Readiness Review Template

[Adrian-Brewster]

Story

As a Jurisdiction, so that I can score my readiness to move to production, I need attendee a readiness review that where all relevant stakeholders gain consensus on readiness and confirm a date to move go live.

Acceptance Criteria

• A competed template that will be used to facilitate the readiness review

Tasks

• Also link in a checklist for post go-live verification (e.g. checking the micro character encoding)

[brick-green]

@Adrian-Brewster Can you provide an update for this ticket?

[brick-green]

Also, can you provide links to the document(s)?

[Adrian-Brewster]

I fear the most current update I have on this is that Rebecca did not see much value in having it. There is currently a checklist that the Deloitte folks are using that track things that need to be completed before moving to production. I'll bring this up to the team tomorrow and see how we want to proceed.
CA - ETOR Readiness Review.docx

[brick-green]

@Adrian-Brewster Did you get a chance to bring this up? What should we do with this ticket?

[brick-green]

Link to current readiness review doc

[scleary1cs]

We have lots of messages in the queue, what is the line in the sand that CA wants at go-live? Need to capture this as an action item in the readiness review template.
@halprin did I capture that right?

[halprin]

There are a lot of messages piling up in CDPH's SFTP server in the UCSD production folder. What does CA partners want to do with these pre-existing messages when we go-live? Should we send all these older messages through? Should we delete the older messages, so only new messages post-go-live go through? Or maybe there is some other outcome they want.

[brick-green]

@kwright-bio Is going to ask about the production messages on SME call 12/11

[brick-green]

@kwright-bio asked on the SME call about about the production messages in the CDPH production folder. UCSD does not want any of those old results so that folder will need to be cleared out prior to going to production.

[brick-green]

@amcnuttJMC reached out to Marty. Waiting for response

[kwright-bio]

Hi - sorry for the delay in update. At some point, I chatted with Sam / Marty, and they were going to see if there was anything the APHL ETOR proceses used. I have a checklist I got in return, but asked a question about it and have not heard back. Will follow up and make sure I copy others too after the initial one off.

[amcnuttJMC]

Update: Sent to Marty and Sam and they wish to discuss this on Tuesday January 14, 2025's program meeting

This includes the APHL template which information was used from to make the current CA Readiness Review. Both included here: APHL RR.docx
California - ETOR Project Readiness Review.docx

[kwright-bio]

Discussed on 1/14 meeting. Emailed the document out to CDC / Deloitte team members and uploaded to Sharepoint. Requested their feedback on what additional documents are needed if any and if they wanted adjustments to this one.