; Establish Baseline | Baseline Established | 2 | 2005 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Delivery Time | MEPS use and demographic data available sooner after data collected | 12 months | 1 month improvement | Met target - 11 months | 3 | 2005 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Processes and Activities | Timeliness | Maintain Steady State for time between data collection and data availability in all file and table categories | Various baselines | Maintain Steady State | Maintain Steady State | 4 | 2005 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Data Storage | Increase the number of topical tables included. | None | 1 topical area added access | 1 topical area added access | 5 | 2006 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Mission and Business Results | Health Care Research and Practitioner Education | Maintain Steady State # of MEPS data center projects | Maintain established baseline of 31 projects | Maintain Number of data center projects | Maintain Baseline | 6 | 2006 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Delivery Time | MEPS Expenditure data available sooner after data collection | 12 months | Maintain Steady State | Maintain Steady State - data is available after 12 months of end of data collection | 7 | 2006 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Processes and Activities | Timeliness | Maintain Steady State | Various baselines | Maintain Steady State | Maintain Steady State | 8 | 2006 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Data Storage | Eliminate dependency on DOS systems | Conversion to Windows | Produce functional Windows instrument | Windows Instrument Fielded 2/07 | 9 | 2007 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Mission and Business Results | Health Care Research and Practitioner Education | Increase number of MEPS data center projects | To be determined from 2006 | Increase Number of data center projects | 30 user/projects last year; 34 this year | 10 | 2007 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Delivery Time | Insurance component tables will be available within 6 months of collections | 6 months | Maintain baseline of 6 months collection | Data available 6 months after collection | 11 | 2007 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Processes and Activities | Timeliness | Maintain Steady State | Various baselines | Maintain current delivery schedule through technology transition | All dates met | 12 | 2007 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Data Storage | Eliminate dependency on DOS systems | Windows Instrument established | Windows instrument successfully fielded and data collected in Windows environment. | Transistion on schedule | 13 | 2008 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Mission and Business Results | Health Care Research and Practitioner Education | Increase the number of MEPS data center projects by 5% | To be determined from 2007 30 active project | Increase Number of data center projects by 5% | TBD | 14 | 2008 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Delivery Time | Insurance component tables will be available within 6 months of collections | 6 months | Maintain baseline of 6 months collection | TBD | 15 | 2008 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Processes and Activities | Timeliness | Maintain Steady State | Various baselines | Maintain current delivery schedule through technology transition | TBD | 16 | 2008 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Data Storage | Eliminate dependency on DOS systems | Data successfully collected in Windows | Data files produced from Windows based data collection. | TBD | 17 | 2009 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Mission and Business Results | Health Care Research and Practitioner Education | Increase the number of MEPS data center projects by 5% over prior year | To be determined from 2008 | Increase Number of data center projects | TBD | 18 | 2009 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Delivery Time | Insurance component tables will be available within 6 months of collections | 6 months | Maintain baseline of 6 months collection | TBD | 19 | 2009 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Data Storage | 100% of all laptops used to collect survey data will have the windows operating system. (Technology) | Data successfully collected in Windows | Data files produced from Windows based data collection. | TBD | 20 | 2009 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Delivery Time | Decrease the time between collection and availability of use and demographic data by at least 1 month. | 12 months | 1 month improvement | TBD | 21 | 2009 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Data Storage | Increase the number of state level topical tables by at least one (1). | 1 table | Additional state level tables to be added | TBD | 22 | 2009 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Processes and Activities | Timeliness | Full Year Expenditure data will be available within 12 months of end of data collection | 12 months | Have data available at the end of the 11th month | TBD | 23 | 2010 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Mission and Business Results | Health Care Research and Practitioner Education | Increase the number of MEPS data center projects by 5% over prior year | To be determined from 2009 | Increase Number of data center projects | TBD | 24 | 2010 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Delivery Time | Insurance component tables will be available within 6 months of collections | 6 months | Maintain baseline of 6 months collection | TBD | 25 | 2010 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Data Storage | 100% of all laptops used to collect survey data will have the windows operating system. (Technology) | Data successfully collected in Windows | Data files produced from Windows based data collection. | TBD | 26 | 2010 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Customer Results | Delivery Time | Decrease the time between collection and availability of use and demographic data by at least 1 month. | 12 months | 1 month improvement | TBD | 27 | 2010 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Technology | Data Storage | Increase the number of state level topical tables by at least one (1). | 1 table | Additional state level tables to be added | TBD | 28 | 2010 | S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value | Processes and Activities | Timeliness | Full Year Expenditure data will be available within 12 months of end of data collection | 12 months | Have data available at the end of the 11th month | TBD |
Enterprise Architecture In order to successfully address this area of the business case and capital asset plan you must ensure the investment is included in the agency's EA and Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) process, and is mapped to and supports the FEA. You must also ensure the business case demonstrates the relationship between the investment and the business, performance, data, services, application, and technology layers of the agency's EA. - 1. Is this investment included in your agency's target enterprise architecture?
