Washington, DC July 22, 2008

1. First Annual Federal Capital Planning and Investment Control Conference A 360 Degree Perspective on CPIC: Insights, Challenges, Best Practices, and Successes Washington, DC July 22, 2008

2. Session Agenda • CPIC and Portfolio Management in the Context of the Federal Budget Process • Introduction of Panelists • Insights on CPIC and Portfolio Management • HHS HRSA – Small Agency Perspective • GSA – Large IT Portfolio Perspective • JPDO NextGen – Multi-Agency Program Perspective • OMB Reviewer Perspective • Q&A with Panel

3. REQUESTING MONEY Performance Strategic Plans GPRA CCA Initial Agency Submission to OMB • OMB Decisions • Final Preparation of • President’s Budget The federal budget formulation and execution processes drive capital planning and portfolio management requirements Federal Budget Process – Execution Federal Budget Process - Formulation SPENDING MONEY Apportionment Funds Control Financial Management • Program Budgeting • IT Capital Planning Agency IT Portfolios PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool) Performance Reporting

4. The OMB Circular A-11 requirements for all budget proposals (including IT investments) reflect the required elements of sound portfolio management and CPIC practices Budget proposals should result from a comprehensive system that integrates analysis, planning, evaluation, & budgeting REFLECT CONSIDER • President’s Policies (e.g. PMA) • OMB’s spring guidance memoranda • The judgment of the agency head regarding programs/activities proposed to meet the agency’s mission, goals, & objectives • Scope • Content • Performance • Quality • The effect changes (i.e., of demographic, economic) beyond the budget year • The impact of program levels / changes in program delivery methods, on operations & administration • Appropriate roles for Federal, State, & local governments & the private sector • Consistency with strategic & annual performance plans

5. Addressing these requirements takes on different forms and presents both common and unique challenges across different types of federal programs and agencies… • Joseph Roach Director, Division of Capital Planning and Project Management Office of Information Technology, Health Resources and Services Administration / HHS • John Prahm Director, IT Portfolio Management Division General Services Administration • Kristen Burnham Director, Portfolio Management Division Joint Planning and Development Office for the Next Generation Air Transportation System • Select insights from an OMB perspective

6. Agenda HRSA Overview Capital Planning at HRSA Challenges in Implementing Capital Planning at HRSA CPIC successes at HRSA Growing and Maturing the CPIC Process

7. HRSA Overview • HRSA provides access to health care for underserved and disadvantaged populations • Provides grants to states to treat at risk individuals • Oversees the training and staffing of healthcare providers • Provides oversight for tissue and organ donation and monitors malpractice suits nationwide • Benefits of Capital Planning at HRSA • IT is an enabler for programs to meet their business needs • Capital Planning allows us to measure how well IT is being planned for, managed and achieving results • The HRSA IT portfolio includes the following investments: • 2 Majors (annual IT costs greater than $10M) • 1 Tactical (annual IT costs greater than $3M, but less than $10M) • 19 Supporting (annual IT costs greater than $100k, but less than $3M) (1) HHS Office of Budget FY2009 Budget In Brief (2) Office of Management and Budget Report on Information Technology (IT) Spending for the Federal Government for Fiscal Years 2007, 2008, and 2009

8. Select Cycle at HRSA 1 Develop Screening and Scoring Criteria • HRSA has been refining the Select Cycle for several years • All investments greater than $100K go through an internal review cycle at HRSA • HRSA tailors business case requirements for investments according to their IT Portfolio Classification (Major, Tactical or Supporting) • Major/Tactical investments also participate in a Departmental review • Training and individual assistance is available to all PMs that are interested in improving their business cases • Select evaluation is conducted through a critical partner review approach • Subject matter experts, including governance board reps, score business cases on their area of expertise • The CPIC team consolidates scores, analyzes results, and presents the ranked IT portfolio • Overall scores are reviewed and discussed by governance boards before being finalized • Highest tier governance board recommends IT Portfolio to the HRSA Administrator, which feeds IT spending plan decision-making 2 Create or Update Business Cases 3 Review and Score Business Cases 4 Analyze, Compare, and Rank Investments 5 Approval of IT Portfolio by Governance Boards and Administrator

