Month-end snapshot, July 31, 2024 — fifteen weeks after the profiling result and eleven weeks after the Steering Committee authorized the TSA extension. This is the standing one-page view: status by workstream, the four measures the program is actually run on, and the exposures that do not fit on a tile.
Contents
1. Program summary
| Dimension | Position at this date | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Day 1 integrity | Held. No member-facing outage attributable to integration since cutover. | Met |
| TSA exit | Extended by thirteen weeks under an approved change request; inside the contractual maximum | Extended |
| Cost | Contingency fully committed; management reserve drawn against the extension | Reserve in use |
| Synergy run-rate | Tracking to the Year 3 target; cumulative capture running behind the model | Split |
| Scope | Two items formally deferred to a Year 2 backlog with named owners | Reduced |
Read the first two rows together. Day 1 integrity and the TSA exit date are both hard constraints in the charter, and only one of them held. That is not a contradiction in the reporting — it is the charter's constraint order working as designed. When the review queue proved larger than modeled, the program had a ranked list telling it what to protect and what to spend, and it spent time and money to protect member-facing continuity. A dashboard that showed both green would mean the ranking had never been tested.
2. Workstream status
| Workstream | Lead | Status | Note at this date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claims & Core Administration | W. Ferriday | On track | Host claims processing retired; adjudication running wholly on the target platform |
| Data & EMPI | Dr. A. Ravindran | Critical path | Clerical review queue is the program's binding constraint; second cohort at full productivity |
| Application Integration | K. Stallworth | On track | All fourteen interfaces cut over; three carried as retirement dependencies |
| Cloud & Infrastructure | B. Trammell | On track | Migration waves complete; managed-service step-down proceeding to contract |
| Provider Network | J. Kirkendall | Watch | Rationalization gated by contract anniversaries; phase 2 deferred |
| Member Services | T. Ruffalo | On track | Call volumes returned to pre-transition baseline |
| Care Management | Dr. M. Ellsworth | Watch | Preserved capability; analytics module deferred, ownership question open |
| Vendor & Contract | H. Castellow | On track | Consolidation savings landed ahead of the technical tracks, as expected |
| Finance & Accounting | S. Beauregard | On track | General ledger posting stable since the interface defects closed |
| Legal & Regulatory | F. Underhill | On track | Entity consolidation option remains open, not exercised |
3. The four measures
The program is run on four numbers rather than on the tile colors above. Each is reported with its own trend and each answers a question the others cannot.
| Measure | Question it answers | Why it is on this list |
|---|---|---|
| Clerical review queue depth and burn-down rate | When does identity resolution finish? | It is the binding constraint on TSA exit; every other schedule question resolves to this one |
| Synergy run-rate and cumulative capture, reported separately | Are we delivering the deal case? | The two diverge, and reporting only the flattering one is the most available way to mislead |
| Management reserve remaining | How much more can go wrong? | Contingency is gone; the reserve is the only remaining financial response |
| Issues surfaced through cadence versus through escalation | Is the reporting working? | It is the only measure on the program that cannot be improved by managing it |
Why the last one is on a dashboard at all. Every other measure can be moved by working harder or by presenting differently. The ratio of problems that arrive through the weekly cadence to problems that arrive as escalations cannot: if the cadence is working, the ratio rises, and if people have started saving bad news for the meeting where it cannot be avoided, it falls. A program can hit every delivery number while this ratio collapses, and that combination is the reliable early warning that the next surprise will be a large one.
4. What a green tile does not tell you
Eight of ten workstreams show on track. That is accurate and it is not the whole picture, for three reasons that a status color cannot carry.
A workstream reports on its own scope, not on what was removed from it. Provider Network shows watch rather than red, and one reason is that phase 2 was deferred out of the program. Care Management shows watch for the same reason. Deferring scope makes the remaining scope easier to deliver, and a status tile records the result rather than the trade. That is why the deferred items are listed on this page under their own owners rather than allowed to disappear from the reporting when they left the plan — an item with no tile is an item nobody is watching.
One critical workstream does not average out against nine healthy ones. Data & EMPI is on the critical path and everything else on this page is downstream of it. A dashboard that let eight green tiles visually outweigh one red would be arithmetically reasonable and operationally wrong; the program's finish date is set by the slowest constraint, not by the mean. Status is reported by workstream and read by dependency.
The third reason is timing. Interfaces are green because they were cut over months ago, and a capability with no remaining work reports green indefinitely. Three of the fourteen are carried as retirement dependencies that will matter at decommissioning and are invisible here.
5. Escalations open at this reporting date
| Item | Owner | Awaiting |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership of the preserved care management capability after program close | Dr. M. Ellsworth | A named receiving owner and a funding line |
| Permanent home for the care management member feed before the integration layer is decommissioned | K. Stallworth | Architecture decision |
| Consumer register for the write-back interface — four remaining | K. Stallworth | Migration dates held by receiving workstreams |
| Year 2 backlog governance for the two deferred items | C. Tyrrell | Confirmation that a backlog with no sponsor is not a plan |
Related artifacts: 42 — Status Report · 41 — Synergy Realization Tracker · 44 — Change Control Log · 28 — Risk Register