- yes
- 2. Is this investment included in the agency's EA Transition Strategy?
- yes
- 2.a. If yes, provide the investment name as identified in the Transition Strategy provided in the agency's most recent annual EA Assessment.
- AHRQ Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS)
- 3. Is this investment identified in a completed (contains a target architecture) and approved segment architecture?
- no
- 4. Identify the service components funded by this major IT investment (e.g., knowledge management, content management, customer relationship management, etc.). Provide this information in the format of the following table. For detailed guidance regarding components, please refer to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/.
Component: Use existing SRM Components or identify as NEW. A NEW component is one not already identified as a service component in the FEA SRM.
Reused Name and UPI: A reused component is one being funded by another investment, but being used by this investment. Rather than answer yes or no, identify the reused service component funded by the other investment and identify the other investment using the Unique Project Identifier (UPI) code from the OMB Ex 300 or Ex 53 submission.
Internal or External Reuse?: Internal reuse is within an agency. For example, one agency within a department is reusing a service component provided by another agency within the same department. External reuse is one agency within a department reusing a service component provided by another agency in another department. A good example of this is an E-Gov initiative service being reused by multiple organizations across the federal government.
Funding Percentage: Please provide the percentage of the BY requested funding amount used for each service component listed in the table. If external, provide the funding level transferred to another agency to pay for the service. Row | Agency Component Name | Agency Component Description | Service Type | Component | Reused Component Name | Reused UPI | Internal or External Reuse? | Funding % |
---|
1 | Query | Defines the set of capabilities that support retrieval of records that satisfy specific query selection criteria. | Search | Query | | | No Reuse | 6 | 2 | Classification | Defines the set of capabilities that support the categorization of documents. | Document Management | Classification | | | No Reuse | 6 | 3 | Content Authoring | Defines the capabilities that allow for the creation of tutorials, CBT courseware, web sites, CD-ROMs and other interactive programs. | Content Management | Content Authoring | | | No Reuse | 6 | 4 | Content Publishing and Delivery | Defines the set of capabilities that allow for the propagation of interactive programs. | Content Management | Content Publishing and Delivery | | | No Reuse | 6 | 5 | Tagging and Aggregation | Defines the set of capabilities that support the identification of specific content within a larger set of content for collection and summarization. | Content Management | Tagging and Aggregation | | | No Reuse | 6 | 6 | Knowledge Capture | Defines the set of capabilities that facilitate collection of data and information. | Knowledge Management | Knowledge Capture | | | No Reuse | 6 | 7 | Categorization | Defines the set of capabilities that allow classification of data and information into specific layers or types to support an organization. | Knowledge Management | Categorization | | | No Reuse | 6 | 8 | Knowledge Distribution and Delivery | Defines the set of capabilities that support the transfer of knowledge to the end customer. | Knowledge Management | Knowledge Distribution and Delivery | | | No Reuse | 6 | 9 | Information Sharing | Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of documents and data in a multi-user environment for use by an organization and its stakeholders. | Knowledge Management | Information Sharing | | | No Reuse | 6 | 10 | Information Retrieval | Defines the set of capabilities that allow access to data and information for use by an organization and its stakeholders. | Knowledge Management | Information Retrieval | | | No Reuse | 6 | 11 | Information Mapping / Taxonomy | Defines the set of capabilities that support the creation and maintenance of relationships between data entities, naming standards and categorization. | Knowledge Management | Information Mapping / Taxonomy | | | No Reuse | 6 | 12 | Standardized / Canned | Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of pre-conceived or pre-written reports. | Reporting | Standardized / Canned | | | No Reuse | 6 | 13 | Ad Hoc | Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of dynamic reports on an as needed basis. | Reporting | Ad Hoc | | | No Reuse | 6 | 14 | Mathematical | Defines the set