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
• QA

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 1Define Document Existing
Process What is an IRR?

• Initial review and approval of IT projects
  involving acquisition (s) gt 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 gt125,000
• 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 283.505283.510 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/EI
  SPD/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
• Doesnt 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
Agency
EISPD

• Incomplete understanding of IRR requirements
• No process transparency
• Lack of knowledge of IRRs 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

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 IRRs 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 IRRs 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 agencys 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