Business Process Analysis (BPA)

1. Business Process Analysis (BPA) Information Resource Request Business Process Improvement May 2008 Final Presentation Enterprise Information Strategy & Policy Division

2. Agenda • Business Process Analysis (BPA) Initiation • Workshop Objectives • Current Process • Desired Process and Activities • Automation • Potential E-Forms and Electronic Submission • Implementation Plan • Q&A

3. Workshop Objectives • Define and document the existing process for the Information Resource Request (IRR) • Identify administrative, legislative, and regulatory requirements • Define a user experience that promotes adoption by targeted user population • Define and document a consensus-driven future business process • Explore e-form-enablement/automated IRR workflow

4. BPA Workshop Participants • Forms Factory (EDS/SABER) • Enterprise Information Strategy and Policy Division (EISPD) • Investment and Planning Section (ITIP) • DAS State Data Center (SDC) • DAS State Procurement Office (SPO) • DAS Enterprise Security Office (ESO) • Customer Agencies • Department of Human Services (DHS) • Department of Transportation (ODOT)

5. BPA Project Plan • December 2007, conducted 4, half day sessions • January 25, 2008, conducted combined session to: • Define and prioritize electronic approval approaches within context of new workflow process requirements • Document the “to-be” business process • Explore e-form-enablement/automation • May 6, 2008, present business process improvements to project stakeholders

6. Objective 1:Define & Document Existing Process What is an IRR? • Initial review and approval of IT projects involving acquisition (s) > $75,000 • In support of CNIC, Information Security, and GIS Initiatives, EISPD performs 100% review regardless of dollar amount of: • Mainframe, Midrange, Server hardware • IT Security hardware, software, and services • Non-ESRI GIS Software and Services • Agencies must complete an Information Resources Request (IRR) and Business Case/Feasibility Statement for projects >$125,000 • More rigorous business case development and risk assessment is required for larger investment requests • Recommendations regarding approval or denial of the request, and ongoing QA oversight requirements are given to State CIO for final decision

7. Objective 2: ID Regulatory RequirementsStatutes and Policies Oregon Revised Statutes • ORS 184.473-184.477 – IT Portfolio Management • ORS 283.505–283.510 – Acquisition and coordination of telecommunications systems • ORS 291.038 – State Agency IT planning, acquisition, installation & use • Additional statutory guidance – ORS 184.305, 184.340, 283.140, 283.500, 291.018, 291.037, 291.047, 293.595 • Executive Orders: 01-25, 00-02, 99-05, 98-05 Note: All acquisitions are subject to Department of Justice legal sufficiency and Department of Administrative Services purchasing rules Statewide Policy • IT Investment Review and Approval (July 2003, Updated April 2004) • Technology Strategy Development and Quality Assurance Reviews (February 2004) Note: Policies are scheduled for revision in 2007-2009 ITIP Policy URL: http://www.das.state.or.us/DAS/EISPD/ITIP/pol_index.shtml

8. Objective 3: Define User Experience Promoting UseCurrent Process Workflow

9. Objective 3: Define User Experience Promoting Use IRR Process — Known Issues • Static for nearly a decade. IRR Form contains information that is no longer relevant • “One-Size-Fits-All” approach • Doesn’t fit well with current operating model (EISPD, CNIC Transition to SDC) • Not effective as a control or enabling mechanism for operation of SDC • Duplicates agency review and approval process • Reactive • Process begins when agency makes contact or when IRRs are received. • Proactive preparation for review based on projected start dates defined during budget review and approval process needs to occur • Not timely or consistent • Volume of requests received at any given time can exceed EISPD resource capacity for review on top of existing workload • Occurs late in the IT Investment Lifecycle • Timing of review limits value proposition for agencies and DAS EISPD

