Decision Briefing PPBES: NOAA IT Planning

1
Decision BriefingPPBESNOAA IT Planning

• Dennis Morgan
• representing the
• NOAA IT Planning Working Group
• February 20, 2007

2
Outline

• Purpose
• Issue
• Coordination
• Alternatives
• Example
• Recommendation
• Decisions Required

3
Purpose

• Decision Briefing
• To set the stage for FY2010-2014 NOAA IT Planning
  Execution Strategies

4
Issue

• FY2009-2013 IT Planning Guidance had little
  impact on development of PPBES deliverables
• Program Adjustments were not influenced
• Not relevant to Programmatic IT
• Matrix external to POP process
• Complex, confusing, and burdensome process
• Result
• What we did last year did not result in any
  program adjustments for IT Infrastructure (except
  in the IT Services and Satellite Services
  Programs)
• No additional funding requested to support IT
  Security CA process (except in the IT Services
  and Satellite Services Programs)
• Problem
• How do we get program adjustments for IT
  Infrastructure into PPBES planning for
  FY2010-2014?

5
Coordination

• Coordination Completed
• LO/SO CIO Reps serving on IT Planning WG
• Program Planning Integration (PPI)
• CIO Council
• Goal Teams
• Coordination Planned
• Synchronize with IT Cost Accounting Working Group
• NOAA CIO CFO Councils ? Collaborative Synergy
• LO/SO CIOs working directly with AAs, DAAs, CFOs,
  GTLs, and PMs

6
Alternative A (Status Quo) provides a Planning
Matrix to determine IT Infrastructure costs, but
no assistance for Programmatic IT
7
Alternative B uses Program Headcount and IT
portion of Fully-Loaded FTE to determine IT
Infrastructure costs, and provides a Planning
Checklist for Programmatic IT
8
Alternative C uses new capability in IT Services
Program to plan for IT Infrastructure costs, and
provides a Planning Checklist for Programmatic IT
9
Example Alternative C - AWIPS Program Adjustment
Planning
Programming
Budgeting
Execution
Local Forecasts and Warnings POP 1.0M
WW Program Plan 1.0M
NWS PPA 1.1M
NWS PPA 0.65M
Programmatic IT AWIPS
0.7M Appropriation
Communication
NWS Center of Excellence PPA 0.05M
IT Services POP 0.1M
Program Support Program Plan 0.1M
IT Infrastructure
10
Recommendation

• Alternative C
• Uses new NOAA IT Infrastructure Optimization
  capability in IT Services Program to plan for
  Enterprise-wide IT Infrastructure costs and
• Provides a CIO Council-approved Planning
  Checklist for Programmatic IT
• Benefits
• Shows NOAA CIO Council actually listened to
  Feedback from the Goal Teams to build a process
  that will serve both the customer and the CIO
  Council, leading to more accurate planning of
  NOAA's IT costs
• CIO Council, EA Committee, and IT Planning WG
  will be providing a valuable service to NOAA by
  identifying IT Infrastructure costs since PMs
  have little knowledge in these areas
• PMs System Owners will be more fully-equipped
  to identify requirements for new Programmatic IT
  investments in new and existing systems

11
Decisions Required

• Select best alternative for FY2010-2014 NOAA IT
  Planning Execution Strategies
• Grant approval for Working Group to partner with
  PPI and Goal Teams to implement CIO Council
  decision
• CIO Council Chair agrees to deliver Info Briefing
  to PAE and CFO Council, and submit Virtual Info
  Briefing to NEP/NEC
• FY2010-2014 Planning Phase begins on 3/1/07, and
  POP development commences on 4/16/07

12
BACKUP SLIDES
13
PPBES Checklist for Programmatic IT Investments

• Developed Checklist v1 on 2/14/07 to cover
• New IT investments for existing systems
• New IT investments for new systems
• Produce Checklist v2 by 3/1/07
• Share with CIO Council by 3/6/07
• CIO Council decides by 3/13/07
• Share with Goal Teams PPI (for inclusion in
  Planning Guidance) by 3/16/07
• Distribution to Program Managers System Owners
  by 3/23/07

14
Coordination Working Group Members
15
Coordination Program Planning Integration (PPI)

• Sue Kennedy Dennis Morgan (12/21/06)
• Reviewed Working Groups Alternatives
  Recommendations for FY10-14 IT Planning
• Discussed modification of POP format CasaNOSA
• Discussed responsiveness to Goal Team feedback
• Dan Mamula Dennis Morgan (1/29/07)
• Discussed modification of CasaNOSA

16
Coordination CIO Council

• Sue Kennedys Discussion (12/12/06)
• Review of FY0913 Planning Phase and CIO Council
  Guidance
• Feedback received from GTLs and PMs via online
  survey
• Dennis Morgans Info Briefing (1/23/07)
• PPBES NOAA IT Planning
• Approval for Working Group to coordinate with
  Goal Teams (1/23/07)

17
Coordination Goal Teams

• Ward Seguin (Weather Water) attended Info
  Briefing (1/23/07)
• Working Group met with Goal Team reps (1/25/07)
• Emily Menashes (Ecosystems)
• Adrienne Antoine (Climate)
• Ward Seguin (Weather Water)
• Ashley Chappell (Commerce Transportation)

