12866_Attachment B_Business Case_Veh Reg.pdf

Updated on: 4/23/24

Version 4

Commercial Vehicle Registration

Replacement Project

Business Case

Commercial Vehicle Registration System Replacement - Business Case

Version Description Author / Editor Date Completed

Draft Initial version

Cheralynn Abbott

6/14/23

Draft Planning Team Review Planning Team Members 8/3/23

1 Sponsor Review Sponsor and Proj Team 8/25/2023

2 Proj Team (w/Sponsor review) Project Team 11/20/2023

3 Project Team Project Team 3/13/2024

4 Changes made per EIS suggestions

Project Team 4/23/2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Current State

Future State

On The Line (Partially in Scope and/or TBD)

Exclusions (Out of Scope)

Staffing Plan

Measurable Business Outcomes and Success Criteria

Constraints (Limitations and restrictions)

Alternative Analysis

Acronym Library

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The goal of this project is to replace the Carrier Information Computer System (CICS) with a more versatile and modern enterprise-level platform that will encompass International Registration Plan (IRP), International Fuels Tax Agreement (IFTA), motor carrier operating authority and commercial vehicle registration functions. There is also an intent to provide audit and compliance functionality and maintain existing system connections with other state agencies such as Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Additionally, the vehicle and financial records and audits will be uploaded to the clearinghouse databases and comply with required federal reporting.

Commerce and Compliance Division (CCD) will establish a cross-functional Business Project Team to engage stakeholders, analyze current state, develop a comprehensive set of system requirements, manage testing of the system and associated user training to implement a new system by the end of calendar year 2025 that meets customer and stakeholder expectations.

This group includes subject matter experts in IRP, IFTA, commercial registration, financial transaction reconciliation, IRP/IFTA audits, roadside enforcement, Commerce and Compliance Applications Development (CCAD) and Oregon Driver and Motor Vehicle Services (DMV) vehicle processes. It is expected that the vendor will maintain a new COTS system post implementation. The tax functions of the CICS system will remain on mainframe and be supported by CCAD. CCD and CCAD will work together to develop a post governance framework for how the system will be maintained and managed post implementation and go-live.

Through a market research analysis the team evaluated primary options, include pros, and cons and rough cost estimate of what is offered in the market today. CCD will either a) procure a Software as a Service System (Commercial Off the Shelf or Platform Service) tailored to the State of Oregon’s needs or b) enter into an intergovernmental agreement and/or product sharing consortium to utilize a system used by other states. Approach to gathering information for completed market research included review of product marketing materials, discussion with vendors and observation of product functionality through product demonstrations. The full break down of this analysis can be found in the Market Research CommVehReg System Replacement document that will be submitted as part of Stage Gate 2.

Benefits to replacing the existing system include, but are not limited to the following:

• Service Enhancements: Replacing CCD’s current system would upgrade the functionality and oversight of commercial vehicle registration and IFTA account activities. This would, in turn, enhance operational efficiencies eliminating manual application and transaction processing. The new system would also ensure that CCD receives accurate vehicle registration, fuel use data, and revenues from carriers through a reliable verification source.

Commented [ME1]: What is the purpose of this system-what does it track, exactly? While that becomes more clear to the reader later in the document, a basic description is warranted here.

Commented [CK*D2]: Please provide more details about the interfacing.

Commented [A(3R2]: Still identifying all system connections - intent is to, at a minimum, maintain what we have today and we provided one example. Original had language suggesting connections that we have now confirmed do not exist.

Commented [CK*D4]: Will CCD also be responsible for the maintenance and operations of the CISC system after go-live/stabilization? If not, that product owner/department should be called out and deeply involved in the OCM and COMs plans.

Commented [DH5R4]: It is expected that the vendor will maintain a new COTS system post implementation. The tax functions of the CICS system will remain on mainframe and be supported by CCAD. CCD and CCAD will develop a governance plan for CCD on what that looks like from a holistic stand point, not just a single COTS system or items left on MF.

