|
1
|
- APHSA – ISM
- August 26, 2003
|
|
2
|
- Art Stephens
- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Deputy Secretary (CIO) for Information
Technology
- Phil Hernandez
- Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare Chief Information Officer
(CIO)
- Mike Coulson
- Director: Bureau of Program Support, Office of Income Maintenance,
Department of Public Welfare
|
|
3
|
- How are project requests processed today?
- How do business units prioritize multiple project requests?
- How does an information technology office prioritize Department-wide
project requests?
- How will the Commonwealth of PA prioritize agency IT project requests
going forward?
|
|
4
|
- The Commonwealth has made substantial investments in technology.
- No current inventory of IT systems exists in the Commonwealth.
- Need to implement comprehensive process to prioritize new and ongoing IT
expenditures across Commonwealth agencies/enterprise.
|
|
5
|
|
|
6
|
- Control IT spending.
- Assure investments are consistent with and support Governor’s highest
priority objectives.
- Ensure leveraging of existing solutions, and maximizing investments
across agencies.
- Encourage interoperability across the enterprise (data sharing).
|
|
7
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
15
|
- "Nothing is ever done until everyone is convinced that it ought to
be done, and has been convinced for so long that it is now time to do
something else"
- -- F.M. Cornford, British author, poet, translator (1874-1943)
|
|
16
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
19
|
- Resources 30% of Score
- Scoring is based on benefit-to-cost ratio
- Risk 20% of Score
- Risk of NOT doing the project
(14%)
- Risk of doing the project (risking failure) ( 6%)
|
|
20
|
- Stakeholder Impact 20% of Score
- DPW Mandate (3.5%)
- Program Office Mandate
(2.9%)
- Federal Government Mandate
(2.9%)
- Commonwealth of PA Mandate
(2.9%)
- Legal Pressure – Probability & Impact (2.9%)
- Public Opinion/View (2.5%)
- County/Local Government Staff Impact
(1.2%)
- Customer Service Enhancement
(1.2%)
- Cross-Agency Collaboration 30% of Score
- Multiple DPW Programs (10%)
- Other Commonwealth Agencies
(10%)
- County Government Offices
(10%)
|
|
21
|
|
|
22
|
- Commonwealth and Department Priorities
- Strategic Value
- New capabilities/functionality
- Reusability
- Business/IT Mix
- Business Process Reengineering vs System Development
- Phase of the Project
- Year 1, 2, 3, ….
- Planning, design, development, operations
- Degree of Automated Support already Present
|
|
23
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
28
|
- Control IT spending.
- Assure investments are consistent with and support Governor’s highest
priority objectives.
- Ensure leveraging of existing solutions, and maximizing investments
across agencies.
- Encourage interoperability across the enterprise (data sharing).
|
|
29
|
- Structured on the concept that various state agencies engage in similar
or common types of activities.
- As such, prioritization of IT projects could be grouped according to
“communities of practice.”
|
|
30
|
|
|
31
|
- Agencies will complete project profile and scoring sheets.
- Agencies will prioritize their IT investments to present to the
“community of practice” meeting.
- Federal funds discussion to occur
within community of practice.
|
|
32
|
- Investments would be prioritized by
agencies in that community of practice.
- Meeting would be chaired by
Governor’s Policy Office or other
Governor appointee.
- Initiatives would be discussed
against a standard set of criteria.
- Output of the meeting is a prioritized list
of projects.
- Note: Follow-up process must be implemented to keep agencies accountable
for the benefits.
|
|
33
|
- The process would be directed by an
- IT Investment Board comprised of:
|
|
34
|
- Program offices with special funding
circumventing the system
- Administrative buy-in
- Comptroller participation/role
- Projects > $100K and no maintenance
- Develop common/related ROI model
|
|
35
|
- Agency Autonomy/change in culture
- Timing of organizing approach
- Agency staff knowing how to create business cases
- No existing IT inventory
- Integrate federal funds into prioritization process
|
|
36
|
- Cost Benefit Analysis 30% of Evaluation
- Return on Investment
- 1) ROI within 1 year (30 points)
- 2) ROI within 5 years (20
points)
- 3) ROI within 5-10 years (10
points)
- 4) ROI within 10-15 years (5 points)
- 5) ROI > 15 years (0 points)
|
|
37
|
- Collaboration 20% of Evaluation
- 1) Collaboration (10%)
- Commonwealth Enterprise Project (10 points)
- Five or More Entities (State or Local) (7 points)
- 1-5 Entities (3 points)
- One Entity (0 points)
- 2) Experienced Commonwealth IT Project Manager (5%)
- 3) Agency Resource Allocation (5%)
- No External Resources Needed (5 points)
- External IT Resources Needed Only (3 points)
- External Business Resources Needed Only (2 points)
- External IT and Business Resources Needed (0 points)
|
|
38
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
40
|
|