Agency Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007–2011
Previous Section
| Contents
| Next Section
Appendix D. Performance Measure Definitions
Goal A. Promote Efficient IR Policies and Systems
Goal A | Objective 01–Planning and Alignment
Outcome 01–Percentage of DIR Recommendations Enacted
Short Definition – DIR makes recommendations to the state leadership on statewide IR issues that affect agencies. This measure reflects the percentage of recommendations enacted compared to the number of recommendations made.
Purpose/Importance – DIR reviews technical issues affecting state agencies and provides reports to the Legislature such as the “Biennial Report on Information Resources Management,” “Texas Online Status Report,” “Telecommunications Planning and Oversight Council Annual Report,” and other reports. The recommendations in the reports address IR policy issues.
Source/Collection of Data – Recommendations included in required legislative reports and legislation enacted as a result of the recommendations.
Method of Calculation – The number of recommendations enacted through legislation is divided by the total number of recommendations made by legislative reports. Some recommendations may be modified by the legislature before adoption, but are counted in the totals. Recommendations made and legislation enacted are counted manually.
Data Limitations – The data is based on the current reporting period only.
Calculation Type – Non-cumulative
New Measure– No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal A | Objective 01–Planning and Alignment
Outcome 02–Percent of IR Strategic Initiatives in Which Major Agencies Participate
Short Definition – Measures the major agencies’ participation in IR strategic initiatives.
Purpose/Importance – This measure documents that agencies are participating in applicable statewide initiatives.
Source/Collection of Data – Major agencies are the 40 agencies with the highest IR expenditures as identified by the Comptroller. The initiatives are contained in the State Strategic Plan, Texas Online Status report, Telecommunications Planning and Oversight Council annual report, and other legislative reports.
Method of Calculation – The percentage is calculated by using the following formula: which initiatives each of the top 40 agencies is participating in divided by (total number of initiatives multiplied by the 40 agencies).
Data Limitations – IR strategic initiatives may not be applicable to all agencies.
Calculation Type – Non-cumulative
New Measure – No
Desired Performance – Higher than target
Goal A | Objective 01–Planning and Alignment
Outcome 03–Percentage of Attendees Favorably Rating DIR’s Education Events
Short Definition. This measure is a rating of the favorable response from attendees at DIR’s education events
Purpose/Importance. DIR sponsors a variety of education programs and events. This measure helps monitor the usefulness to the attendees of the specific training event.
Source/Collection of Data. Evaluation sheets are distributed for each education event. Evaluation sheets require attendees to record the level of usefulness of the event based on a scale, and indicate whether the event will be recommended to other staff.
Method of Calculation. The total number of favorable ratings is divided by the total number of evaluation responses received for the event. Attendees include all participants, not just IRMs.
Data Limitations. Limited by the attendees completing the evaluation sheets
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal A | Objective 01–Planning and Alignment
Outcome 04–Percent of IRMs Meeting Continuing Education (CE) Requirements
Short Definition. Measure reflects the percentage of agency IRMs that meet the CE requirements defined in the Continuing Education Guidelines.
Purpose/Importance. Each agency IRM must meet CE requirements which are determined by the agency IR budget level. The measure shows agency IRMs meeting continuing education requirements and in compliance with DIR rules.
Source/Collection of Data. Reports are submitted by agency IRMs to DIR in the IRM Continuing Education Reporting system.
Method of Calculation. Number is determined by analyzing reports submitted by IRMs and determining which IRMs are meeting CE requirements. Analysts manually compare reports submitted with the requirements to determine if IRMs are meeting the requirements. The number of agencies determined to be in compliance is then divided by the total number of agencies for which DIR CE rule applies.
Data Limitations. Accuracy of reports submitted by IRMs
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. Yes
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal A | Objective 01–Planning and Alignment | Strategy 01–Statewide Planning
Output 01–Number of Responses to Information Requests
Short Definition. This measure reflects the number of responses to requests for information from the legislative branch and the Governor’s Office.
Purpose/Importance The measure shows the responsiveness of the agency to requests for information from the legislative branch and Governor’s Office.
