addressing federal it challenges
DESCRIPTION
Mike\'s thoughts on the Federal, state and local government information technology ecosystem.TRANSCRIPT
1
Addressing Federal IT ChallengesAddressing Federal IT ChallengesMike Locatis, State Chief Information Officer
Governor’s Office of Information Technology
December 1st, 2008
2
Michael Locatis - Background• State of Colorado
– State CIO - serves Governor Bill Ritter, Jr.
– Statewide IT Consolidation Architect
– Chair Governor’s Health IT Commission
• City & County of Denver
– City & County CIO - served Mayor Hickenlooper
– Developed Denver311 & award winning IT consolidation
• 2008 Democratic National Convention Committee
– National Technology Advisory Council member
– Host Technology Committee member
• National Assoc. of State Chief Information Officers
– 2009 Director
– 2008 - 2009 Security & Privacy Committee Chair
• 22 yrs private sector
3
Colorado Leads Nation in State-Level IT Reform
4
Contents
� Executive Overview………………………. 4
� The First 100 Days………………………..12
� Fed IT operations issues in review………..23
� Fed IT organizational issues in review……31
� Fed IT state program delivery continuum...38
5
• Federal leadership on enterprise architecture and systems is critical during this difficult fiscal time for state and local governments.
• The Federal government is currently not realizing the full potential in leveraging enterprise architecture and solutions – more than $300 Billion annually ($600 with Medicaid) in State program grants could benefit.
• A focus on a “coordinated enterprise approach” will help the next President in critical strategic objectives, including:
• Improving healthcare quality & efficiency • Sustaining national security • Providing world class education • Public safety next gen communications • Citizen access to services & transparent government• Citizen involvement in democracy• Modernizing aging legacy systems and infrastructure
Federal IT Executive Summary
This approach is currently yielding positive results within
State and Local governments.
6
Our Future: Realizing Strategic Vision
• Employ science and
technology to solve our
nation's most pressing
problems.
• Create a transparent and
connected democracy.
• Encourage a modern
communications
infrastructure.
• Prepare all of our children
for a 21st century
economy.
• Improve America's
competitiveness.
Vision for America Enabling The Vision
Chief
Technology
Officer
Realizing the Vision
• Champion for the Vision
• Prioritizes the Agenda
• Developing industry and
association partnership
• Foster state/local
partnerships
• Extending Federal
Enterprise Architecture
standards and Models
Enterprise
Program
Management
Office
• Leverage, expand, and
champion effective
programs & technology
• Build Better State and
Local Enterprise Solutions
• Eliminate Ineffective Silo
Solutions
• Enforce FEA Standards
• Develop Center of
Excellence for Enterprise
Solutions
• Develop Incentives for
Technical Innovation.
7
Our Future: Key Next Steps
• Appoint Chief Technology
Officer (CTO)
• Build a transition team of
seasoned IT professionals
and visionaries
• Include proven leadership
in enterprise architecture
and consolidation
• Assemble a governance
council to help set the
priorities and evaluate
existing programs,
standards, enterprise
solutions & cost allocation
Appoint Leadership Scan and Assess Execute
• Assess Federal Agencies
• Establish enterprise
performance models and
score agencies
• Determine opportunities
for enterprise
collaboration with State
and Local entities
• Identify high-performing
technological solutions
• Prioritize a portfolio of
programs for the CTO.