of capabilities that support the formulation and mathematical analysis of probabilistic models for random phenomena and the development and investigation of methods and principles for statistical inference. | Analysis and Statistics | Mathematical | | | No Reuse | 6 | 15 | Assistance Request | Defines the set of capabilities that support the solicitation of support from a customer. | Customer Initiated Assistance | Assistance Request | | | No Reuse | 6 | 16 | Online Help | Defines the set of capabilities that provide an electronic interface to customer assistance. | Customer Initiated Assistance | Online Help | | | No Reuse | 6 | 17 | Self-Service | Defines the set of capabilities that allow an organization's customers to sign up for a particular service at their own initiative. | Customer Initiated Assistance | Self-Service | | | No Reuse | 6 | 18 | Surveys | Defines the set of capabilities that are used to collect useful information from an organization's customers. | Customer Relationship Management | Surveys | | | No Reuse | 6 |
- 5. To demonstrate how this major IT investment aligns with the FEA Technical Reference Model (TRM), please list the Service Areas, Categories, Standards, and Service Specifications supporting this IT investment.
FEA SRM Component: Service Components identified in the previous question should be entered in this column. Please enter multiple rows for FEA SRM Components supported by multiple TRM Service Specifications.
Service Specification: In the Service Specification field, Agencies should provide information on the specified technical standard or vendor product mapped to the FEA TRM Service Standard, including model or version numbers, as appropriate. Row | SRM Component | >Service Area | Service Category | Service Standard | Service Specification (i.e., vendor and product name) |
---|
1 | Content Publishing and Delivery | Component Framework | Presentation / Interface | Static Display | Hyper Text Markup Language | 2 | Information Sharing | Service Access and Delivery | Delivery Channels | Internet | Hypertext Transfer Protocol - HTTP/1.1 | 3 | Content Publishing and Delivery | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Web Browser | Internet Explorer | 4 | Content Authoring | Component Framework | Business Logic | Platform Independent | Java 2 Enterprise Edition | 5 | Knowledge Capture | Component Framework | Business Logic | Platform Independent | Java 2 Enterprise Edition | 6 | Assistance Request | Component Framework | Business Logic | Platform Independent | Java 2 Enterprise Edition | 7 | Online Help | Component Framework | Business Logic | Platform Independent | Java 2 Enterprise Edition | 8 | Self-Service | Component Framework | Business Logic | Platform Independent | Java 2 Enterprise Edition | 9 | Surveys | Component Framework | Business Logic | Platform Independent | Java 2 Enterprise Edition | 10 | Information Sharing | Service Access and Delivery | Access Channels | Collaboration / Communications | Meps WebSite (www.ahrq.meps.gov) | 11 | Knowledge Distribution and Delivery | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Delivery Servers | Web Servers | Microsoft Internet Information Services 6.0 | 12 | Knowledge Capture | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Support Platforms | Platform Dependent | Microsoft Windows NT | 13 | Classification | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Database | Oracle | 14 | Knowledge Capture | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Database | Oracle | 15 | Categorization | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Database | Oracle | 16 | Information Mapping / Taxonomy | Service Platform and Infrastructure | Database / Storage | Database | Oracle | 17 | Standardized / Canned | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | Oracle | 18 | Ad Hoc | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | Oracle | 19 | Query | Service Interface and Integration | Integration | Middleware | PL/SQL | 20 | Information Retrieval | Service Interface and Integration | Integration | Middleware | PL/SQL | 21 | Query | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | SAS Enterprise | 22 | Tagging and Aggregation | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | SAS Enterprise | 23 | Standardized / Canned | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | SAS Enterprise | 24 | Mathematical | Component Framework | Data Management | Reporting and Analysis | SAS Enterprise | 25 | Information Sharing | Service Access and Delivery | Service Transport | Service Transport | TCP/IP | 26 | Content Publishing and Delivery | Component Framework | Presentation / Interface | Content Rendering | XHTML |
- 6. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc)?