Source/Collection of Data. A request from the legislative branch or Governor’s Office is counted as a “legislative contact”. The response may be oral or in writing and must be documented via e-mail through the “Legislative Assistance Group”.
Method of Calculation. The number of “Legislative Assistance Group” e-mails requiring a response is counted.
Data Limitations. None
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal A | Objective 01–Planning and Alignment | Strategy 01–Statewide Planning
Output 02–Number of Project Briefs/Issue Papers Produced
Short Definition. Measure is a manual count of project briefs and issue papers published by DIR. A project brief or issue paper must have statewide or interagency implications.
Purpose/Importance. Project briefs and issue papers assist agencies and the state leadership in determining IR policies and statewide direction.
Source/Collection of Data. Spreadsheet containing completed project briefs/issue papers
Method of Calculation. Manual count of the project briefs and issue papers listed as completed in the “Project Briefs/ Issue Papers” spreadsheet
Data Limitations. None
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal A. | Objective 01–Planning and Alignment | Strategy 01–Statewide Planning
Output 03–Number of Statewide IR Recommendations Produced
Short Definition. This measure is a manual count of statewide IR recommendations contained in the “Biennial Report on IR Management,” “Texas Online Status Report,” and “Telecommunications Planning and Oversight Council Annual Report,” and other legislative reports.
Purpose/Importance. This measure is a manual count of recommendations produced by analysts’ research on IR issues. This number is used to calculate the outcome measure, “Percentage of DIR Recommendations Enacted.”
Source/Collection of Data. “Biennial Report on IR Management,” “Texas Online Status Report,” “Telecommunications Planning and Oversight Council Annual Report,” other legislative reports, and other research sources. Reports required by the legislature vary and are sometimes requested ad hoc.
Method of Calculation. The number of recommendations in the Biennial Report and other legislative reports is counted manually.
Data Limitations. None
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal A | Objective 01–Planning and Alignment | Strategy 01–Statewide Planning
Output 04–Number of Briefings, Workgroups and Focus Groups Conducted by DIR
Short Definition. Measure of DIR’s hosting of briefings, workgroups, focus groups and agency-member committees within its enterprise governance structure, as well as other forums which benefit agencies by addressing information technology issues.
Purpose/Importance. Purpose is to ensure that DIR actively solicits collaborative input and promotes participation across all levels of government on statewide IR issues.
Source/Collection of Data. Count originates from DIR Lines of Business Governance Plans as well as focus groups and other workgroups advertised in DIR ListServ notices.
Method of Calculation. Manual count
Data Limitations. None
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. Yes
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal A | Objective–01. Planning and Alignment | Strategy–01. Statewide Planning
Output 05–Number of Education Programs Produced
Short Definition. Measure is a count of educational events sponsored by DIR
Purpose/Importance. DIR sponsors events in order to help educate agencies on technology and technology issues, and to maintain the IRM education requirements.
Source/Collection of Data. Projects identified in the DIR spreadsheet titled, “Sponsored Educational Events”
Method of Calculation. Manual count of all educational events sponsored by DIR
Data Limitations. None
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal A | Objective 01–Planning and Alignment | Strategy 01–Statewide Planning
Efficiency 01–Average Response Time Per Information Request
Short Definition. This measure reflects the average response time for information requests from the legislative branch and the Governor’s Office.
Purpose/Importance. DIR responds in a timely manner to state leadership in order to provide information and assist in the decision-making process. This measure shows the responsiveness of the agency to legislative and gubernatorial requests.
Source/Collection of Data. Legislative Assistance Group e-mails are used to count the number of requests for information requiring a response. The Employee Timekeeping System is used to determine the amount of time DIR employees spent on legislative/ gubernatorial requests.
Method of Calculation. A manual count of requests for information is taken from the “Legislative Assistance Group” e-mails. The total time spent on such requests is determined from the Employee Timekeeping System. The total time spent is divided by the number of requests to arrive at the average response time.
Data Limitations. None
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal A | Objective 01–Planning and Alignment | Strategy 01–Statewide Planning
Efficiency 02–Average Cost Per Recommendation Produced
Short Definition. This measures the average cost of making recommendations to the state leadership on IR issues
Purpose/Importance. This measure shows the average cost for producing a recommendation. It is related to recommendations contained in enacted legislation.