Commented [ME6R4]: The aforementioned should be specified; as written, what will happen to legacy system is not clear.

Commented [HD7R4]: This is added now.

Commented [CK*D8]: Will this group have any representation from any of the agencies/organizations that the system will interface with as stated in the first ...

Commented [A(9R8]: The intent is to establish an external stakeholder group. That group will operate separately from the internal project team, but information ...

Commented [ME10R8]: Thanks; be sure this is included in the Next Steps section of the Project Charter, if not already.

Commented [ME11R8]: My apologies, I meant the Business Case, not Project Charter- “The intent is to establish an external stakeholder group. That group will ...

Commented [A(12R8]: Now in the Next Steps section.

Commented [CK*D13]: Please explain the approach to this analysis.

Commented [HD14R13]: A market research paper was written to analysis what is out in the market today.

However the market research paper is part of stage gate 2 ...

• Cost Reduction: CCD estimates an annual savings of $1.2 million in hard costs and operational efficiencies.

Replacing the existing system is in alignment with Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) Strategic Action Plan (SAP) and specifically, the goal to invest in and integrate technology to improve transportation services and operations. It also aligns with CCD’s modernization objectives as follows:

• Reduced dependence on aging technologies.

• More flexible platform to deliver around-the-clock electronic services to carriers.

• Maintaining modern data processing and information sharing.

• Reduced risk of finding appropriate developer resources.

• More robust data protection and presentation.

• Increased stability and resiliency.

The preliminary budget that is being funded by CCD is estimated to be $12,004,231. This budget estimate is based on both market research and a request for information from vendor in the industry. When the project goes out for a request for proposal this budget will be revised. As more information is obtained, this figure will be updated. State Highway Funds will be the primary funding source for the project. CCD will apply for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMSCA) High Priority - Innovative Technology Deployment (HP-ITD) Grant in 2024 and 2025. CCD will also apply for Federal Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) grant funds to replace the State Highway funds used on the project. If any grant effort should fail, CCD will supplement the expenses.

Project Budget – High Level Snapshot

Team / Resource Costs (*Resource costs are estimate)

Rotational Resources for data migration and testing

Development & IT Teams $1,359,231

Expenses (*Costs are estimated)

Software (COTS solution) System Design and Implementation Costs $5,000,000

Software (COTS Solution) 5 yr. Maintenance and support $4,250,000

Hardware and Network $20,000

Commented [CK*D15]: How was this dollar amount created? Where is the funding coming from?

Commented [HD16R15]: The funding amount is being based on an existing COTS replacement project in CCD until more information can be obtained on COTS replacement products for this project. An RFI is being developed to send out to vendors via Oregon Buys to request additional info.

CCD will be the funding source of the project unless Federal grants are obtained.

Commented [ME17R15]: It would be helpful to know that the budget estimate is based on market research information, if that's the origin of the date. I believe that's what Katy was getting at. Additionally, specify project/CCD operational funding origin- is it general fund dollars? Fuels tax dollars? Lastly, an IT investments include 5-year total cost of ownership, per IT investment policy. Include that here and what those post-project costs include.

Commented [DH18R15]: Budget is based on market research and RFI information from vendors in the industry and has been updated here. @WELCH Donald R and I will update the ITI form accordingly.

Commented [ME19R15]: Updating of ITI is not necessary. Clarifying narrative is helpful- thank you.

Commented [AR20]: The source is state highway funds.

We will apply for federal MCSAP grant funds to replace the state highway funds if successful.

Commented [HD21R20]: @RAMSDELL Amy J I've updated this and added language around the MCSAP grant as well.