9. Control Process at HRSA 1 Project Managers (PMs) update data in portfolio management tool • HRSA has completed one full year of Periodic Reporting (Control Review) • HRSA has received praise on our maturing Capital Planning procedures from the Department • Criteria Maturity • Originally PMs reported Cost and Schedule only on a quarterly basis • Reporting criteria now includes Security and Performance Measure reporting on a quarterly basis • Security criteria is aligned to the Security Team’s requirements for ease of reporting by PMs • Increased reporting on Performance and Cost/Schedule milestones has improved Select scores in those areas • Results Reporting • The CPIC team provides Scorecards and Corrective Action Plans to create a feedback loop for PMs • Governance boards utilize score trending and variance analysis to understand how individual investments and the overall IT portfolio are performing • Investments that show a downward trend work with the CPIC team and governance boards to improve performance 2 CPIC analyzes data to identify gaps and assign an overall score 3 PMs create Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) 4 CPIC creates Scorecards with CAPs and results briefings 5 Results are presented to two tiers of Governance Bodies

10. HRSA’s IT Clearance Process 1 Information entered into requisition system • Overview: • HRSA has instituted an internal control process to monitor, review, and correct IT contracts before they are released to the public • Ensures that necessary contract language is included to meet all Federal, HHS, and HRSA IT requirements • Leverages the input of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) on SOW areas • Benefits • Integrates CPIC into the procurement cycle • Mechanism to ensure that IT procurements are mapped to an approved Business Case • Provides an opportunity for PMs to begin planning for new IT investments outside of the scheduled CPIC cycle 2 OIT assigns/verifies IT investment number and determines reporting requirements 3 SOW entered into collaboration tool for review and comment by appropriate SMEs 4 PMs are contacted with required changes to SOWs 5 SOW is cleared and sent to Contracting for release

11. Challenges and Solutions of Capital Planning at HRSA

12. CPIC Successes at HRSA What Has Been Done Impact • HRSA now actively managing and monitoring the IT portfolio • Insight into individual investments increased at all levels • Organization has embraced process as meaningful • Initiated both Select and Control phases based on best practices • Process tailored to HRSA’s unique needs Developed CPIC Process 1 • Investment data reviewed by agency executives on a regular basis • Executives realize greater transparency from PMs • Increased importance of CPIC in budgeting process IT Governance • Established and chartered two separate IT Governance review boards • Conduct regular meetings to review IT Capital Planning data 2 Earned Value Management • Developed tailored EVM guidance and reporting process • Institutionalized a Baseline Change Request process • Forged routine communications with Contracting on EVM implementation and use • Elevated understanding of EVM principles • Improved control over investment baselines and IT Spending in HRSA contracts • Incorporated EVM reporting into Quarterly Control process for all investments greater than $100K 3

13. Growing and Maturing the CPIC process at HRSA

14. Questions?

15. CPIC at the General Services Administration (GSA) CPIC Conference July 22, 2008

16. Agenda Objectives of implementing CPIC at GSA CPIC at GSA Challenges within the GSA CPIC Environment Key Deliverables and Analysis Results of enhancing CPIC processes at GSA

17. Objectives of implementing CPIC at GSA

18. CPIC at GSA

19. Challenges within the GSA CPIC Environment

20. What Was Done Impact • Designed Ex 300 and Ex 53 Guidance in accordance with the OMB Circular A-11 • Utilized eCPIC screenshots of relevant workflows within the Guidance to demonstrate the use of the tool within the process • Ease of use in completing necessary OMB requirements • Communicated step-by-step process to users Customized Guidance 1 • Offered CPIC training sessions and brown bags that were facilitated by an instructor • Integrated eCPIC training with CPIC processes as a side by side demonstration • Integration of budget submission training with an accompanying demonstration of the eCPIC modules gives the user a more comprehensive understanding of eCPIC functionality Integrated Training 2 • Reduces duplication and the burden of data collection through the reuse of similar OMB required fields and information • Developed a uniform business case template for data collection in preparation for Select activities Executive Business Case 3 Key deliverables and analysis