• Assign an Enterprise
Program Management
Office and Staff
• Produce the plan for
execution of the program
portfolio
• Determine success
measurements
• Establish intra-agency
governance boards
• Establish private sector
and association advisory
council
8
• The following process would be used to evaluate the program portfolio
Scan and Assess
Program Evaluation Methodology
Initiate Evaluate Score Act
• Setup program evaluation steering committee
• Contract independent assessment entity
• Assemble data for federal programs including:
• Budgetary information • Program sponsorship • Program key contacts• Protocol for evaluation• Agency prioritization
• Finalize program schedule and expectations
• Establish evaluation criteria – approval from program evaluation steering committee
• Understand national strategic priorities
• Conduct evaluation by agency by priority
• Research and understand new legislative agenda
• Conduct stakeholder analysis
• Score programs on agreed upon criteria
• Identify:
• High priority national programs
• High priority programs that need additional investment
• Programs which should be terminated
• Produce federal agency report and review with program evaluation steering committee
• Develop action plans for all programs, including:
• Legislative agenda
• Public relations
• Termination of failing programs
• Investment into effective programs
• Creation / combination of programs
• Leadership assignments for high priority / strategic programs
9
• The complexity of evaluating a multi-billion dollar program portfolio will depend upon setting agreed upon evaluation criteria. The following highlights criteria as a starting point.
This process will be difficult and nearly impossible if these
criteria are not agreed upon by the Cabinet before evaluation.
Relevance to
Strategic Platform
Enterprise
Performance
Program
Sponsorship
Definition
Critical
Program
Metrics
How does the program enable the Administration’s strategic vision for the nation?
Is the program performing and producing the desired results and impacts?
Who are key sponsors for the program and how do they impact strategy?
• Alignment to strategy and political platform
• National priority
• Campaign promise
• Critical dependency for other strategic objectives
• Financial performance / return on investment
• Schedule / Efficiency
• Constituency impact
• Program objectives
• Delivery methods
• Overall effectiveness –key measure
• Stakeholder analysis
• Alliances
• Bipartisan opportunities
• High risk stakeholders
• Program leadership capabilities
Evaluating Federal ProgramsEvaluate
10
Z Level• Strategically opposed to the national platform• Ineffective delivery• Sponsored by higher risk stakeholders • High political erosion factor• Focus: How to Terminate
Scoring the Portfolio
Higher Priority
VA
LU
E
High Value
Lower Value and Lower Priority
High Priority
O
Strategic Priority
O Level• Highly aligned to Obama Administration national
platform and strategy• Effective programs – overall effectiveness• Sponsored by friendly stakeholders / or have
strong bi-partisan opportunities• Focus: How to Optimize Y
X Level• Higher priority program but lower impact to national
platform.• Dependency for other strategic programs• Overall high to moderate program effectiveness • Sponsorship is wide ranging • Focus: How to Improve Value
Y Level• High value program and highly effective• Not aligned to national platform• Sponsorship is wide ranging • Focus: Value over Strategic Value
XZ
Score
11
Director OMB
Possible Organization Structure for Federal IT
Department Secretary(s)
NEW-Cabinet Level CTO
Office of E-Government& Information Technology
President of the United States
Assistant Secretary
Cabinet Level Positions
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Agency CIO)
Deputy DirectorDeputy CTO
Special Assistants
Technology Strategy
Policy Alignment
Vision
Project Budget
Enterprise Procurement
Project Oversight PMO
FEA & LOB Standards
Status Reporting
Goals & Objectives
Execution
Accountability
Extend Architectureto state & local partners
PMO ComplianceExecutive Oversight
12
Contents
� Executive Overview………………………. 4
� The First 100 Days………………………..12
� Fed IT operations issues in review………..23
� Fed IT organizational issues in review……31
� Fed IT state program delivery continuum...38
13
Perform Assessment
� Deep Environmental Scan/Assessment– Project portfolio
– Standards and architecture
– Department level CMM
– Staff skills
– Legislative review
– Governance review
– Gap analysis
– Federal/State/Local program delivery
– Recommendations
– Roadmap
– Deliver “State of Federal IT Report” to President, Cabinet, Congress & Citizens
14
Form Enterprise Program Management Office
• Appoint top notch leader for
OMB Office of E-Gov &
Information Technology
• Exercise full authority of the
E-Government Act of 2002.
• Perform top to bottom
assessment of Federal IT &
cyber security.
• Synchronize with new Federal
CTO policy objectives
• Form enterprise Program
Management Office (ePMO)
• Implement project and portfolio
management (PPM) to achieve
highest possible return on IT
investments while mitigating risk.