Commented [HD22]: @HAMM Danielle to get where funding is coming from for the document.

mailto:Donald.R.WELCH@odot.oregon.gov mailto:Amy.J.RAMSDELL@odot.oregon.gov mailto:Danielle.HAMM@ODOT.Oregon.gov

Contractors & Consultants (*Costs have been updated too actual)

Contractors & Consultants o Change Management Consultant o Independent Quality Management Services

$1,375,000

Total Estimated Project Budget $12,004,231

CURRENT STATE

ODOT is a member of the International Registration Plan (IRP) and the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA).

• IRP is a vehicle registration reciprocity agreement among the contiguous United States, the District of Columbia, and 10 Canadian provinces for payment of apportioned registration fees based on the total distance a motor carrier operates in all jurisdictions.

• IFTA is a reciprocity agreement among the contiguous United States and 10 Canadian provinces to simplify the reporting of fuel tax paid by motor carriers that operate in more than one jurisdiction.

Currently, ODOT uses a customized module within CICS for IRP registration processing and reporting. CICS operates on the International Business Machine Corporation (IBM) Mainframe and was modified in 1999 to support IRP and again in 2002 to support IFTA functions.

There are 9 stakeholder groups that presently interface with CICS and share IRP data regarding motor carriers, miles traveled, and registration fees. They are (1) IRP, Inc Data Repository, (2) IFTA, Inc Clearinghouse, (3) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Safety and Fitness Electronic Records (SAFER), (4) FMCSA Performance Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM), (5) CCD Audit, (6) CCD Carrier Maintenance, (7) CCD Enforcement, (8) CCD Safety, and (9) ODOT Financial Services, Oregon State Police, other Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) Law enforcement partners, and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). These business units and agencies currently share CICS data for daily business operations. CICS is expected to support and transact vehicle registration and financial processing and span a variety of technology platforms, requiring custom integration and a complex architecture.

Both IRP and IFTA solutions are part of the ODOT legacy systems that are outdated, inefficient, labor-intensive, nonintegrated, and are unable to keep up with business and technology needs.

Because of its age and the use of the programming language COBOL (Common Business Oriented Language, the system is difficult to maintain and upgrade, and increasingly difficult to

Commented [CK*D23]: What methods were used to document the current state? Has the problem ever been attempted to be resolved in the past? Given the assumption that all states must have a similar system in place for IRP and IFTA, how does this current state compare with where other states' systems? Have other states evolved to something better?

Commented [A(24R23]: Further down in the current state there is an explanation of why continued investment in the current system is not a viable option. It will also be discussed in the Market Research document. Methods and data regarding other states' systems has been added.

Commented [CK*D25]: Earlier, there was mention of interface with Oregon State Police, Department of Environmental Quality, and other local law enforcement agencies, Oregon cities, and Oregon counties. Are those agencies accounted for in these stakeholder groups?

Commented [A(26R25]: Yes, they are included in the Stakeholder Register that will be submitted as part of Stage Gate 2.

find developer resources for. Inadequate system documentation has added to the difficulty of programming code changes and systems maintenance.

These systems are rigid, inflexible, unable to handle complex processes, and increasingly difficult to interface with modern technologies. Implementing any statutory or programmatic changes will require hundreds of hours of programming effort, including a great deal of overtime personnel expenses, and results are not consistent with desired outcomes. Because of this, CCD staff are forced to adopt manual processes to remain compliant with legislative changes.

CICS lacks sufficient internal controls that are contributing to diminished vehicle and financial record data integrity. Batch file transfers are used to facilitate the flow of information across systems which has created redundancies and inconsistencies, while falling behind on modern data processing practices and standards.

The investment, time, and resources required to transform CICS to meet the evolving needs of users and stakeholders, and adopt new technologies, would be significant and is not a viable solution.

In addition to all the shortcomings already listed associated with working with a Mainframe system, the instability of CCD’s current system places CCD at risk of not being compliant with the requirements in the IRP Plan, IFTA Articles of Agreement. This jeopardizes the agency’s ability to collect IRP registration fees (approximately $18 million on an annual basis) from members of the United States (US) and Canadian jurisdictions. The systems inability to adopt new transportation technologies also hinders CCD’s ability to keep pace with FMCSA’s system modernization efforts. This will have both short- and long-term impacts for the division’s ability to meet data security expectations and data sharing requirements.

