PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

Enrollment & Claims Platform Modernization

Prepared by: C. Tyrrell, Program Manager

Version 2.0 | Draft

Date: July 27, 2026

This document is illustrative and fictional, created for professional portfolio demonstration purposes only.

Document Control

1. Introduction & Purpose

This Project Management Plan (PMP) defines how the Enrollment & Claims Platform Modernization program will be executed, monitored, and controlled. It integrates the subsidiary management plans described in PMBOK — Scope, Requirements, Schedule, Cost, Quality, Resource, Communications, Risk, Procurement, Stakeholder Engagement, Change, and Configuration Management — into a single governing document for the program.

This plan is a companion to the Project Charter, Requirements Document, Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), RAIDD Log, and Change Control Log, and should be read alongside those artifacts rather than in isolation. Appendix references to each companion document appear in Section 20.

2. Project Overview

2.1 Business Case Summary

The program upgrades the core enrollment and claims platform, converts member, provider, and historical claims data to the upgraded environment, and builds new integrations to Billing, Underwriting, Claims Administration, Commission Management, Data Warehouse/Reporting, and Payment Processing systems. The objective is to modernize the platform's technical foundation while maintaining uninterrupted business operations.

2.2 Objectives & Success Criteria

• Complete platform upgrade, data conversion, and all six integrations with zero unplanned production outages during cutover.

• Achieve UAT sign-off with a first-cycle pass rate of 90% or higher (see KPI table, Section 8.1).

• Complete SOX control testing and Compliance sign-off prior to go-live, with zero unresolved critical findings.

• Achieve 95% or higher training completion among impacted end users prior to go-live.

2.3 High-Level Scope

• In scope: Platform upgrade; conversion of member, provider, and historical claims data; six integration builds; security, performance, DR, and SOX/privacy compliance testing; end-user training; production cutover and warranty support.

• Out of scope: Form Distribution/Correspondence, Compliance workflow automation, New Business, and Premium Payments integrations are future-phase candidates.

2.4 Key Milestones

3. Project Management Approach

This program follows a hybrid waterfall/agile methodology, tailored deliberately rather than defaulting to a single framework. Requirements, vendor selection, and design follow a gated waterfall approach — appropriate given the regulated, SOX-relevant systems in scope, where formal sign-off and audit trail matter more than speed of iteration. Integration Build follows iterative, sprint-based agile execution across six parallel tracks, since each integration can be built, demonstrated, and refined independently without waiting on the others. Testing returns to a phased, gated model consistent with regulatory obligations.

3.1 Phase Summary

4. Scope Management Plan

Scope is defined and controlled through the WBS, which serves as the scope baseline (315 line items across 8 phases, per Section 3.1).

• Scope definition: requirements gathered by workstream and consolidated into the Requirements Document.

• Scope validation: each phase gate requires formal business and technical sign-off before downstream work proceeds.

• Scope control: change requests are logged as Decisions in the RAIDD Log and Change Control Log, and routed through Change Management (Section 14).

5. Requirements Management Plan

Distinct from Scope Management, this describes how requirements specifically are planned, traced, and controlled for change.

• Requirements gathered via structured workshops by workstream, consolidated into the Requirements Document.

• Requirements are prioritized using a MoSCoW model (Must have / Should have / Could have / Won't have this phase) during workshop consolidation.

• A Requirements Traceability Matrix (WBS 1.2.9) links each requirement to its design element, test case, and UAT scenario.

• Requirements are baselined at Requirements Sign-off (WBS 1.5); changes after that point are treated as scope changes.

6. Schedule Management Plan

The schedule baseline is maintained in the Project Plan Console and spans 331 working days from Kickoff to Closeout (see Section 3.1 for phase-level detail).

• Gated phases use finish-to-start dependencies; Integration Build uses fixed two-week sprints across six parallel tracks.

• A schedule contingency buffer of 5% is held at the program level (not allocated to any single phase) to absorb minor slippage without requiring Steering Committee escalation.

• System Upgrade is a hard prerequisite for Data Conversion and Integration Build; no downstream work is scheduled before Upgrade Validation & Sign-off.

• Schedule performance is reviewed weekly by the PM and reported monthly to the Steering Committee.

7. Cost Management Plan

A cost baseline is established early (WBS 8.3.1B) and tracked on an ongoing basis (WBS 8.3.2).

7.1 Budget Breakdown

7.2 Performance Measurement Baseline

Cost and schedule performance are measured together using a Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB). Earned Value Management (CPI/SPI) is calculated monthly at the phase level; a value below 0.90 triggers a formal variance analysis reported to the Steering Committee (see KPI targets, Section 8.1).

• Vendor invoices are managed and reconciled against the SOW by the Vendor/Procurement Manager.

8. Quality Management Plan

Quality is managed through a layered testing strategy, each layer validating a different level before proceeding to the next: Unit → Functional → System → Security & Penetration → Performance & Load → DR/Failover → SOX Compliance → UAT.

8.1 Quality Metrics & KPIs

9. Resource Management Plan

The program team is organized around named roles. QA follows a dual onshore/offshore model: the onshore Test Lead owns strategy and defect triage; the Offshore QA Coordination Lead owns day-to-day execution.

9.1 Reporting Structure

All track developers and the Data Conversion Lead report to the Solution Architect for technical direction and to the Program Manager for schedule/status. QA (both onshore and offshore) reports to the onshore Test Lead. The Change Manager, Training Lead, and Customer Experience Manager report directly to the Program Manager. The Program Manager reports to the Steering Committee.