Source/Collection of Data. The Employee Timekeeping System is used to determine the total time spent on producing the recommendations. The recommendations in the Biennial Report on IR Management, Texas Online Status report, Telecommunications Planning and Oversight Council annual report, and other legislative reports are counted manually.
Method of Calculation. The total time spent developing recommendations is divided by the total number of recommendations, then multiplied by an average hourly rate, which includes average hourly analyst salary, benefits, and overhead.
Data Limitations. None
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal A | Objective 01–Planning and Alignment | Strategy 02–Standards Development
Output 01–Number of Rules, Guidelines, and Standards Produced
Short Definition. Measure is a manual count of the number of rules, guidelines, and standards the agency publishes
Purpose/Importance. DIR promotes the efficient use and management of information systems by publishing statewide rules, guidelines, and standards. Rules, guidelines, and standards establish statewide direction for agencies implementing IR technologies. These directly impact agency IR projects and management of such projects.
Source/Collection of Data. Manual count of the number of rules, guidelines, and standards dealing with separate technologies or technology management practices. Rules are documented in Board minutes. Guidelines and standards are listed on a spreadsheet titled “Guidelines and Standards Produced.”
Method of Calculation. Manual count of rules, guidelines, and standards produced during the quarter
Data Limitations. None
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal A | Objective 01–Planning and Alignment | Strategy 02–Standards Development
Output 02–Number of IR Industry Standards and Guidelines Reviewed
Short Definition. Measure is a count of the national and international standards and guidelines reviewed by DIR analysts in the process of developing rules, guidelines, and standards for the state
Purpose/Importance. The applicability of these standards and guidelines needs to be evaluated against the state’s IR requirements.
Source/Collection of Data. Standards and guidelines reviewed include review of all national and international IR related standards and guidelines. Information is gathered from the Weekly Progress Reports and a spreadsheet titled “Industry IR Standards and Guidelines Reviewed.”
Method of Calculation. Manual count of “Industry IR Standards and Guidelines Reviewed” spreadsheet
Data Limitations. Number of national and international standards and guidelines produced by the industry
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal A | Objective 01–Planning and Alignment | Strategy 02–Standards Development
Output 3–Number of Agencies that Utilize Some or All Framework Guidance and Tools for Non-Major IR Projects
Short Definition. This measure will track voluntary agency use of Framework documents for smaller IR projects.
Purpose/Importance. Agencies are not required to submit Texas Project Delivery Framework Documents to the QAT/Texas Building and Procurement Commission for non-major IR projects.
Source/Collection of Data. Data collected through a survey tool.
Method of Calculation. Count of non-major projects that utilize one or more of the Framework tools required for major information resources projects.
Data Limitations. Count is dependent upon voluntary reporting of Framework use for non-major IR projects.
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. Yes
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal A | Objective 01–Planning and Alignment | Strategy 02–Standards Development
Output 04–Number of State Agency Personnel Trained on Framework Tools and Templates and Project Delivery Methods
Short Definition. This measure is a count of agency personnel that participate in Framework and project delivery training and educational events.
Purpose/Importance. Reflects state agencies’ interest in Framework and project delivery educational events by monitoring state agency staff attendance.
Source/Collection of Data. Information is collected from attendance roster at Framework and project delivery educational events and summarized in the spreadsheet titled, “Framework and Project Delivery Educational Events.”
Method of Calculation. Manual count of all state personnel attending Framework and project delivery educational events.
Data Limitations. Count may be inaccurate if attendees do not register as state employees by identifying the agency they are representing. This may reduce the actual count reported.
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. Yes
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal A | Objective 01–Planning and Alignment | Strategy 02–Standards Development
Efficiency 01–Average Cost Per Rule, Guideline, and Standard Produced
Short Definition. This measure represents the average cost of reviewing and producing DIR rules, guidelines, and standards
Purpose/Importance. This is one of DIR’s main objectives in setting state direction in the use of IR and in the agencies implementing efficient systems. Allows analysis of cost over time, based on the complexity and volume of national and international guidelines and standards.