Commerce and Compliance Applications Development (CCAD) is already feeling the impact from the difficulty of finding appropriate developer resources versed in mainframe technologies. Staffing challenges with high turnover and looming retirements also present risks to business continuity. The number of staff with the combination of technical skill and business insight to help manage CICS is dwindling. CCAD is also realizing that the database support is dependent on entities outside of ODOT, where those entities are also feeling the impact of a dearth of mainframe technical resources. This issue will not be reversed and will become more impactful the longer we maintain the current environment. By modernizing and moving to a more stable system, the accuracy and accessibility of the data will be improved. The above current state analysis was compiled by management and staff from the business and CCAD in response to the ongoing system failures that have occurred. It was compiled and submitted as part of the ITD Grant Application submitted in Spring 2023.

Commented [CK*D27]: How so? Please explain.

Commented [A(28R27]: updated language

FUTURE STATE

CCD will implement a more versatile and modern enterprise-level platform that will encompass IRP, IFTA, and commercial registration functions.

Some anticipated capabilities of the new system include, but are not limited to:

• Performing all commercial motor vehicle registration and IFTA reporting/licensing functions.

• Providing 24/7/365 self-service, online access to carriers to complete registration and tax reporting transactions.

• Utilizing the same customer profile for processing commercial motor vehicle registration and IFTA applications and transactions; establishing a single source of truth.

• Real-time vehicle data exchange with Enforcement and Safety applications.

• Providing system audit functionality to select and track IRP and IFTA audits.

• Allowing Third Party Agents (TPA) to complete carrier functions on behalf of ODOT.

• Tracking plate inventory to enable outsourcing.

• Importing IRP Vehicle Data into the IFTA Tax Report.

• Generating email/Short Message System (SMS)/mail correspondence as selected by customer or their agent, i.e., commercial motor vehicle registration notifications, IFTA license renewal notifications, carrier account delinquencies, suspensions, and revocations.

• IRP and IFTA Clearinghouse vehicle and financial data exchanges as required to maintain compliance.

• Generating scheduled and ad hoc reports; enabling the ability to share vehicle, owner, and jurisdiction data for both internal and external partners.

• Ability to adapt to other mileage-based features that may be required in the future.

Project analysis identifies the following items as in scope for this proposal:

• Replacement of system used to collect/share required IRP and Commercial vehicle data and issue vehicle plates, stickers, and credentials.

• Replacement of system used to collect/share required IFTA account data and issue licenses/decals.

• Migration of existing commercial vehicle registration data.

• Decommissioning commercial vehicle registration and IFTA tax reporting functions from the Mainframe.

• Real-time data exchange and connections to internal and external systems.

• Replacement of system used to administer the PRISM Program.

• Creation of robust audit reporting and tracking functionality.

• Replacement of system used to administer financial responsibility functions.

Commented [ME29]: Carryover from Project Charter:

This list differs from the same list that appears in the Business Case- evaluate for consistency and update accordingly.

Commented [A(30R29]: Business Case had the updated list - Project Charter was updated.

Commented [CK*D31]: I do not see mention of the interfacing that was mentioned earlier. Should this be added to the list of in scope items?

Commented [A(32R31]: added - but didn't specify what systems here since that is still TBD.

Commented [EM*D33]: End user training is not included in this list- what other elements are missing, if any?

Secondly, what is currently known to be out of scope for this project?

Commented [A(34R33]: training has been added along with on the line and out of scope elements.

Commented [A(35]: updated

Commented [ME36R35]: Mainframe decommissioning details are missing from this list.

Commented [A(37R35]: added to the list

Commented [CK*D38]: Will data migration from the current system be in scope for this project? If not, how will continuity of data be addressed in the new system?