• Drive agency level accountability
• Develop remediation strategies for
existing failing projects
• Engage agencies in solution
15
Accelerate Standards Adoption
• Federal – Data Reference Model (DRM)
• Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)
• National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST)
• Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)
• National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)
• National Information Exchange Model (NIEM)
• National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC)
• United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT)
16
Strengthen State Coordination
• Review IT performance of Federally mandated, state administered projects and from “lessons learned”…
• explore a Federal enterprise approach to IT delivery
• reform Federal funding model to encourage shared services & state IT consolidation efforts
• standardize federal agency interpretation of OMB Circular A-87 shared cost allocation guidelines to encourage state IT consolidation, shared services and flexible comingling practices
17
Coordinate Cyber Security Programs
CIPAC - Critical Infrastructure
Partnership Advisory Council
18
Leverage Geospatial Technology Assets
� Geographic Information Systems (GIS) greatly improve information management capabilities
� Leverage state efforts in developing the National Spatial Data Infrastructure
� Promote geospatial enabled line of business applications
� Coordinate silo GIS modernization efforts among federal agencies
– FEMA flood plain mapping
– Census map modernization
– BLM wildfire management
� Imagery for the Nation
19
Fast Track Citizen Access
� Deploy Web/CRM 2.0 technology across federal agencies
� Promote & lead national broadband availability policy
� Promote citizen access & government transparency
20
Promote Public Sector Collaboration
� Planning for future initiatives
requires communication of
vision and…
� alignment of priorities for the
success of partnerships across
branches at local, state &
federal level
� Most have appetite for
leadership and roadmap from
the federal government.
21
Engage Private Sector
� Engage private sector industry partners in dialog and partnership to architect best practice solutions to government issues
� Adoption of standards & enterprise architecture
� Innovation council approach
22
Pursue Innovation
• Leverage Federal IT to showcase technology R&D
• Contribute to maintaining U.S. leadership position in innovation of networking and information technology
• Drive national broadband coverage initiatives with a goal of high speed internet access availability for all U.S. citizens
23
Contents
� Executive Overview………………………. 4
� The First 100 Days………………………..12
� Fed IT operations issues in review………..23
� Fed IT organizational issues in review……31
� Fed IT state program delivery continuum...38
24
GAO Report Cards Identify Serious Fed IT Issues
25
Many Fed IT Projects Suffer Multi-year Shortfalls
2007 20062008
2008
26
Federal Enterprise Architecture Slow to Mature
� Federal Enterprise Architecture and federal standards initiatives face resistance and slow adoption rates among federal agencies
� Lack of promotion with state/local government
� Economies of standards based computing should transcend government boundaries
27
July 2008 - Growing Legislative Concern
28
Senator Carper’s Report Card
29
Legislative Action
30
Federal IT In the Press: Billions Wasted
31
Contents
� Executive Overview………………………. 4
� The First 100 Days………………………..12
� Fed IT operations issues in review………..23
� Fed IT organizational issues in review……31
� Fed IT state program delivery continuum...38
32
How Federal IT is Organized (1)• The Cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads of 15
executive departments - the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, and the Attorney General.
• Each federal department is required to have an agency CIO by law under the Information Technology Management Reform Act (Clinger-Cohen Act) of 1996.
• Varied results have been achieved as departments continue to struggle with IT delivery as well as interagency collaboration and data sharing.
33
• Under the current President, Cabinet-level rank also has been
accorded to the Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency; Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB);
the Director, National Drug Control Policy; and the U.S.
Trade Representative.23• The 2002 E-Government Act
established a Federal Chief Information Officer in OMB and created the Office of Electronic Government & Information Technology, which is headed by a Presidentially appointed Administrator/CIO.