Source/Collection of Data. The Employee Timekeeping System contains categories for employees to record time spent on rules, guidelines, and standards. The actual number of rules, guidelines, and standards produced is counted manually from the “Guidelines and Standards Produced” and “IR Industry Standards Reviewed” spreadsheets.
Method of Calculation. The total time includes review and production of rules, guidelines, and standards. This number is then multiplied by an average hourly analyst salary, benefits, and overhead rate. This number is then divided by the total number of rules, guidelines and standards produced to arrive at the average cost per rule, guideline, and standard reviewed and produced.
Data Limitations. None
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal B | Objective 01–Improve Acquisition
Outcome 01– 01Strategy 03–Total Contract Cost Savings/Costs Avoided Per Dollar of Program Operating Cost
Short Definition. This measure of savings/cost avoidance for DIR contracts compares the difference in the final negotiated price for goods and services with the appropriate benchmark prices.
Purpose/Importance. Documents savings that the
program provides its customers. Shows savings that may be redirected to other
priorities by the customers.
Source/Collection of Data. DIR financial systems and reports filed by outsourced vendors. The final negotiated price includes the DIR administrative fee.
Method of Calculation. The dollars saved/avoided is divided by the operating expense of the division, resulting in the dollars saved/avoided per dollar spent.
Data Limitations. Availability of appropriate benchmark prices. Benchmark prices are derived from various sources.
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal B | Objective 01–Improve Acquisition
Outcome 02–Strategy 03–Percent of Eligible Texas Local Government Entities Using DIR Services
Short Definition. The percentage of eligible government entities voluntarily using DIR services.
Purpose/Importance. Measures DIR’penetration of the local government market.
Source/Collection of Data. Transactions from eligible entities are calculated via contracts and purchase orders gathered from DIR financial systems and vendor reports listing each entity that has used DIR services.
Method of Calculation. The number of eligible local government entities executing transactions divided by the total number of eligible local government entities. Eligible entities are defined as political subdivisions and other local government entities authorized to use DIR contracts by Texas Gov’t Code Sections 2054.0565(b); 2054.003(9); 2170.004; 2170.004(5).
Data Limitations. None
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. Yes
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal B | Objective 01–Strategy 03–Improve Acquisition | Strategy 01–Contract Administration of IT Commodities and Services
Output 01–Total Contract Savings & Cost Avoidance Provided Through
DIR Contracts
Short Definition. Measure compares the difference in the final negotiated price for products and services with the appropriate benchmark price.
Purpose/Importance. Demonstrates savings and cost avoidance to agencies and local governments
Source/Collection of Data. The final negotiated bid price for contracts across all product lines and the sources for benchmark comparisons.
Method of Calculation. The sum of the final negotiated prices for goods and services is subtracted from the sum of the
appropriate benchmark prices. The final negotiated price includes the DIR administrative fee.
Data Limitations. Availability of appropriate benchmark prices. Benchmark prices are derived from various sources.
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal B | Objective
01Strategy 03–Improve Acquisition | Strategy 01–Contract Administration of IT Commodities
and Services
Efficiency 01–Strategy 03–Average Cost Recovery Rate for Cooperative Contracts
Short Definition. This measure represents the average cost recovery rate applied to all sales from cooperative contracts except those for telecommunications and data center services.
Purpose/Importance. Measures efficiency of program
Source/Collection of Data. Monthly financial statements and vendor’s sales reports
Method of Calculation. Total gross sales from cooperative contracts (contracts for IT commodities and services) minus cost of goods sold equals net sales. Gross sales divided by net sales equals the cost recovery rate. This calculation does not include data center and telecommunications services.
Data Limitations. Accuracy of data input of vendors’
sales reports
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal B | Objective
01Strategy 03–Improve Acquisition | Strategy 01–Contract Administration of IT Commodities/Services
Explanatory 01–Strategy 03–Total DIR Gross Sales
Short Definition. Measure represents the total gross sales from all non-telecommunication and non-data center contracts for IT commodities and services.
Purpose/Importance. Measures the use of DIR’contracts.
Source/Collection of Data. Monthly financial statements and vendor’s sales reports.