Commented [A(39R38]: added to the list

Commented [ME40]: What about tax data?

Commented [A(41R40]: tax data will remain on the mainframe - all WMT functions and data are out of scope.

See below.

Commented [ME42R40]: “WMT Tax Admin.” - what is WMT? Define this and any other undefined acronyms throughout this document as needed, and complete the statement to make meaning clear.

Commented [A(43R40]: WMT now defined and in the acronym list.

• Establishment of mechanisms to share vehicle real-time data with Enforcement, Safety, and other credentialing applications used by CCD.

• Replacement of system used to collect and distribute fees and taxes associated with services provided by CCD.

• Transponder assignment and maintenance.

• Issuance of Oregon Trusted Carrier Partner Program credentials.

• Farm vehicle registration and plate issuance (currently a DMV function).

• User training to include internal ODOT staff, customers and/or other stakeholders.

ON THE LINE (PARTIALLY IN SCOPE AND/OR TBD)

• Allowing truck service agents to conduct transactions on behalf of the Motor Carrier.

• Allowing third party agents to complete registration and licensing activities on behalf of

ODOT.

• Medium Duty – pending any legislative change that might occur.

• Interstate Contracts/Code Purchasing.

• Intrastate exemptions (hobby, non-profit charitable, tribal).

• Hazmat and Tow.

EXCLUSIONS (OUT OF SCOPE)

• Weight Mile Tax (WMT) Admin.

• Build a homegrown system.

• Bond.

• Passenger Vehicle Registration.

STAFFING PLAN

CCD has a dedicated application development team to facilitate large technical project requirement gathering, building, and implementation. A project manager from application development will be assigned to this project and work alongside CCD’s business project manager. In addition, a Change Management consulting firm has been hired to support broader modernization efforts within CCD and will provide support for this project. CCD is currently identifying stakeholders and building internal and external communication plans. Along with the Business Project Team mentioned above, a Steering Committee comprised primarily of CCD Management as has been established to provide project oversight. In addition, the team expects to have both Internal and External Advisory Groups to engage with key stakeholders.

More detail regarding roles and responsibilities will be documented in the Project Management Plan (PMP) and Stakeholder Register.

Commented [AM*D44]: Without specifics, which stakeholder groups will be represented should be summarized (subject to change).

Commented [A(45R44]: Stakeholder Groups will be included in the PMP and Stakeholder Register as part of Stage Gate 2.

MEASURABLE BUSINESS OUTCOMES AND SUCCESS CRITERIA

1) Business Process Improvement:

a. Processes will be streamlined resulting in operational efficiencies. This may include, but is not limited to, reducing and/or eliminating non-value-added process steps such as data entry, imaging, excess review, etc., performed by ODOT staff.

2) Enhanced Services:

a) Greater access for motor carriers to complete (24/7, 365 days a year) commercial vehicle registration and IFTA reporting/payments.

b) Decrease phone queue wait time: shifting to user-friendly self-service system for customers to complete their transactions.

c) Simplify the process for motor carriers by minimizing the amount of information that needs to be provided (only request what is required and/or cannot be obtained in other ways).

d) Customers will receive timely messages related to their commercial vehicle registration and IFTA reporting/payment transactions through automated system notifications utilizing real-time messaging options (I.e. email vs. Mail).

3) Cost Reduction/Staff Utilization:

a) Reduce the amount of staff time required to support commercial vehicle registration and IFTA reporting/payment transactions.

b) Outsource maintenance, freeing staff time to focus on other Divisional priorities.

4) Strategic Alignment

a) Increased ability to efficiently and effectively meet changing customer and industry needs and/or to implement future State and Federal legislative changes.

b) Meet the goals established in ODOT’s Strategic Action Plan.

5) Public/Stakeholder Satisfaction

a) Improve customer satisfaction by reducing wait time to receive registration credentials.

b) Expand data sharing capabilities with internal and external stakeholders.