18
Feedback Goal Teams (Face-to-Face)
19
Feedback Goal Teams (PPI Online Survey)

• Precede POP development
• Should work to make sure as many council and
  other data calls are done before POPs are
  developed.
• Recommend all council data calls be done outside
  the CasaNOSA POP and be completed earlier than
  the CasaNOSA POP start date.
• It may have been more useful to program managers
  if the IT Planning Data Call was done in December
  2005 - January 2006 in preparation for FY2009 POP
  development. That would have been a good time of
  year for the program managers to complete the
  Matrix, and it would have provided the CIO
  Council time to review my data and provide
  comments, feedback, and suggested improvements to
  each program manager and Goal Team Leads.
  Instead, I was faced with competing priorities
  (i.e., POP development vs. IT Planning Matrix).
  Do I need to tell you where I spent most of my
  time?
• Integrate with POP
• CIO requests improved from last year but not in
  POP....will this information connect?
• CIO guidance wasn't integrated into the POP and
  so caused some confusion in our program and
  others.

20
Feedback Goal Teams (PPI Online Survey) cont.

• Complex, confusing, and burdensome
• CIO - Very detailed and technical, so some
  requests for information were over our heads.
• Found the guidance from the CIO confusing and not
  particularly relevant to my program. Despite the
  lack of relevance to my program, the CIO Council
  insisted that all programs complete their IT
  matrix.
• CIO data call was unreasonable. Programs depend
  on line offices to maintain equipment, such as
  routers. Programs had to request that information
  from the LOs. The CIO already has a direct
  connection to LOs, and LOs can approximately
  apportion activities to programs. Programs should
  not be dragged into counting pieces of IT
  hardware. Why does PPI endorse requesting so much
  detail in one area of activity when it is moving
  to focus on the big picture in most other areas
  of planning? In the future, the CIO should
  collect that data through its own channels.
• CIO guidance was ambiguous and confusing.
• Clear and understandable
• CIO request was clear, but not all offices use
  the same definitions for terms used.
• CIO Council requested IT needs and status by
  Program, when the data are tracked by LO.
• The CIO Council's guidance was straightforward
  however, it would've been helpful if their online
  guidance was linked from the PPBES website,
  instead of just hanging on the NOAA/OCIO 'IT
  Planning and Budgeting' webpage. Also, I noticed
  that the link that was published in FY09 Planning
  Guidance Memo Supplemental III was the wrong one
  ('.htm' was omitted).
• CIO guidance was very thorough and clear.

21
Feedback IT Planning WG

• Programs plan for programmatic IT and changes
  that have new IT requirements
• NOAA/OCIO already has guidance to facilitate the
  development of Budget 1-pagers Exhibit 300s
• How does Planning by Program Programming by
  Goal/Sub-Goal translate to Budgeting Execution
  by LO/SO?
• Whos paying for IT? Programs or overhead tax
  fund?
• Whos using IT?

22
PPBES Deliverables
NOAA CIO Council reviews/assesses and provides
input/feedback
23
Importance of IT Planning Key Drivers

• All NOAA programs use IT to support their
  business
• IT costs are significant and need to be factored
  into planning
• NOAA Functional Model ? Capital Management ?
  Acquire, Build, Maintain Infrastructure
• The money will not be there unless planned for
  via PPBES
• Programs have to plan for their future IT costs
• OMBs expectation Ensure all current IT systems
  are compliant with IT Security policies before
  investing in new IT

24
NOAA Exhibit 53 (FY08 Budget, 12/28/2006)

• OMBs goal is a 5/year government-wide reduction
  in IT infrastructure costs.
• If our IT planning efforts result in higher IT
  infrastructure costs, DOC OMB will require NOAA
  to show clearly how supporting the federal
  Infrastructure Optimization Initiative (IOI)
  e.g., movement toward consolidation in the areas
  of desktop management/help desk,
  telecommunications, and data centers increases
  costs.

25
(No Transcript)
26
Areas Covered by FY09-13IT Planning Matrix

• Application Hosting
• Archiving
• Data Networks (LAN)
• Desktop / Seat Management and Support
• Enterprise Architecture
• Facility Management
• High Performance Computing
• IT Security
• Metadata
• NOAAnet

• Technology Refresh
• Desktops
• Laptops
• Servers
• Mainframes
• Routers
• Switches
• Storage
• Telecommunications
• Web Presence
• Workforce Collaboration

27
Communication

• Improved communication with Goal/Sub-Goal Team
  Leads, Goal Coordinators, and Program Managers,
  and System Owners is KEY!
• LO/SO CIOs must serve as Champions for the IT
  Planning effort to be successful
• IT Working Group members and LO/SO CIOs should
  conduct briefings BEFORE the POP process starts
• Brief Goal/Sub-Goal Team Leads Goal
  Coordinators
• Brief Program Managers
• Follow-up by attending Goal Team and Program
  meetings to provide assistance, answer questions,
  and collect feedback