Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Acela Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Acela rollout delayed after end-to-end testing finds critical defects; DBI and vendor add resources
Summary
Department of Technology and DBI reported 71 critical/high defects found during end-to-end testing of the Accela (Acela) permit system and a larger list of configuration and data-migration issues; DBI said 26 defects were fixed and retested while 127 configuration items and 63 migration items remain.
Get email alerts on the Acela Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Henry Bartley of the Department of Technology told the Building Inspection Commission that end-to-end (EDE) simulation testing for the Accela (referred to in the meeting as "Acela") permit and project tracking system uncovered significant issues: 71 critical/high defects were identified during Aug. 18–25 testing and the consolidated configuration list has grown to 127 items, with an additional 63 outstanding data-migration items. Bartley said 26 of the EDE defects have been fixed and retested.
Bartley described the testing scope as comprehensive — exercises ranged from simple over-the-counter transactions to the most complex site permits, complaints and the 3R process — and stressed the need for regression testing when configuration changes are made. He said DBI and the vendor are increasing configuration resources, 21Tech added a resource and Exela has committed additional support pending final contract approvals. Bartley estimated an eight-week analysis to merge DBI and planning data sets once the DBI platform stabilizes.
Commissioners asked how quickly defects could be fixed and how the list of items expanded when fixing other problems exposed additional issues. Bartley cautioned that some fixes are quick label or configuration changes while other items require multiple days of development and careful regression testing. The presentation also described past test-platform outages that affected planning and the need for robust hosting and vendor responsiveness.
Public commenters praised the project management team but pressed for a clearer schedule and an estimate of hours per fix. DBI staff said they would continue publishing a chart showing open defects and retesting progress and would seek additional vendor resources to accelerate fixes. No go‑live date was set during the meeting.