Method of Calculation. Sum total of all sales from IT commodity and service contracts (cooperative contracts), excluding telecommunication contracts and data center consolidation contracts.
Data Limitations. Accuracy of data input of vendors’ sales reports.
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal B | Objective 01–Improve
Acquisition | Strategy 01–Contract Administration of IT Commodities/Services
Explanatory 02–Strategy 03–Number of Exemptions for IT Commodities and Services
Short Definition. Number of exemptions requested by state agencies for the purchase of IT commodities and services.
Purpose/Importance. Measures DIR’ability to meet state agency needs for IT commodities and services.
Source/Collection of Data. Exemptions requested by state agencies.
Method of Calculation. Manual count
Data Limitations. None
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. Yes
Desired Performance. Lower than target.
Goal B | Objective 02–Consolidation/Shared Services
Outcome 01–Percent of Customers Satisfied with Voluntary Shared Services
Short Definition. This measure reflects the percent of customers (users) that complete the customer satisfaction survey and report a favorable experience using voluntary shared services.
Purpose/Importance. This measure documents the extent to which a random sample of customers rate the service as satisfactory or better. It is an important indicator of how well DIR is serving its voluntary shared services customers.
Source/Collection of Data. Quarterly survey
Method of Calculation. The percentage is calculated using the following formula: (respondents rating the overall service as satisfactory or better) divided by (all respondents) times 100%.
Data Limitations. Depends on obtaining sufficient commitments necessary to initiate implementation of one or more shared services. Depends on obtaining a significant number of customer responses.
Calculation Type. Non-Cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal B | Objective 02–Consolidation/Shared Services
Outcome 02–Percent of Monthly Minimum Service Level Targets Achieved for Data Center Services
Short Definition. Measures overall service level outcomes for consolidated data center systems.
Purpose/Importance. This measure documents the extent to which data center services meet minimum expectations for an array of metrics addressing system availability, problem resolution, and completion of designated scheduled deliverables. Service level measures designated as "critical" by DIR are those deemed most important based on input from state agencies, and with respect to which the State may become entitled under the Agreement to receive financial credits, if the service provider repeatedly fails to satisfy the service level standard.
Source/Collection of Data. Monthly service level performance reports for service level targets on the Critical Service Level Matrix. The provider for consolidated Data Center Services will prepare the reports. Minimum service level targets are specified on the Critical Service Level Matrix in the Agreement.
Method of Calculation. The initial Critical Service Level Matrix of thirty (30) critical service levels is defined in the Data Center Services (DCS) Agreement. The DCS contract library contains documentation of the matrix, modifications to the designation of a particular measure as "critical", and changes to the financial credits associated with not meeting a particular "critical" measure. The percentage is calculated by using the following formula: (number of monthly critical minimum service levels met during the period) divided by (total number of monthly critical service levels measured during the period) times 100%.
Data Limitations. In response to changes in State of Texas business needs and priorities as communicated by state agencies, DIR retains flexibility under the Agreement to increase or decrease the number of service level measures that it designates as "critical" and that are included in the Critical Service Level Matrix. Under defined condition, the State may be entitled to financial credits, if the service provider repeatedly fails to meet individual service level standards that DIR designates as "critical".
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. Yes
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal B | Objective 02–Consolidation/Shared Services
Outcome 03–Strategy 03–Percentage of Visitors Satisfied with Texas Online
Short Definition. This measure reflects the percentage of visitors that complete the customer satisfaction survey and have a favorable experience.
Purpose/Importance. The percentage of visitors that are satisfied with their experience using Texas Online shows that the site is providing a valuable service. It is imperative that the satisfaction level remains very high to ensure quality of service. Declining satisfaction rates may be indicative of problems with the Texas Online site and services offered.
Source/Collection of Data. Customer satisfaction survey instrument available continually on the Texas Online individual applications
Method of Calculation. Texas Online will provide the customer satisfaction survey instrument on each application. Results will be accumulated online and analyzed quarterly for trends. The number of survey responses will be compared against the total number of The number of survey responses will be compared against the total number of satisfied survey respondents.
