If ASFP does not deliver as ASFP is scheduled to move Activity Statement financials from AIS to Even Regular meetings with ASFP and EST Program/Project Even scheduled in December 2016 a ICP in December 2016. This is a requirement for STP to deliver a Chance Managers to maintain understanding of current status. Chance - number of projects will be impacted pilot in early 2017. Delayed delivery of ASFP will require re-work and - Issues identified and escalated as appropriate. Extreme which may require build and/or will have schedule and cost impacts. Extreme schedule change resulting in increased costs. If Accounting Program of Work APOW is scheduled to convert all period and assessment details for Unlikely Continued monitoring through dress rehearsals and early Unlikely - (APOW) does not deliver as Activity Statement accounts to ICP, create the - escalation of issues. Extreme scheduled in November 2015 a role/period/assessment to support Activity Statement generation and Extreme number of projects will be impacted processing, forecasting account periods, and support due date which may require build and/or calculation and processing of deferred due dates in ICP. ASFP schedule change resulting in builds on these deliverables, and requires the foundational elements increased costs from APOW to be delivered first. Likelihood of this risk has been reduced due to delay of ASFP to December 2016 allowing greater contingency. Any delay to APOW beyond current ASFP timelines will impact ASFP and STP deployment. The extent and impact of defects Depending on the extent and impact of defects resulting from Even Successful deployment of ASFP into ICP is a Even resulting from the deployment of deployment of ASFP, may make the system (or associated systems) Chance dependency for deployment of DPR for PAYGW Chance - ASFP may result in the system unusable. This will require a decision to be made whether - Very liabilities. Director Penalties could be deployed for SGC High becoming unusable. Therefore a deployment is rolled back if critical business functionality or external High but this would result in limited realisation of benefits. If decision will need to be made processing is at risk. ASFP is rolled back, Director Penalties for PAYGW whether a rollback is required or would continue using manual legacy processes. external processing being at risk.
If ASFP does not deliver as scheduled in December 2016 a number of projects will be impacted which may require build and/or schedule change resulting in increased costs. ASFP is scheduled to move Activity Statement financials from AIS to ICP in December 2016. This is a requirement for STP to deliver a pilot in early 2017. Delayed delivery of ASFP will require re-work and will have schedule and cost impacts. Even Chance - Extreme Regular meetings with ASFP and EST Program/Project Managers to maintain understanding of current status. Issues identified and escalated as appropriate. Even Chance - Extreme If Accounting Program of Work (APOW) does not deliver as scheduled in November 2015 a number of projects will be impacted which may require build and/or schedule change resulting in increased costs APOW is scheduled to convert all period and assessment details for Activity Statement accounts to ICP, create the role/period/assessment to support Activity Statement generation and processing, forecasting account periods, and support due date calculation and processing of deferred due dates in ICP. ASFP builds on these deliverables, and requires the foundational elements from APOW to be delivered first. Likelihood of this risk has been reduced due to delay of ASFP to December 2016 allowing greater contingency. Any delay to APOW beyond current ASFP timelines will impact ASFP and STP deployment. Unlikely - Extreme Continued monitoring through dress rehearsals and early escalation of issues. Unlikely - Extreme The extent and impact of defects resulting from the deployment of ASFP may result in the system becoming unusable. Therefore a decision will need to be made whether a rollback is required or external processing being at risk. Depending on the extent and impact of defects resulting from deployment of ASFP, may make the system (or associated systems) unusable. This will require a decision to be made whether deployment is rolled back if critical business functionality or external processing is at risk. Even Chance - Very High Successful deployment of ASFP into ICP is a dependency for deployment of DPR for PAYGW liabilities. Director Penalties could be deployed for SGC but this would result in limited realisation of benefits. If ASFP is rolled back, Director Penalties for PAYGW would continue using manual legacy processes. Even Chance - High
RIS-4.docx