Streamlining Project August 2005 Greg Goss, Project Manager

1. Streamlining Project August 2005 Greg Goss, Project Manager Team Proposal Summary Creating a streamlined forest information management model…

2. Presentation Overview • The Streamlining Project • Scope • Process • Working principles • Why change is needed, to which processes • Business Proposals • Cutblock Integration (4) • Road Administration (5) • Information Access (6) • Moving forward • Transition from business rules/standards --> business requirements --> application and procedure change

3. Streamlining Project ScopeIntegrated Forest Information Cycle Report Notify Plan Harvest authority process Harvest completion Harvest notification Silviculture reporting Operationalplanning Harvest completionreporting Notification of commencement Cruise, Appraisal, CP application FSP Silviculture activity Regen/ FG Milestone Inventory update

4. The Streamlining ProjectThree Phases • Phase I: • Issues identified, resulting in high level recommendations • FRPA notification and reporting streamlined • Phase II: • Cross-corporate teams developed proposals to improve business • Proposals were reviewed by government and industry, and revised as needed based on feedback. • Phase III: • Communicate business proposals to responsibility centres • Responsibility centres develop training, policies, guidelines, and systems to support changes • Cross-corporate Business Integration Group co-ordinates and supports implementation efforts

5. Streamlining Teams • Road Administration • Cutblock Integration • Business Process Alignment • Information Access • Teams included: • District and regional staff • Representation from stakeholder branches in MoF and MSRM

6. Working Principles • Information will be shared within government where possible • The focus is on the business - not the systems • Solutions will meet operational needs of districts and all licensees (large and small) • Clarity and integration of the business will enable future systems improvements (transition to full e-business) • Major business processes will be provincially consistent • The comparison of planned, permitted, and actual activity will be possible (C&E, Revenue, Monitoring)

7. Why change…? • New legislation (FRPA) has increased the need to share information more effectively • The move to consolidated electronic systems requires a more consolidated, integrated approach to the business • Access to information is split among many corporate and district silos; simplified access is needed • Long-standing information quality issues need to be fixed with clear, practical standards and robust business processes

8. Which processes are affected? • FSP development, submission, tracking • Appraisal submission • Road and cutting permit application/issuance • Start-up (harvest, road) notification for C&E • C&E risk assessment and inspection (information needs) • Silviculture activity and milestone reporting • MSRM mapping information, tools, and products (e.g. LRDW)

9. The Streamlining Team Proposals • The following slides contain the main proposals put forward by the Streamlining teams • These proposals are backed by more detailed reports • The proposals were subject to a province-wide review by government and licensee operational staff • Proposals have been communicated to responsibility centres, and implementation is now underway

10. Cutblock Integration Proposal #1 Electronic FSP Submission • Submit FSPs in an electronic format to: • Expedite approval • Enable tracking • Improve amendment efficiency • Provide C&E with operational access to the electronic FSP results and strategies as required to conduct inspections • Provide Stewardship staff access to FSP information to enable more efficient monitoring/evaluation This proposal is being addressed by the FSP Tracking Project (www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/FSP/)

11. Cutblock Integration Proposal #2 Permit Bundle Submission • Bundle the appraisal and cutting permit application in an electronic submission • Layer the map submission to: • Reduce the number of transactions (from 2 to 1) • Improve consistency between the processes (addresses systemic problem) • Automatically split out layered map submission for processing by each MoF business area • No added complexity for MoF • Reduces the need for licensees to remove detail and duplicate submissions

12. Cutblock Integration Proposal #2 Permit Bundle Submission Cont’d Key attributes: • Map outer boundary is common to both business processes (multiple submissions not required) • Permit bundle map layers are overlaid on the existing FSP map to ensure that they fall within the FSP boundary • C&E receives the permit bundle once a cutting permit is issued, for risk assessment and inspection planning • Licensee can electronically track processing status • Planned WTPs are included in bundled submission • Planned internal WTPs are needed in Appraisal • Optional submission of planned external WTPs– updated in LRDW (to enable CP/RP statusing)

13. Cutblock Integration Proposal #2 Permit Bundle Submission Cont’d Automatic map splitting Appraisal layer for appraisal Check against FSP map Permit bundle submission (not a working map on its own)

14. Cutblock Integration Proposal #2 Permit Bundle Submission Cont’d Automatic map splitting Appraisal layer for appraisal Check against FSP map CP application layer for Ex. A map Permit bundle submission

15. Cutblock Integration Proposal #2 Permit Bundle Submission Cont’d Automatic map splitting Appraisal layer for appraisal Check against FSP map CP application layer for Ex. A map Permit bundle submission Planned WTPs to LRDW

16. Cutblock Integration Proposal #3 Bundled RESULTS Reporting • Bundle RESULTS reporting for more efficient electronic submission: • Harvest activity • Standards Units • Vegetation update (forest cover) • Internal and external reserve timber • Layer map information to reduce the number of transactions (from 3 to 1) • Legislation-enabled • Requires minor changes to systems and procedures • Improves consistency between the processes (addresses systemic problem)

17. Cutblock Integration Proposal #3 Bundled RESULTS Reporting Cont’d • Automatically split out layered information on the submission for processing by MoF and MSRM • No added complexity for MoF or MSRM • Reduces the need for licensees to duplicate submissions

18. Cutblock Integration Proposal #4 Integrated Mapping Standards • Provincially consistent mapping standards are being developed where they currently do not exist • Mapping standards will be integrated across business processes to facilitate improved information exchange • Standardization and integration will enable comparison of actual results to planned activity • Feedback for Revenue, C&E, and Stewardship