How Federal IT is Organized (2)
34
6
Legislative Background of E-Gov
1966 19961974 19951993 2002
Freedom of Information
Act
Privacy Act
Government
Performance Results Act
Paperwork
Reduction Act
Clinger-
Cohen Act
E-Gov Act
FISMA Act
Federal IT Legislative Background
35
OMB Office of E-Government
• Overseeing the E-Government Fund to support interagency partnerships and innovation in using E-Government;
• Directing the activities of the CIO Council, which consists of Federal agency CIOs, advising on the appointments of agency CIOs, and monitoring and consulting on agency technology efforts;
• Advising the Director of OMB on the performance of IT investments, as well as identifying opportunities for joint agency and government-wide IT projects;
• Overseeing the development of enterprise architectures within and across agencies, which is being fulfilled through the Federal Enterprise Architecture, the framework for describing the relationship between business functions and the technologies and information that support them;
• Overseeing specific IT reform initiatives, activities, and areas of shared responsibility relating to:– Capital planning and investment control for IT;
– The development of enterprise architectures;
– Information security and privacy;
– Access to, dissemination of,
and preservation of government information;
– Accessibility of IT for persons with disabilities; and
– Other areas of electronic government.
Pursuant to the EPursuant to the E--Government Act of 2002 the Administrator should provide Government Act of 2002 the Administrator should provide
overall leadership and direction to the executive branch on elecoverall leadership and direction to the executive branch on electronic government tronic government
and oversees implementation of IT throughout the Federal governmand oversees implementation of IT throughout the Federal government, including:ent, including:
36
Line of Business InitiativeIn 2004 and 2005 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
initiated a government-wide line of business analysis with a goal of identifying opportunities to reduce the cost of government and improve
services to citizens through business performance improvements:
Case Management (CM)
Financial Management (FM)
Grants Management (GM)
Human Resources Management (HR)
Federal Health Architecture (FHA)
Information Systems Security (ISS)
Budget Formulation and Execution (BFE)
Geospatial LoB
IT Infrastructure (ITI)
37
Director OMBDepartment Secretary(s)
NEW-Cabinet Level CTO
Office of E-Government& Information Technology
President of the United States
Assistant Secretary
Cabinet Level Positions
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Agency CIO)
Deputy DirectorDeputy CTO
Special Assistants
Technology Strategy
Policy Alignment
Vision
Project Budget
Enterprise Procurement
Project Oversight PMO
FEA & LOB Standards
Status Reporting
Goals & Objectives
Execution
Accountability
Extend Architectureto state & local partners
OMB PMO ComplianceExecutive Oversight
Possible Organization Structure for Federal IT
38
Contents
� Executive Overview………………………. 4
� The First 100 Days………………………..12
� Fed IT operations issues in review………..23
� Fed IT organizational issues in review……31
� Fed IT state program delivery continuum...38
39
Project Seed
Grants
Matched Program Grants
State Agency Model
One System Federated
Deployment
One System Enterprise
Deployment
IT Delivery EnterprisePoint Solution
� Federal/State IT delivery models vary from program to program with wide ranging results
� Success often correlates to the level of enterprise leadership and direction from the initiating federal agency or program
� The following slides describe the IT delivery continuum with examples of real program outcomes
Federal/State Program IT Delivery Continuum
40
Project Seed
Grants
Matched Program Grants
State Agency Model
One System Federated
Deployment
One System Enterprise
Deployment
IT Delivery EnterprisePoint Solution
Federal/State Program IT Delivery Continuum
• Emergency Comm.
• Geospatial
• Health IT HIE/RHIO
• Broadband
• Credentialing
• Mitigation
• Preparedness
Programs OutcomeAgencies
• State is a pass through or
bypassed all together
• Results in point solutions at
local level
• Limits state, regional or
national compatibility &
interoperability
• Sustainability issues
UASIHHS ONCPSIC
41
Project Seed
Grants
Matched Program Grants
State Agency Model
One System Federated
Deployment
One System Enterprise
Deployment
IT Delivery EnterprisePoint Solution
Federal/State Program IT Delivery Continuum
Programs OutcomeAgencies
• State is a pass through or
bypassed all together
• Results in point solutions at
local level
• Limits state, regional or
national compatibility &
interoperability
• Sustainability issues
UASIHHS ONCPSIC
• Emergency Comm.