21. What Was Done Impact • Created a Scoring Framework to assist in the development of the Exhibit 300s for OMB Submission • Bi-weekly scoring sessions with Subject Matter Experts provided feedback to Project Managers and Senior Management through the use of eCPIC reports • Increased transparency of Agency IT Initiatives • Enhanced focus on quality of Exhibits • Enhanced communication of necessary information for improving their Ex 300 submissions Exhibit 300 Scoring Framework 4 • Developed a uniform control review template for data collection in preparation for Quarterly Control Review activities • Reduces duplication and the burden of data collection through the reuse of similar OMB required fields and information Control Review Template 5 • Reduces corruption of earned value data • Reduces number of tools used to report information • Enhances communication and decision making through the use of baseline table change requests • Increases controls over baselines • Developed new monthly EVM reporting and Baseline Change Management processes EVM Reporting Enhancements 6 Key deliverables and analysis

22. Results of enhancing CPIC processes at GSA

23. Portfolio Management and the Next Generation Air Transportation System Kris Burnham Director, Portfolio Management Joint Planning & Development Office July 22, 2008

24. NextGen Overview • Comprehensive transformation of the air transportation system • Meet future demand • Reduce delays • Be safe, secure, and environmentally responsible • Goal is transformation by 2025 • Five federal agencies are partnered with the Joint Planning and Development Office • FAA/DOT, NASA, DHS, DoD, DoC

25. NextGen Portfolio Overview • Portfolio will ultimately reflect incremental changes in operations, technology, and the roles of humans to achieve the 2025 vision. • Today, we have a baseline (more or less) and an end-state vision, with many potential alternatives for achieving it. • Investments will be required from federal, state, and local governments, and the private sector. • Near-term federal investment approaches $10B, with a large portion in research and development.

26. Portfolio Management—Relevance to NextGen • Building Discipline • Refining the vision by measuring it and assessing alternatives • Driving decisions • Reporting progress against performance goals • Managing complexity • Translating multiple languages • Ensuring a rational basis for large investments

27. Challenges • SCOPE!! • Number and diversity of stakeholders • Maturity of the operational and architectural visions • Leadership/decisionmaking ambiguities • Building a business case that speaks to different audiences • Lack of clarity around performance objectives • Etc.

28. Accomplishments • Baselining the portfolio • Building funding momentum for R&D and early implementation • Assessing funding gaps and their importance • Identifying high value cross-agency activities • Establishing a framework for integrated portfolio management and analysis—a work in progress

29. Looking Ahead • Work with architects and agencies to analyze alternatives, refine the end-state, and define roadmaps. • Build/improve feedback loops between R&D results and investment decisionmakers. • To strengthen the rationale for stakeholder investment, more fully analyze the complementary nature of investments in air traffic infrastructure, airports, and the aircraft.

30. Select Insights from the OMB Perspective

31. Insights from the OMB Perspective: Is CPIC all about the Exhibit 300?...No. Discussions of CPIC and Portfolio Management often revolve around the Exhibit 300 itself, however, the Exhibit 300 is one mechanism that documents CPIC maturity for investments and agencies/programs… The Exhibit 300s are the outgrowth of and demonstrate the health, maturity and compliance of an agency’s Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) process with the Clinger Cohen Act and Circular A-130 (Management of Federal Information Resources) The Exhibit 300 is intended to be management tool to monitor investments and should be updated as new information becomes available and as the agency’s portfolio matures

32. Internal communication & coordination Inconsistent, infrequent, imprecise, or absent coordination & communications protocols, SOPs & information dissemination Poor coordination between CFO, CIO, individual bureau/program budget shops, or partner agencies, etc. Internal tracking & reporting systems and SOPs, incl. financial systems Poor internal program tracking systems Non-standardized program performance management & monitoring SOPs & systems Inadequate or legacy financial/accounting/cost accounting/cost management systems and processes Internal communication of strategic and performance plans Inconsistent communication & buy-in regarding GPRA strategic and annual performance plans, PARs, PART follow-up Performance measurement & management. Unclear performance goals, imprecise performance metrics, unclear accountability structure for performance metrics Absence of adequate information systems to collect, track & coordinate performance data across the portfolio Budget & performance integration Absence of internal processes to collect, determine, analyze & tie resources to specific program performance goals & measures Insights from the OMB Perspective: Common Agency CPIC Challenges

33. Q&A with Panel