6) Compliance and data integrity

a) Reduce the opportunity for error by implementing automated data validations.

b) Maintain ability to exchange data and remain in compliance with Federal and

State requirements.

CONSTRAINTS (LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS)

The project constraints are (in order of flexibility – least to most): What will be done (Scope), When (Schedule), and for How Much (Budget / Resources).

• Implementation of this project is targeted for a go-live date of Q2 2027.

Commented [CK*D46]: Will the project maintain a benefits management and realization plan? If not, how will each of these criterion be measured throughout the project? What is the benchmark for each benefit?

Commented [A(47R46]: The team expects to create a benefits management and realization plan as part of Stage Gate 3.

Commented [ME48R46]: The basis of Katy's question is P3's Business Case template's "Measurable Business Benefits" section. Evaluate this section against that guidance and incorporate any missing elements or refine narrative as needed: https://www.oregon.gov/eis/project-portfolio-performance/Pages/guidance-and-forms.aspx

Commented [A(49R46]: Section updated and aligned with Project Objectives section of the Project Charter..

Commented [ME50R46]: The last comment is confusing- Intended Business Benefits with SMART metrics are required- recommend consulting Business Case template on P3 website above for guidance. Project Objectives should be delegated to Project Charter. Update narrative accordingly.

Commented [A(51R46]: Based on our conversation on April 16th, the team is comfortable with this section as-is and realize a Benefits Realization Plan will be required as part of future stage gates.

Commented [EM*D52]: It's unclear that this title effectively represents the outcomes listed below; did the project perhaps intend to use "compliance" in lieu of "confidence?" Improved data sharing capabilities would seem to be as an enhancement to current services (#2).

Commented [A(53R52]: agree - section is re-titled https://www.oregon.gov/eis/project-portfolio-performance/Pages/guidance-and-forms.aspx

• The preliminary budget for this project is $12,004,231. As more information is obtained, this figure may be updated. This includes the cost of the solution, limited duration staff hours and consultant support.

• Resources, both ODOT staff and/or consulting support, are vital to the success of the project. The agency has limitations in place on the hiring of new staff.

ASSUMPTIONS

• Timeline assumes the mainframe system remains in caretaker status as needed until replaced and will continue to be operational for CCD’s business needs.

• Internal and external stakeholders, including customers, will accept and adopt this solution.

• The Steering Committee, Business Solution Owner, and Systems Manager will ensure we have the dedicated human resources we need to make this project successful.

• We have the time needed to ensure a successful implementation.

• We will have the budget needed to fund the project; either through ITD grants or from the Commerce and Compliance budget.

• A pilot with a small number of carriers will be completed in advance of full implementation.

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

1. Do nothing: continue to utilize the CICS system as-is, without enhancements.

a. Benefits: No upfront costs to purchase a replacement.

b. Minimal training required as only new staff would need to be trained.

• Risks:

a. Access to resources with the right skillset for enhancing and/or maintaining the current system is limited.

b. Risk of being out of compliance with the IRP reciprocity agreement. This jeopardizes the agency’s ability to collect IRP registration fees (approximately $18 million on an annual basis) from other US and Canadian jurisdictions.

c. The systems inability to adopt new transportation technologies also hinders CCDs ability to keep pace with FMCSA’s system modernization efforts which could result in a reduction in MCSAP grant funds. CCD will receive approximately $12M in the 23-25 biennium from the MCSAP program which pays for staff, vehicles, safety equipment, and infrastructure maintenance and enhancements.

This will have both short- and long-term impacts for the division’s ability to meet data security expectations and federal data sharing requirements.

Commented [CK*D54]: What are your assumptions for this projects?

Commented [A(55R54]: Assumptions are in the Scope Statement that will be submitted as part of Stage Gate 2.