- yes
- 6.a. If yes, please describe.
- This investment leverages: Federal Health Architecture (FHA)
PART TWO
RISK You should perform a risk assessment during the early planning and initial concept phase of the investment's life-cycle, develop a risk-adjusted life-cycle cost estimate and a plan to eliminate, mitigate or manage risk, and be actively managing risk throughout the investment's life-cycle.
Answer the following questions to describe how you are managing investment risks. - 1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?
- yes
- 1.a. If yes, what is the date of the plan?
- 2007-03-30
- 1.b. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last year's submission to OMB?
- yes
- 1.c. If yes, describe any significant changes:
- The Risk Assessment plan was revised in response to our remediation plan. The revised risk management plan formalizes and regularizes management procedures including regular reporting and review of the risk environment that had already been operational for some time. Risks are reviewed twice a year (March and September) and at major milestones, including procurement actions. Several management areas (EVM, Privacy, Performance) viewed silmultaneously for risk management as result of risk plan revision.
- 3. Briefly describe how investment risks are reflected in the life cycle cost estimate and investment schedule:
- The investment schedule and life cycle cost estimate recognize risks to the project and the approach to the project has been specifically structured to recognize and to the extent possible, mitigate these risks. One key element of our approach to mitigating risks is iterative testing along multiple development paths. The converted questionnaire for each round of the study undergoes extensive in-office testing by contractor and government staff, which is followed by field pretesting. At each stage of testing, detected problems are documented in standard format and problem reports are regularly reviewed and prioritized for action. The approach to the development of the operations management system follows a similar course, with iterative in-office testing followed by field testing of the management system joined with the questionnaire. A fundamental requirement for the converted questionnaire is ensuring data continuity with the current project operations. To ensure continuity, the data captured through the converted instrument undergo testing to ensure proper flow through post-collection processing into the existing data delivery systems. The multiple stages of testing and assessment, spread over the full development period, provide regular points for reviewing progress against detailed milestone schedules, adjusting priorities as needed, and assessing risks to schedule, cost, and technical objectives associated with alternatives. The extended time between the projected development freeze for the new instrument and its production use will allow for full integration testing of all components, mitigating the risk to complex new software applications of minor problems that, although relatively simple to fix, can be particularly costly to schedules. The phased introduction of the new application over two cycles of national field work mitigates risk to the project and provides a framework for fallback options if necessary. Project costs are reviewed monthly. Proposals for changes to the design or specifications for the converted instrument are assessed in terms of potential technical contribution, cost, and schedule impact.
COST & SCHEDULE
- 1. Does the earned value management system meet the criteria in ANSI/EIA Standard 748?
- no
- 2. Is the CV% or SV% greater than ± 10%?
- no
- 3. Has the investment re-baselined during the past fiscal year?
- no
|
|
|