Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
May 2008 Final Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

May 2008 Final Presentation


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • 1 and 2 went hand in hand. As we defined and documented the existing IRR process, we identified the requirements along the way. We leveraged the statute and policy reviews that had already been completed by EISPD. Define a user experience This is usually targeted toward e-forms, but we extended the “user experience” to encompass the workflow processes for customer agencies. Agency input was extremely valuable. Refocused where the process ultimately began based on this perspective. Define and document e-form-enabled business process Now that we’ve established methods to support an electronic signature method, the electronic submission of an e-form can become an automated process. We’ve also outlined multiple submission methods, including: Electronic only (with digital signature) A half-n-half approach — where a wet signature is scanned in and submitted electronically along with the e-form containing the data And the current manual print method.
  • Thank you to the participants. Forms Factory Teri Watanabe – Forms Factory Program Manager, CFSP Allen Russ – Vice President of Document Solutions for Saber EISPD ITIP Sean McSpaden – ITIP Manager Ed Arabas, Darren Wellington, Matt Matson, Charlene Wood DAS SDC Lorie Campbell, Kurtis Danka, Claudia Light, Darin Rand, Ben Tate DAS SPO Philip Harpster DAS ESO Dennis Miller Cinnamon Albin Customer Agencies DHS – Pete Mallord, Melody Riley, Gerry Woock ODOT – Virginia Alster, Tim Avilla, Debbie Vick, Vickie Warner and additionally Dan Wells
  • The business process analysis workshop Existing analysis and documentation Build on current knowledge without being tied to how it was done in the past Current IRR workflow Focus on what is currently occurring within the existing workflow Incorporate feedback from affected and customer agencies Identify challenges and desired improvements Desired IRR workflow Focus on an automated process that seeks to improve: Customer service Quality of data Cost and processing efficiencies Identify challenges and possible solutions Electronic approval approaches Educational seminar Solution-building session to identify approaches given automated workflow Documentation and presentation Deliver a comprehensive analysis of the e-form-enabled workflow as the foundation for launching an e-form implementation project in 2008
  • Administrative, legislative, and regulatory requirements (ORS) had been identified prior to this workshop. Policies are in the process of being updated to reflect current business practices and regulations
  • Leveraged existing process workflow diagram From work completed August 2007 In terms of scope, we focused the process From when an agency prepares an IRR To when the IRR is signed by the State CIO
  • IT investment review and approval process had known issues based on 2007 review of information.
  • IT investment review and approval process had known issues based on 2007 review of information.
  • We identified numerous opportunities within these broad categories. EISPD processes — As examples: We discovered that the IRR form was not “asking the right questions” both from the agency and EISPD perspectives. EISPD also identified ways in which a customer service orientation could be furthered by proactive communication and interaction with agencies. Agency processes A lot of focus came to bear on the types of information and documentation that agencies need to gather and create as part of creating an IRR. Cross-agency collaboration We looked at early involvement with the State Data Center and State Procurement Office. Adjunct processes and documentation We determined that these activities were outside the scope of the current process improvement effort, and should be pursued in future improvement cycles. There were many, many more opportunities that were identified (on the order of four pages), so we categorized them into process improvement effort steps.
  • Phased approach To keep progress manageable and achievable. To reap the most benefits by defining a process that could be followed no matter the level of automation. Version 1 improvements Major process steps Again, no different from the current process, but with impactful improvements to the activities that occur at each process step. To occur in 1Q08 Eight opportunities We narrowed the focus even further and identified eight opportunities that would lead to dramatic improvements for the overall process improvement objectives. Improve communication and awareness Proactive communication Regular interaction with agencies Reduce or eliminate wait time Both on the agency side and EISPD
  • Eight version 1 objectives: The first two objectives were addressed in one process improvement step.
  • Communicate project status to EISPD Regular coordination and communication with EISPD Method to be determined by agency — spreadsheets, e‑mails, online updates, or meetings Obtain Agency CIO support of project Method — to be determined: Separate form? Attestation? Electronic signature? Initiate IRR Treat the process as a collaborative effort in completing the IRR. The IRR should not be considered ready for submission until EISPD, EISPD Program Leaders, SDC, SPO, etc., have been given the opportunity to provide input to the IRR. Prepare relevant documentation As necessary
  • From the agency perspective, activities were defined for project planning and IRR development.
  • IRR To identify a streamlined business process, the first step is to examine the information gathering tool — in this case, the IRR form itself. Supporting document templates Including business case IRR process and requirements and education Checklists and educational material Proactively collaborate with agencies throughout the IRR process Demonstrate a customer service orientation Engage in the process as a team
  • In addition to providing supporting and guiding documentation, EISPD is committed to proactively collaborate with agencies throughout the IRR process.
  • Submission goals are to: Provide proof of signature Maintain interactive version for: Iterative changes SME comments EISPD Program Leader suggestions Agency revisions Advantage of electronic only process: Digital signature can be reverified
  • Processing time: Categorized by agency. Provide an overall average. Provide breakdown of average by category (<$75,000, >$75,000 - $250,000, >$250,000 to $1M, etc.).
  • Transcript

    • 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.
      • 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
      Objective 1:Define & Document Existing Process What is an IRR?
    • 7. Objective 2: ID Regulatory Requirements Statutes 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://
    • 8. Objective 3: Define User Experience Promoting Use Current 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. Objective 3: Define User Experience Promoting Use Existing Process Barriers
      • 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
      • 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
      Agency EISPD
    • 11. Objective 4: Define & Document Consensus Driven future process Opportunities 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 process Phased 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 point to 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: 2 nd /3 rd 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
      Electronic Only Printed Only Combination Printed/Electronic
    • 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 Process Phase 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
      • Implement Phase 2 process improvements, including possible e-form development
      4Q08/1Q09 3Q08/4Q08 1Q08/ 2Q08/ 3Q08 Target Date
      • Modify policies and internal documentation to reflect new process requirements
        • 2009-2011 Agency Budget Instructions
        • IT Investment Review and Approval Policy
        • DAS internal processes
      • Implement Phase 1 process improvements
      • Gather feedback from stakeholders re: improvements to date
    • 33.
      • Thank you for your participation!
      Business Process Analysis Consulting 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