10. Incomplete understanding of IRR requirements No process transparency Lack of knowledge of IRR’s disposition When received Who assigned to Expected timeframe Where it is in review process When it has been approved Difficult access to signed IRR documents Objective 3: Define User Experience Promoting Use Existing Process Barriers Agency EISPD • Receives IRR at different points of project lifecycles • Agency has already decided on product and performed incomplete or biased evaluation of other viable alternatives • No or limited involvement with other agencies (ESO, GIS, GEO, SDC, SPO, etc.) • Apparent disconnect between business side and IT side of the agency

11. Objective 4: Define & Document Consensus Driven future processOpportunities for Improvement • EISPD processes • IRR form • Communication and interaction with agencies • Agency processes • Enhanced project initiation/planning • Intra-agency collaboration • Agencies, EISPD, SDC and SPO • Adjunct processes and documentation • QA Reviews/Ongoing Oversight Reporting • Budget Development Process • Budget form (107BF14) • Business Case (Major IT Projects)

12. Objective 4: Define & Document Consensus Driven future processPhased Approach • Phased approach to process improvements • Phase 1 improvements • Improve and streamline the major process steps to the greatest extent possible • Eight opportunities leading to dramatic improvements for the overall objectives: • Improve communication and awareness surrounding the IRR process • Reduce or eliminate wait time

13. Phase 1 Tasks 1. Identify when an agency should develop an IRR 2. Re-engineer the process to reinforce the need and benefit of early engagement of SDC and EISPD Program Leaders 3. Define a streamlined submission process 4. Define process for agencies to know receipt and assignment of IRR 5. Define process for agencies and EISPD to know status of IRR in the review process 6. Define process for agencies and other organizations to know IRR’s final disposition 7. Provide access to signed documentation and create a line of sight to the IRR 8. Identify metrics to measure outcome of new process

14. Task 1. Identify When Agency Should Develop IRR • Identified knowledge and process gaps in preparatory activities for IRR development • Added new process step to the workflow: • IRR should be initiated during the agency project initiation/planning step • Development should be viewed as a collaborative effort

15. Task 2: Early Engagement of SDC and EISPD Program Leaders Agency Project Planning Activities (continued) • Communicate project status to EISPD • Obtain Agency CIO support of project • Obtained prior to IRR development • Not formal approval of an IRR, but a touch pointto ensure Agency CIO supports the project • Initiate IRR • Coordinate with EISPD • Engage SDC and EISPD Program Leaders • Prepare relevant documentation • Business case/cost benefit analysis • Feasibility studies/opportunity evaluation

16. IRR Process Workflow — Agency Current: Desired:

17. Task 3: Define a Streamlined Submission Process • EISPD Actions • Re-examine $ threshold limits for alignment with current policies, ORS, and OARs (i.e. $75K, $100K, $125K, $150K) • Revise IRR Form • Develop and revise supporting document templates • Document IRR process and requirements and educate agencies • Proactively collaborate with agencies throughout the IRR process

18. IRR Supporting Documentation • EISPD to revise IRR form and supporting document templates • Business case • Cost/benefit analysis • Feasibility study/opportunity evaluation • Risk assessment • Timeline for completion: 2nd/3rd Qtr 2008

19. IRR Guiding Documentation • EISPD to create and publish guiding documentation to aid agencies during IRR development • IRR workflow • Agency IRR creation checklist • EISPD IRR review checklist • Timeline for completion: 2nd Qtr 2008

20. Additional IRR Improvements • Potential E-form implementation – Phase 2 • Use required fields to reduce risk of missing information • Leverage interactive capabilities to provide form fillers all relevant information fields • Provide multiple submission methods • Electronic only sent via e-mail • Current, manual process of printing and sending via interagency mail • Combination of electronic and printed methods

21. IRR Improvements — Submission • Provide proof of signature • Maintain interactive, electronic version of IRR Combination Printed/Electronic Electronic Only Printed Only