19. Cutblock Integration Proposal #4 Integrated Mapping Standards Cont’d • Mapping standards address, across business areas: • Submission format • Submission information requirements • Digital mapping standards (resolution, precision, administrative identifiers)

20. Road Administration Proposal #1 Provincial Road Permitting Process • Corporately consistent road permitting process flows have been developed • Corporate consistency is required on a number of important key elements • Flexible district administration is allowed where possible

21. Road Administration Proposal #2 Standard Road Naming and Usage • MoF to use the name the licensee submits for a road in their application • Avoids current renaming practice • Road name integrity also applies to Forest Service Roads • This proposal is backed by road naming guidelines and standards for licensees (currently under development)

22. Road Administration Proposal #3 Bundled Appraisal/Road Permit • Bundle road permit application and road related appraisal info together for more efficient electronic submission • Reduces the number of transactions • Improves consistency between the processes (addresses systemic problem) • Automatically split out layered information for processing by each MoF business area • No added complexity for MoF to issue permit and rate • Allows Revenue and Tenures staff to do tasks simultaneously to speed up processing • Licensee can track processing status • Electronically issue rate and permit to licensee at the same time

23. Road Administration Proposal #4 Separate Tenure from Timber Mark • Introduce a new timber marking procedure that separates the tenure from the timber mark • Uses different numbers in FTA to separate the authority to build or maintain a road from the identification of a timber mark • Continue to support two legitimate permitting models: • An individual, geographically-based road permit model • A “blanket” road permit model with geographic subdivisions

24. Road Administration Proposal #5 Cross-Boundary Road Permits • Modify FTA to allow the tenure for a road permit to cross boundaries of overarching licences for a single licensee • The mantra for this proposal is: “A road is a road is a road” (regardless of administrative boundaries) • Roads could cross TFL and FL boundaries without a road tenure change • Reduces the amount of information that must be tracked and reduces confusion for all parties

25. Information Access Proposal #1 The “Forest Information Mall” District and licensee staff need: • One stop shopping for the information and systems they need to do their jobs • Transparent, scaleable, task-defined access • Access to communities of practice and user forums where knowledge and learning can be shared • One place to find the experts and contacts for questions and feedback

26. Information Access Proposal #1 The Forest Information Mall Cont’d Attributes of the proposed Forest Information Mall: • Gateway to all relevant MoF and MSRM systems (including access application process and access to viewing tools) • Access to information needed for planning and reporting: • FRPA Objectives, Resource Features, Inventory, etc. • Local district information (when information isn’t up to date in the corporate databases) • Business process maps, policies, legislation, guidelines, standards, forms • Single location for forestry user forums • Government staff expertise directory (“expert locator”) • Creates one integrated location for user feedback for all aspects of the business

27. Information Access Proposal #1 The Forest Information Mall Cont’d • Example of task-sensitive viewing for key aspects of the business:

28. Information Access Proposal #2 Consolidated Spatial Information Access • District and licensee staff need consolidated access to spatial information • Current access is split among many corporate and district silos • Staff need task-sensitive views to reduce information overload and find the information they need • All forestry spatial information should be accessed in one location and be “analysis-ready” • Spatial information should include information on the currency, accuracy, and source of data

29. Information Access Proposal #3 Core Information • There is a set of core spatial information that is the foundation to many different business areas and should be consolidated, shared, and updated accordingly • Different and duplicative versions of core information exist. This must be minimized to ensure there is only one “working copy” • Core information includes two types of information: • Biophysical base • Contours • Water • Roads • Users should be able to customize viewing of core information • Common features, e.g. • Land status and ownership • Vegetation resource inventory • Imagery

30. Information Access Proposal #3 Core Information Cont’d • Viewers and tools should provide task-sensitive and core information as a start, and allow user customization

31. Information Access Proposal #4 Streamlined User Access • Currently there are multiple websites and protocols for accessing systems and information • Consolidation of user access is needed • New access protocols should recognize that forestry systems and information users are clients well known to government • Licensees that provide landbase updates to standard should have no-fee access to landbase information

32. Information Access Proposal #4 Streamlined User Access Cont’d • Consolidate and simplify access protocols for required data and systems • Scaleable security access: • Access is provided only to those who need it • Groups of users gain pre-determined levels of access

33. Information Access Proposal #5 Data quality • Ensure all forestry information has a clearly articulated custodian • Prioritize and resource data clean-up with business and application specialists • Build data quality assurance, including standards, into systems and procedures to ensure “cleaned” information isn’t subsequently corrupted • Ensure there is an integrated MoF/MSRM data custodianship structure for forest information to support data quality improvements • Communicate with operational staff about data standards and custodianship roles/responsibilities

34. Information Access Proposal #6 Activity Notification • Clear, provincially-consistent electronic process to support FRPA notification of harvest and road construction activity has been developed • Activity notification is shared across affected business processes and systems • Notification mechanism should be delivered via Forest Information Mall website

35. Moving forward • Interactions of the major MoF business processes and associated systems were mapped and posted to the Business Information Centre (BIC) • Relationships and linkages have been fostered between MoF, MSRM, Industry and District Operations staff • Each business area is improving integration and client focus • Operational staff have appreciated having this project to bring forward concerns regarding tools, processes, and policies

36. Moving forward • FRPA legislation now requires road/harvest activity notification • Electronic notification methodology has been developed and is being implemented • FSP Tracking and Information Support projects are underway • LRDW access is being improved (content and viewing tools) • Forest Information Mall business requirements development is underway