Transcript Document 7520985

Texas Nodal Program Update
Jerry Sullivan
Executive Director, Texas Nodal Program
Board of Directors Meeting
April 16 2007
Agenda
Item
Purpose
Page
Overall Program Status
For Information
3
New Nodal Dashboard
For Information
4
Nodal Progress Highlights
For Information
8
Nodal Schedule
For Information
9
Nodal Audit Response
For Information
11
Nodal Organization Chart
For Information
12
Scope change control
For Information
13
Nodal Spending To Date
For Information
15
Data Center Migration
For Information
16
2
16 April 2007
2
Texas Nodal Program Update
As reported on March 8, program is Amber but is being assessed continually
Scope / Quality
Nodal
Schedule
Cost
Cost
Schedule
Scope / Quality
Amber
Amber
Amber
Summary
Latest monthly committed cost and
forecasts are under by 10% of
budget to date. Funding for Identity
Management and pending Change
Requests being defined.
ERCOT / MP web services
specifications issued on time.
Approach to EDS 2&3 trials
completed and submitted to TPTF
for approval. Confidence in
schedule delivery needs to be
improved, working on early
releases of EDS 3 trials.
Backlog baseline established &
impacts categorized. Projects
conducting vendor negotiations to
assess cost & schedule impact.
QA plans and metrics in definition –
baseline target for end of April.
Legend
Red
Estimate at Complete = >$263m
Go-live = >30 days+
Program is not wholly aligned to protocols
Amber
Estimate at Complete = $248 - $263m
Go-live = <30 days+
Program is aligned to previous version of protocols
Green
Estimate at Complete = <$248m
Go-live = 12/1/08
Program is aligned with current protocols
3
16 April 2007
3
Texas Nodal Program Update
The PMO has delivered a scorecard to give a one-page view of program
progress…
 The one-page dashboard will:
 Provide detailed measures and greater visibility into Nodal Progress
 Provide a single source that provides a consolidated picture of progress
 Deliver a web-based performance management tool based on operational data, which covers the
key criteria of Nodal Success
This formula represents the objectives against which Program progress will be measured
4
16 April 2007
4
Texas Nodal Program Update
Each measure on the dashboard has been created based on operational
data…
The dashboard takes data from existing systems to improve objectivity
5
16 April 2007
5
Texas Nodal Program Update
The current Dashboard version is displayed below…
6
16 April 2007
6
Texas Nodal Program Update
Importance to Nodal Success
Readiness Metrics become important as we approach Go-Live
Market
Participant
Readiness
Metrics
Nodal Program
Readiness
Metrics
Metric
Verification
Metric
development
Current
Time
12/1/08
Progress Indicators
Performance Indicators
Metric Development Phase – Current
• Facilitate the development of metrics with the TPTF Metric Sub Group and ERCOT Business Managers (metric owners)
• Meet with the TPTF Metric Sub Group (MSG) as necessary to address metric issues
• Baseline readiness metrics with TPTF and TAC
Metric Verification Phase
• Begin collecting metric status
• Incorporate readiness status into program level reports
• Report readiness activities to the TPTF & TAC via nodal program updates
• Report to the main TPTF as necessary to obtain approval for new metrics and changes to existing metrics
Produce Market Readiness Declaration – November 2008
* New version of presentation
7
16 April 2007
7
Texas Nodal Program Update
March / April Major Program Highlights
•
EIP: “Bell Ringer” Nodal event: Published Web Service interfaces milestone met on 3/31/2007
–
MPs data definition for automated (API) communication with ERCOT.
–
Defining point for MPs since this is when they can start building systems to interface with ERCOT
•
EIP: Two way communications messaging and 3-part offer interface exposed to Market Participants on 3/22/2007
•
MER: Launch 1st web-based training module (ERCOT Nodal 101) 3/23
•
MER: MIS Prototypes delivered ahead of schedule
•
Program: Major vendor issues solved:
•
–
Nexant (CRR) – SOW and NDA agreements
–
UISOL (EIP) –SOW for integration
–
Areva (EMS) – SOW for data importer and exporter
Program: Requirements approved by TPTF
–
EMS requirements approved 3/1
–
EDW Section 17 requirements submitted 3/22
–
EDW Section 8 requirements to be submitted in May 2007
8
16 April 2007
8
Texas Nodal Program Update
The short-term milestones are mostly on track
Actual/F’cast
Control Milestone
Baseline
Comment
Requirements approval
10/31/2006
3/31/2007
EDW IMM requirements submitted to
TPTF on 3/22. Currently incorporating
feedback, vote to take place on 4/23.