22. Task 4: Define Process for Agencies to Know Receipt and Assignment of IRR • EISPD will notify agencies via e-mail • When IRR has been received • Who has been assigned to IRR • EISPD will note that information on tracking spreadsheet • Post spreadsheet on intranet/Internet • Update as appropriate

23. Task 5: Define Process for Agencies and EISPD to Know IRR Status in Review Process • EISPD will define specific stages of review – For example • Under analyst review • Pending DAS/Other SME feedback/recommendations • Pending agency update • Recommendation (approval/conditional approval/denial) submitted to State CIO • Etc. • EISPD will expand on current IRR tracking process • Post spreadsheet on intranet/Internet • Update information on a regular basis

24. Task 6: Define Process for Agencies & Other Organizations to Know IRR’s Final Disposition • EISPD will create a final IRR disposition tracking process • Post spreadsheet on intranet/Internet • Update information on a regular basis

25. Task 7: Provide Access to Signed Documentation and Create a Line of Sight to IRR • EISPD will make a consistent set of IRR documentation available via intranet • Project plan • Project charter • Other documents (as required) • Memo given to CIO • IRR • Business case document (as required) • Statement of work (SOW) • Request for proposal (RFP)

26. Task 8: Identify Metrics to Measure Outcome of New Process • Phase 1 metrics will focus on process steps between submission and approval • Wait time: submission to approval • Processing time: IRR submission to State CIO for signature • Number of IRRs that need additional information • Number of EISPD conditional approvals • Number of EISPD denials

27. Task 8: Identify Metrics to Measure Outcome of New ProcessPhase 1 Metrics (Continued) • Track overall cost estimates for entire project • Break out agency’s cost estimates (time of IRR vs. time of contract vs. project at completion, etc.) • Capture percentages of cost variance to hint at complexity • Segment out projects that require QA • Provide baseline metrics from 2005 to current • Solicit process improvement feedback from agencies • Six months after Phase 1 implementation

28. Phase 2 Improvements • Potential E-form implementation – Multiple submission methods • Establish a common project phasing framework where IRRs are consistently submitted in planning stages of a project • Define IRR information for level of review • Consider large, midsize, and small agency capability to produce required analysis • Consider appropriate level of information submission for different sized projects • Match level of review with size and complexity of project/request • Define signing authorities • DAS • Agency delegated procurement authority from DAS SPO • Agency

29. Phase 3 Improvements • Define a process for requesting and obtaining additional information • Define subject matter expert (SME) involvement • Define SPO involvement • Integrate support requests (SDC) and IRR process to the greatest extent possible • Examine partnership with SDC – possible use of Remedy help desk/ticketing process to initiate IRR request process

30. Phase “X” Improvements • Review processes for specific types of IRRs: • Achieve SDC 100% review of midrange/mainframe server request prior to IRR submission vs. after • Achieve ESO 100% review of Security HW, SW, Services prior to IRR submission • Implement GEO 100% review of GIS Software prior to IRR submission • May be replaced by Enterprise GIS Software Admin Rule (rule not yet adopted)

31. Phase “X” Improvements (Continued) • Create an IRR refresh process to accommodate revisions/updates over time • Define an IRR follow-up process • When scope, budget or schedule increase beyond original estimates or thresholds for cost benefit analysis or QA • Create documented process for tracking conditional approval items • Receive notification & lessons learned report from agency when a project ends/is completed • Align and integrate IT Investment Review & Approval Policy with the QA reviews policy

32. Implementation Plan

33. Business Process Analysis Consulting Thank you for your participation! QUESTIONS?

34. Contacts State Chief Information Officer • Dugan Petty, State CIO • Angela Skyberg, Executive Assistant – 503-378-3175 (Main #) IT Investment and Planning • Sean McSpaden, Manager - 503-378-5257 • Charlene Wood, Executive Assistant – 503-378-8366 • Scott Riordan – 503-378-3385 • Darren Wellington – 503-378-2242 State Data Center - Plans and Controls • Darin Rand, Manager - 503-378-3366