Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pension Solution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CalSTRS pension‑system replacement on track for fall 2025 go‑live, but testing and cutover remain key risks
Summary
CalSTRS staff reported progress on the Pension Solution project, saying system integration testing is complete, user acceptance testing is about halfway done and scheduled cutover is planned for fall 2025. Project leaders outlined readiness checkpoints, defect trends and steps to transition the project into an ongoing program.
CalSTRS project leadership told the board on Jan. 9 that the pension‑system replacement — known internally as the Pension Solution project (Benefit Connect) — remains on track for a fall 2025 cutover but still faces programmatic and technical risks that the agency is actively managing.
Anthony Sweeney, the pension solution project director, reported that system integration testing (SIT) execution is complete and teams are focusing on resolving remaining defects. “We are really close to what our targets were,” Sweeney said, adding that SIT now has only a small number of unpassed scripts and that defects are trending down toward expected levels.
Sweeney said the project is three months into a nine‑month user acceptance testing (UAT) period. Staff have scheduled 440 UAT test scripts in total and have passed roughly half to date. “As of today, the number of passed test scripts is 159,” he said, and noted that some failed tests are due to data or training issues rather than functional defects. He told the board approximately one‑third of failed test cases had been resolved and were awaiting re‑execution.
The project team described several tools and governance steps intended to reduce cutover risk. Readiness scorecards will be evaluated at four predefined checkpoints that cover eight categories (for example, testing, data conversion, operations and training). The fourth checkpoint will determine readiness to enter the cutover window, when the legacy system will be shut down for conversion and the new system brought online.
“We have developed readiness scorecards and checkpoints to evaluate those scorecards over the next 8 to 9 months,” Sweeney said, and added that the team will practice at least one dry run of cutover before the actual fall 2025 window.
Independent oversight consultant Chris Capote of Guidehouse told the board he concurs with the project team’s assessment. “We feel like there’s no material risks to them missing that [SIT] end date,” Capote said, and described ongoing monitoring of business‑area capacity and test progress.
Sweeney also reviewed change‑management work and internal readiness. An employee survey issued in November attracted 433 responses (about 31% of staff). On the question, “I understand the new system’s potential impacts to my business area,” 75% of respondents somewhat agreed, agreed or strongly agreed; among highly impacted stakeholders the rate was 80%. On the question, “I believe the pension solution project implementation in fall 2025 will be successful,” 64% of all respondents agreed, with a higher rate among highly impacted staff. Sweeney said the results informed a strengthened communications plan and continued emphasis on post‑go‑live support.
On project budget and risk, Sweeney briefed the board that the project remains on track with its current budget through go‑live and that the team will meet with the Department of Finance this quarter. He reported 22 active project risks: 12 have mitigations completed and 10 have active mitigation work underway. He listed the top risk topics as outstanding defects, UAT execution and data reconciliation for conversion reporting.
Board members asked several questions about specific test‑area counts and cutover contingency plans. One board member expressed concern about a higher failure rate in survivor‑benefits scenarios; staff explained survivor benefits are a complex business area with large, long test scripts and that many failed cases were ready for re‑execution after fixes. Sweeney emphasized that objective exit criteria on the readiness scorecards will distinguish acceptable workarounds from showstoppers — for example, being unable to pay retirees or having unreconciled financials would be showstoppers.
Sweeney said the project is working to transition from a project to a long‑term program structure that will maintain Benefit Connect after go‑live; that transition will require coordination with HR and budget teams and will be the subject of future board briefings.
The independent oversight team and the project office will continue to report to the board between meetings, and the chair and vice chair said they are holding regular check‑ins with project leadership.
The board did not take action on the item; the presentation was an informational update and will return with additional checkpoint timelines and cutover dates at a future meeting.
