Attendees
C. TyrrellProgram Manager
G. WhitfieldExecutive Sponsor (VP of Operations)
A. MarchettiCIO / VP of Information Technology
F. JonesLead Business Analyst
J. AlbertSolution Architect
M. AlvarezSystem Upgrade Lead / Platform Engineer
T. McCormickData Conversion Lead
R. WhitfieldQA / Test Lead (Onshore)
N. SharmaCompliance / Legal Representative
Purpose
Align the delivery team and Steering Committee on program scope, governance structure, change control approach, and working cadence before detailed design begins. This is a one-time program-level kickoff — the Steering Committee's own recurring cadence begins the following month.
Agenda
| Time | Topic | Led By |
|---|---|---|
| 10:00–10:10 | Welcome & program context | G. Whitfield |
| 10:10–10:25 | Program Charter walkthrough — scope, success criteria, budget | C. Tyrrell |
| 10:25–10:40 | Legacy platform assessment & data conversion approach | T. McCormick |
| 10:40–10:55 | WBS/schedule overview and phase gate approach | J. Albert |
| 10:55–11:10 | Quality approach: RAIDD, QA/test strategy, offshore coordination model | R. Whitfield |
| 11:10–11:20 | Change control process & governance structure | C. Tyrrell |
| 11:20–11:30 | Open Q&A, next steps | C. Tyrrell |
Key Discussion Points
- R. Whitfield proposed a single onshore QA/Test Lead coordinating one offshore QA resource, rather than a fully separate offshore test team — framed as a coordination-overhead tradeoff to revisit if defect volume outpaced the model.
- N. Sharma flagged that the platform touches financial reporting data, requiring SOX compliance sign-off at each major release rather than a single end-of-program review — logged as a standing requirement, not an afterthought.
- A. Marchetti asked how the 10% contingency reserve was calculated and whether it scaled with approved changes — confirmed it would grow proportionally with the base budget as changes are approved, not remain fixed.
- J. Albert noted the legacy platform's six major integrations (billing, underwriting, claims, commissions, data warehouse, payment processing) would each need a dedicated developer rather than a shared integration pool, given the differing legacy systems involved.
Decisions Made
Decision 1Adopt a formal Change Control Board process for any Tier 2/3 change request, rather than informal PM-level approval for cost- or scope-impacting changes.
Decision 2SOX compliance sign-off will be a checkpoint at each major release, not a single end-of-program gate.
Decision 3Weekly internal Program Status Review and monthly Steering Committee update confirmed as the standing review cadence.
Next Steps
- Detailed WBS and schedule baseline finalized within 2 weeks
- Legacy data assessment kickoff for all six integration areas
- First Steering Committee update scheduled for early September 2026