2006 SEARCH Symposium

1. 2006 SEARCH Symposium Justice Interoperability Across the Extended Enterprise:A Wisconsin Case Study Jim Pingel - WIJIS DirectorDonna Lewein – Project Manager

2. Background: Interoperability in Wisconsin An Update on Current Projects Lessons Learned Seeing the Problem from the Local Perspective Project Management Across Agencies Institutionalizing Interoperability Agenda

3. GJXDM is used to accomplish two different types of interoperability: Information Exchange Automated case processing; movement of documents electronically, from one system to another. vs. Information Sharing The ability to search for key investigative or case information across multiple individual systems. THIS IS A STORY ABOUT TRYING TO COLLABORATIVELY ACHIEVE BOTH !!! Terminology

4. Background Interoperability in Wisconsin

5. Mission Promote and coordinate automated information systems that are interoperable among, and available to, local, tribal, county, and state justice agencies. Mandate: Coordinate Multiple Projects, Leverage Grant Resources Accomplish both information sharing and exchange with a single infrastructure WIJIS Overview

6. SAA (OJA Exec Dir), Chair WI Dept of Justice State CIO State Courts CIO Dept of Corrections Police Chief representative District Attorney representative Governance

7. Many Ongoing Projects Enterprise Systems Information Exchange Information Sharing Filling the Remaining Gaps Statewide Search: Gateway Shared Infrastructure Interoperability in Wisconsin

8. Enterprise Systems • eTIME: First State Hot File System to Exchange xml with NLETS • District Attorney Case Management (PROTECT) • Consolidated Court Automation Program (CCAP) • Integrated Corrections System (ICS) • In-Squad Citation/Crash Reporting System (TrACS – DMV)

9. Information Exchanges The IEPD Process • Law Enforcement-Prosecutor (eReferral) • DA Court Case Filings • Criminal History Updates (Courts and DAs) • Warrants & Protective Orders • Conditions of Probation/Parole Dispositions Case Filing No Process Warrants & Protective Orders eReferral Probation/Parole Caseloads

10. TIME/eTIME Information Sharing: The Wisconsin Justice Gateway Local Law Enforcement Records Management Systems Courts DA- PROTECT Gaps Remain in Seamless, Secure Information Sharing. Integrated Corrections

11. TIME/eTIME Data-Sharing: The WIJIS Justice Gateway Local Law Enforcement Records Management Systems Courts DA- PROTECT A single, secure point of read-only access to disparate state and local justice information resources. Law Enforcement Data Integrated Corrections

12. Multi-Agency Production Team Tackling Policy, Standards, Shared Infrastructure Concurrently Doing Both: Solutions Apply to Exchange Projects Security, Access and Authentication Grants to Locals to Fund Implementation Gateway Implementation

13. Lessons Learned The View from Local Law Government

14. Multiple Projects Different Ways to Solve the Same Problem Little/No Consistency Multiple State Initiatives, Grant Programs From the Local View… Citation/Crash Reporting The State Gateway NIBRS eReferral Local RMS Warrant Exchange

15. Aligning Grant Program Objectives Investing in a Reusable Infrastructure Solving the Problem Citation/Crash Reporting Justice Integration Layer Gateway NIBRS eReferral Local RMS Warrant Exchange

16. Justice Integ. Layer Source: US Department of Homeland Security… it.ojp.gov Interfaces= n(n-1) Interfaces= 2n The Justice Integration Layer • Statewide Infrastructure • Justice (Enterprise) Service Bus • Registry/Repository • GJXML – IEPs • Web Service Definitions • Messaging Formats/Standards

17. Lessons Learned Project Management in a Multi-Agency, Multi-Project Environment

18. Team Structure Options, Issues, Solutions Partnering Agile Methodologies Project Management

19. We reset the expectations. Simplified the requirements for Phase I: Limit initial user and submitted participation to pilot law enforcement agencies (5 consortia; 40 agencies) Sharing only selected RMS data Prioritized features “wish list” over several future phases Invoking a Project Reset

20. Obtained buy-in from governance group and local sharing partners for a phased approach Identified overarching issues for resolution beyond this group Reset the expectation to focuson producing the Gateway tool Invoking a Project Reset

21. The question involves various options: Hire in-house IT staff to create the tool Contract out entire project to a vendor Utilize other state agency personnel To Staff or Not to Staff?