EDW Compliance requirements to be
submitted on 5/7.
EDS 1 Start
5/15/2007
4/01/2007
EDS1 started early as part of a phased
approach to testing
Enterprise Integration
Build Vendor Selected
3/31/2007
4/09/2007
Vendor interviews being conducted w/c
4/2
Sandbox Release Plan
4/30/2007
4/30/2007
IRT and EIP teams working to identify
key features to be exposed to MPs
EMS CSD Submitted to
TPTF
4/30/2007
4/30/2007
On schedule
COMS Dispute CSD
submitted to TPTF
5/31/2007
5/31/2007
On Schedule
9
16 April 2007
9
Texas Nodal Program Update
Timeline update (same as brochure / handout)
10
16 April 2007
10
Texas Nodal Program Update
The PMO has completed recommended actions by IBM from December
2006…
 All IBM recommended actions from December
2006 completed.
The slides contain the responses to each recommendation
– separate supporting evidence was compiled for the IBM
review team
1. Modify the role of the Nodal Program PMO
 The high-level recommendations were:
 Modify the Role of the Nodal PMO
 Update Program Forecasts and Consider a
Higher Cost Contingency
 Engage Internal Stakeholders in the Nodal
Program
 Increase the Frequency of Integration
Discussions
 Modify the Tools & Techniques Used for Risk
& Issue Management
 Provide Consistent Work Plan Structure with
More Tracking Information
 Complete Change Requests in a Timelier
Manner
# Recommended Action
Response
Status
Complete
2. Update Program Forecasts and Consider a Higher Cost Contingency
1. Determine areas where the Nodal Program Focus areas for the PMO now reflected in revised PMO organization
100%
can benefit from greater guidance.
(includes schedule, cost, change, risk, QA, communications
management, status reports).
# Recommended Action
Response
Status
2. Enhance information supplied to the project Specific, new guidance has been provided in respect of change
100%
Complete
managers to provide the guidance.
control, status reporting, cost management; more planned for
1. Review deliverablesscheduling.
in
for use in
Deliverables
from PoweRUP
(ERCOT
RUP)
website incorporated in
100%
3.RUP
Engage
Internal
Stakeholders
in the
Nodal
Program
planning and forecasting.
Nodal QA plans.
In addition, a Program Development
Plan (called for in RUP) is in
development. This will contain/reference all the technical and
program management
documentation
issued in amodels
single document
2. Discuss topic with consulting
project
The topic of estimating
have been discussed at length within
100%
(and
incorporates
existing
program
operating
# how
Recommended
Action
Response
Status
managers to determine
metrics models
the
Nodal control
leadership
team toprocedures).
identify beneficial application of the
Complete
Guidance
continue to approach
evolve to meet
thewhen)
needsand
of the
can be applied by the
ERCOTwill
teams.
(where,
howlatest
to approach COTS projects.
4. Increase
the Frequency
of Integration Discussions
program
phase.
Continue
keymonthlyThe
processcycle
of engagement
continues,
actively
by the Steering
1. to
100%
3. Determine level of effort
produceplan to engage
Project
reforecast
implemented
(currently
in thirdsupported100%
as product
Board
(recently
expanded
with theof
appointments
of Vice Presidents for
3. Evaluate the need to realign
or redeploy
PMO stakeholders
organization revised
andowners
strengthened
with
consulting,
contract
100%
deliverables.
cycle).
Forecasts
reflect
greater
understanding
work remaining
of projects
inlast
the position
Nodal Program.
System
Operations
and Planning).@3/19
resources to the PMO office to support
and ERCOT
staff;
(for
current
structure)
filled
3/19
and actuals to date, with a requirement to explain and justify
Program Director.
The program
has published
IT and business
models –
variances
and identify
cost issuesspecific
and opportunities
to engagement
a business
2. Assigninownership
100%
4. Apply comparable deliverables
work planstoprojected
100%
with responsible
identified – and
socialized them
at the Program
Recommended
Actionindividuals
systemdefining
in # management
permit
action.
4. Further develop deliverable
metrics
Nodalfunction
QA planand
approved
RUP lifecycle,
deliverables
and
100% Response
and
forecast models.
Deep
Dive
Meeting
for
Steering
Board
Members
in
January.
development.
management techniques to provide
metrics.