• Geospatial
• Health IT HIE/RHIO
• Broadband
• Credentialing
• Mitigation
• Preparedness
42
Source: The Commonwealth Fund and National Governors Association E-Health Survey, conducted by Health Management Associates, 2007.
State Health IT Priorities
43
ONCHIT
State Level HIE Consensus Project
(AHIMA-FORE)Steering Committee
CA, CO, FL, IN, LA,ME, MA, NY, RI,TN, UT
State Alliancefor e-Health
(NGA)State Governments
HISPC(RTI)
Privacy and Security
AHRQ
AHIC
SRDState/regional demonstrations
NHIN I, IIDemonstrations
NCSL State legislators
HIT
HIMSSIndustry
Use CasesCMS
State Medicaid AgenciesMedicaid Transformation
Grants
HRSA
Community Health Clinics
CDC
State Bio-surveillance
HITSPStandards
CCHITProduct/Network
Certification
eHealthInitiative
Federal Health IT – Inconsistent Outcomes
44
Astute Policy Response
45
Project Seed
Grants
Matched Program Grants
State Agency Model
One System Federated
Deployment
One System Enterprise
Deployment
• HHS multi-program
eligibility
• CMS Medicaid
• CMS MITA
• HAVA Voting
• Real ID• Program interpretations differ
by Federal region
• Complex, monolithic,
expensive state one-offs
• State general fund match
impact up to 25%
• Many underperforming or
failed IT projects
• Require significant operating $
to sustain
IT Delivery EnterprisePoint Solution
Federal/State Program IT Delivery Continuum
Programs OutcomeAgencies
46
Project Seed
Grants
Matched Program Grants
State Agency Model
One System Federated
Deployment
One System Enterprise
Deployment
• Complex, monolithic,
expensive state one-offs
• State general fund match
impact up to 25%
• Many underperforming or
failed IT projects
• Require significant operating $
to sustain
IT Delivery EnterprisePoint Solution
Federal/State Program IT Delivery Continuum
Programs OutcomeAgencies
• HHS multi-program
eligibility
• CMS Medicaid
• CMS MITA
• HAVA Voting
• Real ID• Program interpretations differ
by Federal region
47
The following illustrates how Federal programs are funded and how this
impacts state-level IT spending as well as the risks associated with this model. CRITICAL ISSUES/RISKS
• Departments are not leveraging a shared services architecture.
• Multiple programs result in a proliferation of IT environments, services and staffing.
• This model does not allow efficiency savings or a pooling of technology staff and assets to better meet the program needs.
• Individually, the programs are not able to provide the best of class enterprise services, key risks include:
• Security
• Disaster Recovery
• Customer Services and Service Level Agreements
• Enterprise Architectural
• Standards
• Configuration Management
Federal Program #2
Federal Program #2
Federal Program #3
Federal Program #3
Direct Funds From the Federal GovernmentDirect Funds From the Federal Government
Dep
art
men
t #1
Dep
art
men
t #2Program Funding Costs
• Program Personnel
• Facilities
• Operational Expenses
• Technology
• IT Staff• Hardware• Software• Facilities• Other IT Costs
Specific Technology Funding
Program Funding Costs• Program Personnel
• Facilities
• Operational Expenses
• Technology
• IT Staff• Hardware• Software• Facilities• Other IT Costs
Specific Technology Funding
Program Funding Costs• Program Personnel
• Facilities
• Operational Expenses
• Technology
• IT Staff• Hardware• Software• Facilities• Other IT Costs
Specific Technology Funding
Federal Program #1
Federal Program #1
Federal Program Funding Approach Promotes
Costly State-Level IT Stovepipes
48
� Each program makes a purchase of IT assets such as servers which could be more effectively leveraged across the enterprise.
� The resulting stovepipe IT environment creates unnecessary complexity, is harder to secure and maintain and more costly to support.
