Goals
Allow candidates how are/have attended Howard University to register for free
Background and strategic fit
Howard University is interested in helping students pay for their ASWB exam registrations.
Assumptions
While this is being considered for Howard university, it can be assumed other schools may want to to establish similar arrangements.
Requirements
Title | Importance | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Legacy system will allow staff to process registration with $0 cost | Must Have | The system allows for any jurisdiction to have a registration as $0 |
| 2 | Legacy system will accurately report the number of registrations for the jurisdiction with $0 cost registration | Must Have | |
| 3 | Legacy system or other facility will report approvals with state vouchers segregated by Jurisdiction | Should Have | |
| 4 | Legacy system or other facility will report registrations with state vouchers segregated by Jurisdiction | Should Have | |
| 5 | Legacy system or other facility will report completed exams with state vouchers segregated by Jurisdiction | Should Have | |
| 6 | The exam registration online system will allow Candidates to register at no charge | Should Have | |
| 7 | The exam registration online system will display a pop-up message for jurisdiction candidates advising them of the $0 cost registration | Must Have | |
| 8 | The online system will keep track of the amount of pre-payment remaining and disable “free registrations” at a specific threshold | Should Have | When funds available <= threshold by > 0, popup will direct Candidates to contact Exam Admin directly |
| 9 | The system will automatically assign a State Voucher number to the approval upon import | Should Have | If the system is able to support multi-jurisdiction state vouchers. |
User interaction and design
There are 2 design options we have discussed. The selection of a option will be based on the level of effort to implement, and the responses to the questions below.
Questions
Question | Owner | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
Is this a prepayment process or post-payment | ||
What, if any, restrictions are there on the Candidate’s eligibility to receive the free registration? | ||
Are Candidates currently approved, but not registered eligible for the free registration when the program starts? | ||
What is the target release to production date? | ||
What should the pop-up message say (Header, text) if we require the candidate to contact Exam Administration | ||
What should the pop-up message say (Header, text) if we allow the candidate to register online | ||
Who is responsible for monitoring the usage of the payment |
Task | Estimated Duration | Notes |
|---|---|---|
Requirements meeting and documentation | 4 hours | |
Code Review | 2-4 hours | |
Required changes to legacy system for must have requirements | 2-10 hours | Dependent on Code review and final design |
Required changes to Exam Registration site for must have requirements | 2-4 hours | Dependent on Code review and final design |
Required changes to legacy system for should have / nice to have requirements | 2-10 hours | Dependent on Code review and final design |
Required changes to Exam Registration site for should have / nice to have requirements | 2-4 hours | Dependent on Code review and final design |
Make sure existing voucher reports will capture the usage of the OR voucher | 2-4 hours | Dependent on Code review and final design |
Implement system monitoring and proactive disablement based on fees available | 3-6 hours | Dependent on Code review and final design |
Durations listed for changes to systems include development, internal code reviews, and full QA testing by IT. It does not include time for the documentation of test cases if requested by the business line, or the time needed by the business line to complete testing
Out of scope
TBD
Project Notes
Date | Entered By | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Per teams message from Felicia “..Hi Robert. I just wanted to let you know that we did speak to the folks over at Oregon Health Authority. Our expected "launch" for these candidates will be January 1(ish) 2023” | |
| Discussed the project requirements with Dan Sheehan , Felicia Dennison and Subrena Breeden . Outstanding questions from IT have been addressed and work on design documents/requirements/LOE will begin. | |
| Targeted date to deliver final requirements and LOE to the team including if work will need to be done in EREG and EAP2 codebases. |
Supporting Documents
Technical Review (IT)
System / Area Affected
System | Area | Impact |
|---|---|---|
crcManagement | Registration (NEW) | The system allows for any jurisdiction to be flagged to allow state vouchers |
crcRegistration | Registration (NEW) | The system allows for any jurisdiction to be flagged to allow state vouchers |
crcManagement | Reporting | All reports on Vouchers will pick up any registration with state voucher listed. The titles and line items for voucher reports are hardcoded to include Massachusetts or MA in the item. This can be easily updated. No report content currently breaks or lists state vouchers by Jurisdiction |
crcRegistration | Reporting | All reports on Vouchers will pick up any registration with state voucher listed. The titles and line items for voucher reports are hardcoded to include Massachusetts or MA in the item. This can be easily updated. No report content currently breaks or lists state vouchers by Jurisdiction |
crcApproval | Approval Entry | Need to automatically add State Voucher to approvals as they are imported/created in the system |
ASWBCentral | Exam Registration | Will be integrated into Phase 2 project. No immediate need to address |
Exam Registration | Basic Information Page | Add a popup to page to notify Oregon Candidate of registration process |
Exam Registration | Payment | Need to remove specific reference to State Voucher being MA only |