Commented [EM*D56R54]: Here again, please refer to the corresponding section of P3's Business Case template.

For example, an assumption that comes to mind (mostly because the basis of the estimate is not clearly explained in this document) is that solution costs are accurate within x%.

https://www.oregon.gov/eis/project-portfolio-performance/Pages/guidance-and-forms.aspx

Commented [A(57R54]: assumptions and constraints included here - as well as in the charter and eventual scope statement.

Commented [CK*D58]: Given the manual processes that are jeopardizing collecting registration fees. Is it the cheapest option? No need for staff training could be a benefit?

Commented [A(59R58]: There is a lot of turnover on both the business and IS sides so regular training is required. Time needed to get specific dollar figures for option 1 and 2 is not worth the effort given the lack of resources with appropriate skillsets to do this work.

Resources/skills for Option 1 and 2 do not exist which make them non-viable options.

Commented [EM*D60R58]: "No upfront costs…"does the project mean no solution costs, specifically? That would seem to be more accurate as the project has acknowledged the agency's ongoing challenges to recruit and maintain staff with COBALT programming expertise.

Commented [A(61R58]: adjusted the language

Commented [AM*D62]: unclear

Commented [A(63R62]: edits made

d. Outdated system limits the agency’s ability to respond to growth and/or new requirements (state mandates that need to be implemented, often with short time frames).

2. Enhance Existing System: use internal resources to update the current system and business processes.

• Benefits:

a. No upfront costs to purchase a system replacement.

b. Some process simplifications could be implemented.

• Risks: Everything from Option 1 above along with the following:

a. Internal resources continue to be responsible for ongoing updates and maintenance.

b. Time to implement basic simplifications and/or improvements is unknown but historically even the most minor of changes to the system is a lengthy process and often results in system failures that need to be corrected and/or worked around through manual processes.

c. Current system is built to capacity, leaving very limited flexibility and scalability for future enhancements so benefits will be suboptimal.

d. Some process streamlining opportunities will be limited based on technology constraints.

e. Continued system issues with the annual registration renewal processes (delays, customer, and employee dissatisfaction.)

3. Replace the System: implement a new system built and maintained by 3rd party.

• Benefits:

a. Easily purchased, tested, and implemented without heavy reliance and constraint of internal resource availability and skillsets.

b. Outsourced maintenance and support, reducing internal information system resources.

c. Improved scalability for future enhancements.

• Risks

a. Costly; at least in the short-term, to purchase a replacement system but long-term cost savings will offset a portion of the costs.

b. Lack of access to training and/or reference materials for our customers results in dissatisfaction and suboptimal results realization.

c. Customization will be required to integrate with ODOT systems and requirements specific to Oregon-based carriers that may differ from other states.

d. Stakeholder engagement is not sufficient, and adoption of the new system is low resulting in suboptimal results.

Commented [EM*D64]: Here again, specify whether this refers to solution costs; otherwise, this is misleading as changes to existing system would presumably require programming and labor is a hard cost.

Commented [A(65R64]: adjusted the language

Commented [AM*D66]: Appreciate the attempt to compare, but scale is important, especially with #3 stating may not be enough funds. Is middle tier $7m or $10M? Is highest cost $1M more or $5M more?

Generally, schedule is also a key factor as avoiding risks and accruing benefits earlier can be worth additional cost.

Please try to convey some sense of timeline for each.

Commented [A(67R66]: We are very confident in the funding for this project. It would take a shift in direction from the agency level to jeopardize the project budget which is not anticipated. Would be difficult to estimate a timeline for option 2 because of the lack of resources.

Commented [EM*D68R66]: Please make sure that as I mention elsewhere, the basis of cost estimate is specified.

Commented [A(69R66]: updated in the budget section

Commented [ME70]: And support?

Commented [A(71R70]: adjusted

Commented [ME72]: Consider the substantial organizational change management and stakeholder engagement lift that a system replacement represents compared to the other alternatives.