Data Limitations. Depends on the number of visitors that complete the survey instrument
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal B | Objective 02–Consolidation/Shared Services | Strategy 02–TexasOnline
Output 01–Number of Applications Available Through the Portal
Short Definition. This measure reflects the number of online state agency applications available through Texas Online
Purpose/Importance. This measure shows the growth in the number of state government services available via the Internet through the Texas Online portal.
Source/Collection of Data. Texas Online Weekly Status Report
Method of Calculation. Applications are brought online either through legislative direction or through an opportunity proposal process that must be approved by the Texas Online Authority.
Data Limitations. None
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal B | Objective 02–Consolidation/Shared Services | Strategy 02–TexasOnline
Output 02–Number of Transactions Conducted through the Portal
Short Definition. This measure reflects the number of payment transactions processed through the Texas Online e-government portal
Purpose/Importance. This measure indicates the number of payment transactions handled online that previously would have been handled in person or via mail.
Source/Collection of Data. Texas Online Weekly Status Report
Method of Calculation. Each online payment transaction is captured by Texas Online’s e-pay software and routed through the banking and credit card systems.
Data Limitations. None
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal C Strategy 03– Telecommunications
Goal C | Objective 01–CCTS Prices/Responses
Outcome 01–Strategy 03–Percent Change in CCTS Price Per Line
Short Definition. Measure indicates the change in price charged for CCTS stations per month as compared to the amount charged in the previous reporting period.
Purpose/Importance. Indicates rate change activity
Source/Collection of Data. Retrieves monthly station rate information from automated system
Method of Calculation. Information on local exchange carrier prices for basic business service is obtained through periodic surveys of those carriers. Information on CCTS rates is retrieved from the Billing System for current and prior reporting period and the percent change in the price per month for a basic phone station is calculated. Change is expressed as a percentage. For purposes of valid comparison, DIR cost recovery of operating expenses is not included in the DIR price as those operating expenses represent services not provided in the vendor rate.
Data Limitations. Due to two year budget process, price changes occur infrequently, generally effective the beginning of the biennium.
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal C | Objective 01–CCTS Prices/Responses
Outcome 02–Strategy 03–Percent of Customers Satisfied with CCTS
Short Definition. This represents the relative amount of customers who are pleased with the level of customer services performed in their area.
Purpose/Importance. Measure is important indicator of how well DIR is serving its customers
Source/Collection of Data. Information is based on response to surveys cards distributed to customers after a CCTS Work Order or Trouble Ticket is completed. The numbers are compiled in the "Customer Service Program Quarterly and Annual Statistics Report" (an Excel spreadsheet).
Method of Calculation. The CCTS manager is responsible for obtaining input from the customer service representative, who collects all customer survey responses.
Data Limitations. Dependent upon customer response to survey cards
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal C | Objective 01–CCTS Prices/Responses | Strategy 01–Capitol Complex Telephone
Efficiency 01–Strategy 03–Average Completion Time for Work Orders (in Days)
Short Definition. This measure reflects the average time to complete work orders.
Purpose/Importance. The purpose is to show the time to complete work orders. This measure is relevant to gauge workload and to maintain high customer satisfaction.
Source/Collection of Data. This information is obtained from ad-hoc Excel spreadsheets maintained by the CCTS manager.
Method of Calculation. The CCTS manager is responsible for this measure. The column containing the day the work order was received is subtracted from the column containing the day completed (holidays, weekends, etc. are not counted). The total number of days to complete the work orders is divided by the number of work orders completed for the month to arrive at the average. Averages of the monthly figures are given for the reporting period.
Data Limitations. The timely completion of work orders for major projects is impacted by construction problems, processing of contract awards, purchase orders, etc.
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal C | Objective 01–CCTS Prices/Responses | Strategy 01–Capitol Complex Telephone
Efficiency 02–Strategy 03–Average Turnaround Time for Trouble Tickets (in Hours)
Short Definition. The average turnaround time expressed in hours for each Trouble Ticket during the reporting period.
Purpose/Importance. The "turnaround time" is the total time (from Trouble Ticket receipt time to technician end time) to complete work on a Trouble Ticket. A fast turnaround time is important to maintain high customer satisfaction.