� More IT staff with different skills and capabilities are required to support scattered environments, creating greater risks with IT resource management and succession planning.
� Critical functions such as security, disaster recovery, and customer support are simply not supported due to the limited individual program funding.
� Bottom line: The current model does not effectively leverage ITinvestments and personnel while increasing both risks and costs.
Federal Program Funding Approach Promotes
Costly State-Level IT Stovepipes
49
Departments are responsible for meeting the needs of the program and have limited technology budgets. The future
model below illustrates the benefits for a shared services approach to managing the IT needs for Federal programs
Current (Distributed) Future (Shared Services)
Federal Program 1
Hardware
Software
IT Staff
Architecture
Disaster Recovery Security
Customer Service Enterprise Architecture
Facilities
Federal Program 1
Hardware
Software
IT Staff
ArchitectureFacilities
Federal Program 3
Hardware
Software
IT Staff
ArchitectureFacilities
Federal Program 4
Hardware
Software
IT Staff
ArchitectureFacilities
Major Risks
Federal ProgramsFederal Programs
Enterprise ArchitectureEnterprise Architecture
Shared Data CentersShared Data Centers
Enterprise Application Servers
Enterprise Application Servers
Business ApplicationsBusiness Applications
Data ArchitectureData Architecture
Enterprise Disaster Recovery
Enterprise Disaster Recovery
Enterprise Cyber
Security
Enterprise Cyber
Security
Enterprise SLA / Customer
Support
Enterprise SLA / Customer
Support
Enterprise IT Resource ManagementEnterprise IT Resource Management
Fed/State Need Move Toward Enterprise
50
Future Benefits� There are long term reductions in the financial costs as the
enterprise is leveraged to support Federal programs. For example, new programs should not have to provide & maintain a unique data center for their program.
� Critical support functions, disaster recovery, and security services are provided consistently across the programs.
� IT personnel are more adequately positioned and aligned to support the programs. Customers receive better support and service level agreements can be realized.
� Enterprise architectural standards can be implemented and this standardization can reduce procurement and support costs, reduce program implementation time, improve integration, and help build a more stable environment.
� Network and system monitoring are more effective and thus reduce operational risks.
51
Project Seed
Grants
Matched Program Grants
State Agency Model
One System Federated
Deployment
One System Enterprise
Deployment
• 5-year initiative to plan,
develop and deploy
model information
systems in WIC State
agencies using a multi-
state consortia model.
Work in progress.
• 3 consortiums funded
• 3 different designs
• 3 different development efforts
– none deployed
• Project issues & lack of
incremental deliverables
• Limited use of Federal
Enterprise Architecture
IT Delivery EnterprisePoint Solution
Federal/State Program IT Delivery Continuum
Programs OutcomeAgencies
52
Project Seed
Grants
Matched Program Grants
State Agency Model
One System Federated
Deployment*
One System Enterprise
Deployment
• Public health & disease
control lab software
• DHS Constellation
Automated Critical Asset
Management System
• DHHS PECOS/PES
provider enrollment
system & fraud detection
• Successful deployment
• In use at state level
• Promotes common data model,
sharing, workflow
• Continuity in approach across
states nationally
• Limits state flexibility to
customize
IT Delivery EnterprisePoint Solution
Federal/State Program IT Delivery Continuum
Programs OutcomeAgencies
* software developed for the Federal agency &
used by states
53
Project Seed
Grants
Matched Program Grants
State Agency Model
One System Federated
Deployment
One System Enterprise
Deployment
• National Federal income
tax system with goal of
having 80 percent of tax
returns filed
electronically by 2012
• Successful deployment
• Build once use nationally
• 68 million returns filed
electronically in 2005
• Promotes commercial
innovation
IT Delivery EnterprisePoint Solution
Federal/State Program IT Delivery Continuum
Programs OutcomeAgencies
Michael W. LocatisState Chief Information Officer
Governor Bill Ritter, Jr.State of Colorado
www.colorado.gov/[email protected](303) 866-6060 Office