Project-level QAAplans
currently
being(EMS,
established
by each
number
of projects
EIP, CRR)
have significantly reviewed
Examples
of greater
positive
at the in
project level include:
indicators of project level progress for
project
identifies
keybusiness
progress
and
metrics
linked
to have
RUP
theirfunction
cost quality
estimates
recently
and
been engagement
required to justify,
these
3. Engage
100%
tracking and forecasting.
deliverables
to each
project.
MIS
hasestimates
bi-monthly
meetings
ERCOT
Ownership
teamestablished
(business &include:
IT
1. the
Continue
toeffort
engage
in crossinteam
planning
Cross-team
forums
detail,
basis–of
support
ofwith
vendor
negotiations.
ownersspecific
in the design
activities.
Managers) & weekly meetings with a TPTF Sub-Group (around 30
discussions
5. Review and age issues
the Program
Issuelevel
review
completed
regularProgram
review instituted
andofmetrics
100% is–part
Dailyof“hassle”100%
calls of the program leadership
5. managed
Define aby
Nodal
roll-up
of the - Nodal
level
roll-up
the project-level
forecasts
participants,
both
internal & external)
various project teams to ensure
such
established
– Critical
path workshops
and meetings (at least monthly)
projectthat
level-estimate
models. to monitor aging.
Nodal monthly forecasting
cycle. The
structure
of theQ1
EACs
and the
– IRT engagement
activities
include:
Training
Curriculum
Review,
are being addressed in a timely manner to
disciplines attached
to their use
were specifically
permit
Accelerated
Organization
Sizingdesigned
Analysis,–to
and
monthly
director
transition
Design
“clearing
house”
scheduled to start 3/20
avoid issues becoming realized risks.
this.
updates
– Risk Forum (weekly)
6. Conduct more cross project discussions
Regular risk forum established; Friday change
meeting
100%
– EMSimpact
and MMS
have experienced
significantly increased100%
engagement by all
6. Consider
value risk
contingency
based
beyond the daily cadence
meetings,the
such
established;
regular
critical path workshops and meetings established,
of the
business areas
evidenced
byestablished
the very frequent
Key
(EMS,
MMS,
and NMMS)
have
risk participation and
updatedtoforecast.
as using the status reporton
read-outs
focus First “deep dive” conducted
forprojects
Nodal Steering
BoardCOMS
members.
of the
management
and
staff
whichtopics
has materially
reserves,
and centrally
contingency
earmarked
tokey
cover
these.
2. Engage
ininvolvement
moreheld
frequent
discussions
of key
Cross-team
have been expanded to cover key
on exception issues that can have impact
benefited the Nodal Program. System Operations and IT worked with the
leadership
more
integration
andexecutives)
cross-teamhas, at
integration
issues,
NPRR impact assessment as well as
on other projects.
The Nodal
Steering
Board
(of
ERCOT
7. Update cost estimates based on the
100%
EMS project team to successfully resolvethis
the time,
pressing issue
of experienced
topics
the critical path. The range of topics will continue to evolve
not sought
fit to request
contingency.
updated estimate and risk contingency.
ERCOTgreater
EMS resources
from
the
frontover athe
life of the
program.
– Procurement Lead
has dedicated
and
co-located
specialist
with
the Program
http://nodal.ercot.com
3
Texas Nodalactivities.
team to streamline procurement
– Note, the business owner of CRR has been an integral member of the
project teambyfrom
3. Plan for discussions
leadthe
by outset
integration
MIS, EDW and Integration project teams have established
Lead
from meeting
thetofront
managers
on key topics
a weekly
address
integration issues.
status)
held with
4. Regularly engage the key project Program
100%
http://nodal.ercot.com
4 Deep dive (detailed discussion of project-level
Texas
stakeholders in project-level
Steering Board in January, with the next session
planned
fordive
April.
Critical
pathNodal
deep
involved sessions led by each PM.
discussions.
Project Managers and their Business and IT counterparts continue to build
partnerships described in the IT and Business Engagement models.
http://nodal.ercot.com
Status
Complete
100%
100%
100%
Lead from
the front
Texas Nodal
5
http://nodal.ercot.com
6
Lead from
the front
Texas Nodal
5. Modify the Tools & Techniques used for Risk & Issue Management
#
Recommended Action
1. Establish common definitions for risks and
issues.
Response
Status
Complete
Risks and Issues are defined in the Nodal Program Risk
Management Procedure available to all on the Nodal Sharepoint.
100%
2. Modify risk and issues database to include The Nodal Program Risk Log has the facility to categorize risks by
100%
6. Provide Consistent Work Plan Structure with More Tracking Information
the ability to identify risks by project;
project, indicate where risks affect the program; and in the twice
provide a program elevation flag; establish monthly risk forum presents a report that indicates risk aging.
common reports that permit aging, etc.