9.2 Responsibility Assignment (RACI)

9.3 Physical & Material Resources

Cloud infrastructure environments (Dev, Test, Staging, Production, DR), vendor platform licenses, and offshore QA workstation/network provisioning are acquired during Environment Provisioning (WBS 2.1) and released during Legacy Decommissioning (WBS 6.5), both owned by the System Upgrade Lead.

10. Communications Management Plan

What is communicated, to whom, how often, through what method, and who owns it:

10.1 Escalation Matrix

11. Risk Management Plan

Risks, Actions, Issues, Decisions, and Dependencies are tracked in the RAIDD Log. Risks are scored using a Probability × Impact model.

11.1 Impact Definitions

11.2 Response Strategies

• The Risk Register (RAIDD Log) is reviewed monthly with the Steering Committee; high-priority risks are reviewed weekly by the PM.

• Some risks persist for the program's life and are tracked as Monitoring, Accepted, or Transferred rather than Closed.

12. Procurement Management Plan

Two vendor procurements are required: Platform Upgrade and Integration Middleware. Both follow the same sequence: define evaluation criteria, issue RFP, vendor demonstrations, score responses and reference checks, contract negotiation, and finalize the SOW.

• Contract type: Fixed-price for defined implementation deliverables; time-and-materials for post-go-live warranty support beyond the standard 3-week warranty period.

• Vendor performance is managed against SOW milestones and reviewed at each sprint review for the Integration Middleware vendor, and at each environment promotion for the Platform Upgrade vendor.

• The Vendor/Procurement Manager owns both procurements; Legal reviews contract terms prior to execution.

13. Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Stakeholders are classified by power and interest to determine engagement approach:

14. Change Management Plan

Requests to change scope, schedule, cost, or approach follow a defined process:

• 1. Change is identified and logged with a Change Request ID in the Change Control Log.

• 2. The Program Manager assesses schedule, cost, and scope impact.

• 3. Changes within PM delegated authority are approved directly and logged for visibility; all others are routed to the Steering Committee per the Governance table (Section 16).

• 4. Approved changes are reflected in the WBS, PM Plan, and any other affected document, with the specific documents updated recorded in the Change Control Log.

15. Configuration Management Plan

Formal configuration management is maintained over code, environment configurations, and controlled documents — especially important given the SOX-relevant systems in scope.

• Version control with mandatory peer review prior to promotion between environments (Dev → Test → Staging → Production).

• No code/configuration change is promoted to Production without a documented change request, testing evidence, and sign-off consistent with SOX control requirements.

• Controlled documents use a Major.Minor version scheme (e.g., v2.0); a major version increment reflects Steering Committee re-approval, a minor increment reflects PM-level clarifications.

• Jointly owned by the System Upgrade Lead and the Internal Audit/SOX Compliance Lead.

16. Governance & Decision Authority

Decision-making authority is tiered so not every decision requires full Steering Committee review:

16.1 Meeting Cadence

• Steering Committee: monthly, first week of each month, 60 minutes.

• Program-level status/risk review: weekly, led by the Program Manager.

• Sprint reviews: every two weeks, per integration track.

17. Process Improvement & Lessons Learned

Lessons learned are captured continuously, not only at closeout. Each phase-gate sign-off includes a short retrospective logged in the RAIDD Log and reviewed by the PM for improvements applicable to later phases. A consolidated review also occurs at Project Closeout.

18. Assumptions, Constraints & Dependencies

18.1 Assumptions

• Vendor contracts for both Platform Upgrade and Integration Middleware will be executed within the planned procurement window.

• Business SMEs will be available for scheduled requirements workshops and UAT cycles without significant conflict.

• No major regulatory change affecting SOX or data privacy requirements will occur mid-program.

18.2 Constraints

• The program must not introduce unplanned downtime to existing production Underwriting, Claims, or Billing operations during cutover.

• SOX control testing and Compliance sign-off must be complete before Production Cutover, per regulatory obligation.

• Offshore QA execution is bound by the offshore vendor's contracted capacity; surge capacity requires advance notice (see RAIDD Log, R-007).

18.3 External Dependencies

• Platform Upgrade and Integration Middleware vendors must deliver per their respective SOWs on schedule.

• Legacy system decommissioning depends on Compliance confirming data retention requirements are satisfied.

19. Baselines Summary

• Scope Baseline: the WBS (315 line items across 8 phases).

• Schedule Baseline: 331 working days from Kickoff (2026-08-04) to Closeout (2027-11-02).

• Cost Baseline: $7,062,000 total program budget (Section 7.1), approved by the Steering Committee prior to System Upgrade.

20. Appendices

This Plan is one of several companion artifacts produced for this program. Each is maintained and version-controlled separately, per the Configuration Management Plan (Section 15).

21. Approval

This Project Management Plan requires review and approval by the Steering Committee prior to the start of Phase 2 (System Upgrade).

_________________________________ Date: ____________

C. Tyrrell, Program Manager

_________________________________ Date: ____________

Executive Sponsor, Steering Committee

Sign-off status shown above for the v2.0 baseline. C. Tyrrell briefs the Steering Committee but is a non-voting member; approval authority rests with the Executive Sponsor and the four voting business/functional leads.