Commented [A(73R72]: agree and adjusted

e. CCD does not have sufficient funding for this project independent of any potential grant funds. ODOT budget cuts could have a trickle-down effect on the project’s budget.

Conclusion Next steps include submitting this Business Case and the Project Charter to EIS for review, and to receive Stage Gate 1 endorsement. Once this is achieved the project will enter the Planning phase which will include preparing documents such as the Project Management Plan and System Requirements in order to achieve Stage Gate 2 endorsement and prepare a request for purchase to acquire a custom off the shelf (COTS) system with procurement.

A Project Team has already been identified and assembled, with each member being assigned a role. Stakeholder identification has also begun. The intent is to establish an external stakeholder group. That group will operate separately from the internal project team, but information between the two will be freely exchanged.

In Summary, industry changes, customer demand, and current system limitations make it necessary for CCD to improve registration processes and modernize core technology systems.

Based on market research, discussions with ISB leadership, and this Business Case document, CCD leadership has recommended a system replacement. This initiative has been reviewed by CCD’s Information Technology Prioritization Committee, a body that works to ensure projects meet ODOT’s strategic action plans and CCD’s operation goals. It was then reviewed and approved by ODOT’s Technology and Data Counsel in May of 2023.

The Risks itemized above, under “Replace the System”, and any others discovered along the way, will have mitigation plans which the Project will monitor and follow to help ensure that they don’t become an issue.

Failure to act leaves essential functions on a 30-year-old platform and running 30-year-old software that is unsupportable and unstable. Failure to replace the system would be a major set-back to the Commerce and Compliance Division and jeopardize the accuracy of its data and the safety of the public. In addition, the Division’s ability to maintain compliance with state and federal requirements is at risk jeopardizing critical funding the Division receives from the FMCSA through the MCSAP grant program.

This initiative will adhere to the State’s objectives and policies of the Governor’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, as well as the State’s Affirmative Action’s directives and

Commented [EM*D74]: The first sentence does not read like a risk. It seems this statement should be rewritten to highlight the uncertainty surrounding the agency's budget.

Commented [A(75R74]: adjusted

Commented [CK*D76]: How will the risks be overcome?

What are the consequences for failure to act? What will be the implementation strategy?

Commented [A(77R76]: All risks with mitigation strategies will be detailed in the Risk Log as part of Stage Gate 2.

Commented [EM*D78R76]: In support of Katy's question, here again, refer to corresponding section of P3's Business Case template for any areas that remain to be addressed: https://www.oregon.gov/eis/project-portfolio-performance/Pages/guidance-and-forms.aspx

Commented [ME79R76]: Refer to earlier comment about next step item that should be included here.

Commented [A(80R76]: updated to include that item.

Commented [EM*D81]: Of what- this business case?

guidelines. It will also follow Section 508 of the State’s Web Standards and Guidelines (Oregon Accessibility Standards, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), where it talks about designing, developing, and creating accessible software and websites.

ACRONYM LIBRARY

CCAD Commerce and Compliance Applications Development

CCD Commerce and Compliance Division

CICS Carrier Information Computer System

COBOL Common Business Oriented Language

COTS Custom Off the Shelf

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

DMV Oregon Driver and Motor Vehicle Services

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

HP-ITD High Priority - Innovative Technology Deployment

IBM International Business Machine Corporation

IFTA International Fuels Tax Agreement

IRP International Registration Plan

IT Information Technology

ITD Innovative Technology Deployment

MCSAP Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program

MS Project Microsoft Project

OCM Organizational Change Management

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

PMP Project Management Plan

POP Policy Option Package

PRISM Performance Registration Information Systems Management

QA Quality Assurance

RFP Request for Proposal

SaaS Software as a Service SAFER Safety and Fitness Electronic Records

SAP Strategic Action Plan

SMS Short Message System

TPA Third Party Agents

US United States

WMT Weight Mile Tax