3. Migrate risks and issues
to a single
All projects are engaged in migrating
their risks to the Nodal Risk Log
# Recommended
Action
Response
database.
(PMO, IDA, EIP, IRT, INF, CRR completed to date).
100%
Status
Complete
4. Run reports to determine
if similar
Risk reporting
is runa to comparatively
risks &
issues with
100%
1. Review
list of deliverables
to determine
QA planview
identifies
standard
RUPsimilar
deliverables
- projects
100%
definitions are being applied.
characteristics.
risk owners
through
regular for their projects
common level of measurement
for allFeedback
project is provided
currentlytoidentifying
those
appropriate
risk reviews.
PMO role specifically
to focus
teams (should be referenced
to RUP
whichestablished
will
be embodied
aTimelier
project-specific
QA plan
7.
Complete
Change
Requests
ininaon
Manner
effectiveness of risk management.
deliverables).
approved by IDA (MIS and PMO have been approved to
date).
5. Check issues logs and risks for freshness The risk dashboard contains a chart indicating the relationship
100%
and quickness of resolution.
between how old a risk is, and when action was last taken on it. Risk
2. Amend requirementsclosure
of Operating
Procedure
Operating
direction to Nodal PMs
100%
dates
are
recorded in Action
the
risk log.Procedure 2.4.3 gives
# Recommended
Response
Status
2.4.3 to incorporate additional requirements for
sufficient to achieve control milestones that form the
Complete
6. Institute recurring reviews.
2006
to examine
100%
work plan content. A risk review occurred in December
program
critical
path. the risk
Complete
impact assessments
in a timelier
The scope of the “backlog” review (NPRRs in various
100%
definition,1.accurate
characterization
(the
information
recorded
Control
milestones
for that
eachisproject
have
been
established
stages,
white
papers)
has been baselined;
a plan and
3. Communicate change
in work
planmanner.
management
100%
with
the risk),
and
that timely action
is
being
taken
to
mitigate
it.
The
in the critical path discussionsrevised
culminating
in the
process
hasCritical
been established and communicated
process to all members
Program
team. path
nextofisNodal
planned
to be complete
by April.
deep-dive.
for completing initial impact categorization (by 3/23).
The project-specific QA plans are in process (see above).
4. Consider inclusion of Work Plan management
100%
and other standards in RUP for
2. reference.
Use Change Request
log to analyze
the timing
A change
impact
matrix
100%
Communication
is drafted
concerning
the
creation
of exists across all Nodal projects to
of completion. project resourced schedules inassess
the cost
and schedule impacts of changes. There
MS Project
incorporating
5. Apply standards in the common toolset of
are currently
44 approved NPRRs,100%
10 draft NPRRs and 11
the above and dependent on those
outcomes.
Microsoft Project.
that
are going through this process.
Lead White
from Papersthe
front
http://nodal.ercot.com
7
ATexas
separate
change request log is already tracking key dates
Nodal
6. Utilize resource aligned with PMO to confirm
Two PMO resources are focused
onchange
addressing
thecycle to enable
100%
in the
control
metrics to be produced
application of standards.
application of these standards:and monitored.
- Critical Path and Scheduling
3. Request more timely action by Project
The process for scope change control has been revised to
100%
- QA management
Managers with incomplete
documents pending streamline the sequence from NPRR impact categorization,
in the Change Request log.
cost and schedule impact analysis, and the raising and
approval of Change Requests.
Communications have been issued to Project Managers
concerning the revised process and timely action in regards
to Change Requests.
Lead
from
the front3/12) to define
IBM consultants have
been
retained (starting
http://nodal.ercot.com
8
Nodal (rather than purely
the change control processTexas
for technical
scope) changes.
 Already working on IBM’s next report’s
recommendations.