Source/Collection of Data. The CCTS Help Desk receives a trouble call that requires a technician to be dispatched. A Trouble Ticket is filled out with information on the call including time started, trouble code, etc. When the problem is fixed, the Trouble Ticket is completed with arrival time, time completed, parts used, etc. This information is entered into the CCTS Trouble Ticket Management System.
Method of Calculation. The CCTS Manager uses the CCTS Trouble Ticket Management System report on trouble tickets by technician, which calculates the turnaround time for each Trouble Ticket during the reporting period and reports the average for the number of trouble tickets completed at the end of the report.
Data Limitations. None
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal C | Objective 01–CCTS Prices/Responses | Strategy 01–Capitol Complex Telephone
Efficiency 03–Strategy 03–Percentage of CCTS Complaints/Problems Resolved in 8 Working Hours or Less
Short Definition. The percentage of Trouble Tickets Completed Within 8 Working Hours
Purpose/Importance. Measure counts the number of trouble tickets completed within 8 working hours for the reporting period. Fast turnaround time is important to maintain high customer satisfaction.
Source/Collection of Data. The CCTS Help Desk receives a trouble call that requires a technician to be dispatched. A Trouble Ticket is filled out with information on the call including time started, trouble code, etc. When the problem is fixed, the Trouble Ticket is completed with arrival time, time completed, parts used, etc. This information is entered into the CCTS Trouble Ticket management system.
Method of Calculation. The CCTS manager uses the CCTS Trouble Ticket Management system report on trouble tickets by technician, to manually count from the report of the entries of trouble tickets that took less than 8 hours. This number is subtracted from the total number of trouble tickets, which is calculated by the report. The count of those that took less than 8 hours is given as a percent of the total number of trouble tickets completed for the reporting period obtained.
Data Limitations. None
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal C | Objective 01–CCTS Prices/Responses | Strategy 01–Capitol Complex Telephone
Efficiency 04–Strategy 03–CCTS Price Per Hour for Completing Work Orders as a Percentage of Industry Average
Short Definition. CCTS price as compared to the average private sector rate
Purpose/Importance. Measure is important as an indicator of the relative prices charged to perform similar work by the private sector.
Source/Collection of Data. The calculated CCTS Labor Rate and vendor surveys. The CCTS labor rate is determined by averaging technician salaries and adding agency overhead to arrive at an hourly rate. The rate is reviewed on a biannual basis.
Method of Calculation. The CCTS manager is responsible for this measure. The private sector rate is determined by the
average of the responses to a telephone survey of telecommunication vendors each quarter who provide similar services (e.g., PCS, AT&T, Verizon). The private sector rate is divided into the CCTS labor rate for a percentage.
Data Limitations. This data can be difficult to
obtain. Vendor may be reluctant to provide realistic data.
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal C | Objective 01–CCTS Prices/Responses | Strategy 01–Capitol Complex Telephone
Efficiency 05–Strategy 03–CCTS Trouble Tickets as a Percentage of Lines in Service
Short Definition. The percent of trouble tickets as compared to the number of basic lines in service
Purpose/Importance. Measure counts the number of CCTS Trouble Tickets reported as a percent of total basic lines in service. This measure is important to gauge the number of stations requiring repairs during the course of a year and thus the increasing demands for technicians as well as maintenance trends, as the system expands.
Source/Collection of Data. The number of Trouble Tickets is derived from the CCTS Trouble Ticket management system reports. The number of Trouble Tickets is divided by the number of basic lines ("standard stations") billed each month.
Method of Calculation. The CCTS manager will divide the number of Trouble Tickets completed for the reporting period by the average number of stations on the system.
Data Limitations. Trouble caused by many factors can be out of the control of CCTS management (e.g., lightning, cable cuts).
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal C | Objective 01–CCTS Prices/Responses | Strategy 01–Capitol Complex Telephone
Explanatory 01–Number of Trouble Tickets Reported
Short Definition. Total number of Trouble Tickets reported for the reporting period
Purpose/Importance. The CCTS manager uses the CCTS Trouble Ticket Management system report on Trouble Tickets by tech to manually count the total number of Trouble Tickets, which are calculated by the report.