22. To Staff or Not to Staff?

23. We chose a hybrid approach: Contracted for key IT persons, varying length contracts Negotiated the time of persons from other state agencies Shifted roles of the permanent staff To Staff or Not to Staff?

24. Managing an Interagency Team

25. Staff time contributed or contracted from: WI Dept of Administration District Attorneys-Info Technology (DA-IT) Division of Enterprise Technology (DET) WI Dept of Justice Managing an Interagency Team

26. Institutional factors that add risk to the interagency project: Conflicting priorities with other duties Competing bosses Lack of traditional contracting leverage Residual conflicts between team members Politics and the motives created Historic distrust between agencies Managing an Interagency Team

27. Speaking of challenges… Possibility of impression by locals of the lumbering state vs. a lean contractor Managing an Interagency Team

28. Key Strategies: Communicate often & widely though adds overhead (compared to total outsourcing) itself can cause risk Value team members’ specific experience with locals on other state Justice projects: builds trust of locals and a tight team Reinforce the reusability of infrastructures, code, processes, documentation Managing an Interagency Team

29. The WIJIS Forum — a Geeklog tool Provides secured Internet access fordispersed local and state users to: Project documentation, schemas, specs Topical, threaded discussions Collaborative glossaries Links to justice sharing articles Private messaging http://sourceforge.net/projects/geeklogplugins/ Managing an Interagency Team

30. Cultivate trusting relationships with agency leaders Include people of the appropriate levels Be a trustworthy partner: Make productive use of people’s time Be focused on the product Be inclusive in decision-making Be inclusive in giving credit where it’s due Take me to your leader!

31. Employing Agile Methods in dispersed team Daily stand-ups – phone conferenced Weekly production team meetings Visual system diagramming Just-in-time requirements definition Some paired programming Self-organized development team Managing an Agile Interagency Team

32. Employing agile methods in a dispersed team Iterative churn cycles: lightly define/quickly create example/test/review with users/refine/test Repeated exposure to prototypes with various types of users Managing an Agile Interagency Team

33. Managing an Agile Interagency Team Experienced pushback against agile methods from team members in other agencies: …a “teach by example” opportunity The local partners have liked the flexibility of the agile style;their feedback is quickly implemented.

34. Lessons Learned Institutionalizing Interoperability

35. Technical and Business Implementation Guides Start with Gateway – expandable to encompass all State initiatives GJXDM Training – cross-pollinate business & technical staff, state & local agencies WIJIS Forum/Geeklog Requirements Definition Data Modeling & Mapping Techniques Reusable Assets

36. Wisconsin Justice XML Data Model • Cooperative Undertaking, but… • ..someone has to own it… • …should be on neutral turf! • Consistent use and re-use of standards • Change Management

37. IT Leaders from State agencies Tired of reinventing different solutions for the same problems Take “religious wars” about turf, products and methods out of critical paths No ownership No statutory authority No funding Justice Interoperability Workgroup

38. Wisconsin’s IT Justice armchair quarterbacks – in a good way  Don’t interrupt ongoing projects But ready use projects as case studies to propose standard solutions to recurring problems Justice Interoperability Workgroup

39. Don’t Share Sensitive Data De-values the information-sharing effort. If the rules change, start over! Write Restrictions Into Each Application. Rigid system design. If the rules change, re-write many lines of code. Cascading Disclosure Control Language Write rules once, reuse them in many situations. A policy change means changing a config file – rather than a new software project. Data providers have flexibility to write their own rules. A Potential Deal-Killer: Disclosure of Sensitive Info

40. Don’t Isolate Projects (exchange vs. sharing) Invest in Infrastructure Work hard to build and maintain partnerships –and it is hard work! Acknowledge the “religious wars.” Create a process for taking conflicts out of critical paths. Conclusion

41. Thanks!Questions? For more information please visit: http://oja.state.wi.us/wijis Or contact us: james.pingel@wisconsin.gov donna.lewein@wisconsin.gov