Note: Higher cost contingency considered but not yet
needed.
http://nodal.ercot.com
9
Lead from
the front
Texas Nodal
11
16 April 2007
11
Texas Nodal Program Update
Nodal Organization Chart
Key emphases for organization success are leadership, positive morale, communication, and retention
Organization chart created
January 3, 2007
12
16 April 2007
12
Texas Nodal Program Update
We continually look at NPRRs, Draft NPRRs and White Papers for impact…
The “Impact Categorization Matrix” helps triage the impacts for all the items across all the projects
25 of the 65 (35%) items have all
projects with a
minimal or no impact
(category 3 or 4)
Backlog list of
65 items
including –
 Approved
NPRRs
 Draft NPRRs
 White Papers
42 of the 65 (65%) items have at
least 1 project with a high or a
medium impact (category 1 or
2)
Baseline for
Synchronization
(March 1, 2007)
Ongoing NPRRs
& white papers
Impact categorization continues
for new items to get ahead for
the next synchronization –
work in progress
13
16 April 2007
13
Texas Nodal Program Update
We have now come up with an agreed approach to evaluate the system
wide impacts…
The next steps and …
… some implications
Group the items for implementation
synergies/efficiencies
 All NPRRs to go through the Nodal
PMO initially, instead of being directly
forwarded to PRS for their second
review
Assign owners to produce suitably packaged
“Change Requests”
 A draft NPRR that is not essential for
go-live should be “tabled”
TCCB analysis – Identify high level
recommendations & time frame for implementations
(i.e. EDS1/2/3 etc.)
 For the backlog, category 3 & 4 will be
accepted within the existing
budget/contingency
 For the backlog, categories 1 & 2 will
have a cost and schedule impact
leading to suitably packaged change
requests
Update schedule, budget and system architecture.
Validate timeframes.
 Going forward, categories 1, 2 & 3 will
be subject to potential change
requests ( as designs and
development will have progressed that
much further)
TCCB reviews the budget, schedule and technical
impact
Submit to CCB for approval
TCCB = Technical Change Control Board, a cross-program group of subject matter
experts with deep protocol, business and technical knowledge
14
16 April 2007
14
Texas Nodal Program Update
Nodal spending to date
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY


MAR
Program Total
O&M Expenses ($000’s):
 Internal Labor
 Equipment, Tools, Materials & Supplies
 Outside Services/Consulting
 Software license
 Hardware
 Facilities & Utilities
 Employee Expenses
 Interest and Fees
 Depreciation and Amortization
 Other
 Sub-Total
50
10
232
54
50
0
2
76
478
586
1,538
1,767
65
5,157
231
248
1
37
568
4,300
3,302
15,676
Capital Expenditures ($000’s):
 Sub-Total
9,658
65,536
11,196
81,212

Total Expenditures ($000’s)

Commitments
*
$46,637
Notes:
* Total spending through February was $70.0 MM.
15
16 April 2007
15
Texas Nodal Program Update
Texas Nodal Market Implementation
Data Center Data Migration
16
16 April 2007
16
Texas Nodal Program Update
Current Situation
•
ERCOT Data Centers
– There is a need to increase
storage and test environments
due to Nodal demands along
with Zonal projects
TCC-1 Data Center (floor schematic)
– We have a proven technology
solution in the Nodal budget
– Nodal already paid for the new
technologies
– The new solution has lower
operating costs, higher
reliability, and reduces the
space and electric requirements
Austin Data Center (floor schematic)
17
16 April 2007
17
Texas Nodal Program Update
Nodal data requirements are immense but being covered
Currently operating all data
centers at or near maximum
power capacity
 Computing capacity needs have
grown over the past 4 years with
each subsequent project
implemented
Recovered enough data center
capacity for the Texas Nodal
Market Implementation to date
 Replacing older equipment with
more efficient newer equipment
 Currently at power threshold in
Austin Data Center until EMMS
production migration complete
 New equipment is installed
along with old equipment and
more equipment coming
Max Storage Capacity
Current Level
Max Usable Power
Current Level
Annual Costs
TCC-1
~600 TB
234 TB
202 KVA
185 KVA
$2.4 M
Austin
~600 TB
226 TB
180 KVA
183 KVA
$1.3 M
 Storage Arrays
 Dell Servers
 Sun Servers
Replaced
 Storage Arrays
 Dell Servers
Criticality is:
Austin
 Production EMMS
 Citrix
 IBM Unix Servers
New vs. Old
 Production EMMS
 Citrix
 IBM Unix Servers
18
16 April 2007
18
Texas Nodal Program Update
Nodal is migrating 73 servers to 4 AIX servers
•
•
We will do this with the minimum disruption
We have a plan to:
– Minimize the risk
– Maximize the benefit
– Lower overall costs
– Safeguard Market Operations
– Improve service levels
– Not affect Texas Set 3.0
•
However, there are always risks to be aware of in server migration
•
We are working with all the project managers and ERCOT committees
to reduce risk and to optimize the timing.
19
16 April 2007
19
Texas Nodal Program Update
Questions
Questions?
20
16 April 2007
20
Texas Nodal Program Update