Source/Collection of Data. The CCTS Help Desk receives a trouble call that requires a technician to be dispatched. A Trouble Ticket is filled out with information on the call. This information is entered into the CCTS Trouble Ticket management system.
Method of Calculation. The CCTS manager uses the CCTS Trouble Ticket management system report on Trouble Tickets by technician to manually count the total number of Trouble Tickets, which are calculated by the report.
Data Limitations. Number of stations vary throughout the year, based on staff reductions, etc.
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal C | Objective 02–Telecommunications
Outcome 01–Strategy 03–Percent of Customers Satisfied with TEX-AN
Short Definition. The percent of customer satisfaction achieved for TEX-AN operations.
Purpose/Importance. Indicator of customer satisfaction with TEX-AN services provided by staff and vendors.
Source/Collection of Data. The numbers are taken from the "Customer Service Program Quarterly and Annual Statistics" report. Cards are distributed to TEX-AN users who attend user group meetings (generally held every two months). Surveys are also mailed after service orders are completed (potentially mail, e-mail, or web-based).
Method of Calculation. Customer satisfaction information is received and calculated by the customer service representative. Results are entered into a tracking database and based on the response cards distributed to TEX-AN users. Results are averaged based upon the number of returned response cards.
Data Limitations. If survey response return rate is small, limited input may skew the statistics.
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal C | Objective 02–Telecommunications
Outcome 02–Strategy 03–Percentage of Agencies Migrating and Transitioning to the Voluntary Shared Network Infrastructure
Short Definition. DIR provides shared network infrastructure and services which may be leveraged by agencies to achieve efficiencies through demand aggregation. The shared network infrastructure is the enhancement of the TEX-AN backbone that provides a converged (voice, data, other media and services) telecommunications network.
Purpose/Importance. This measure documents the percentage of agencies migrating and transitioning to the shared network infrastructure.
Source/Collection of Data. DIR’billing system accounts for agency utilization of the shared network services infrastructure.
Method of Calculation. The percentage is calculated by taking the number of agencies that migrate and transition to the shared infrastructure and dividing it by the total number of state agencies using TEX-AN as of September 1, 2006. The result is multiplied by 100.
Data Limitations. Small agencies and large agencies
carry the same weight in percentage calculation.
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. Yes
Desired Performance. Based upon voluntary agency participation; however, higher participation levels are optimal.
Goal C | Objective 02–Telecommunications
Outcome 03–Strategy 03–Percentage of Agencies’ Critical Security Vulnerabilities Reduced
Short Definition. This measure will focus on the effectiveness of the assessments performed by DIR and to mitigate security vulnerabilities. It will also assist in the increase of awareness to threats to information resources.
Purpose/Importance. While many vulnerabilities are discovered during the course of an engagement (DIR assessment), DIR will focus on vulnerabilities that lead to system compromise of retrieval of sensitive or proprietary information.
Source/Collection of Data. Data will be obtained from remediation reports submitted by the agencies in response to DIR vulnerability assessments
Method of Calculation. Number of critical security vulnerabilities remediated divided by total number of critical security vulnerabilities identified.
Data Limitations. Number of critical security vulnerabilities existing on agency networks
Timeliness and accuracy of agency remediation reports
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal C | Objective 02–Telecommunications | Strategy 01–Network Services
Efficiency 01–Strategy 03–Average Price Per Intrastate Minute on TEX-AN
Short Definition. The number of minutes for Intrastate day traffic for all agencies, divided into the corresponding totals of the dollar amounts billed.
Purpose/Importance. Intended to show the absolute value of the price charged for intrastate (=interlata + intralata). Due to the marketing of Telecom vendors, these statistics provide a familiar point of reference for benchmarking to the general market.
Source/Collection of Data. The number of minutes for day Intrastate is obtained from the total for all agencies from the Telemanagement System for the months for the reporting period. This total amount is divided into the corresponding totals of the dollar amounts billed.
Method of Calculation. The number of minutes for day Intrastate services is divided into the dollar amounts billed for Intrastate calls. The data is derived from the Telemanagement System.
Data Limitations. Services may not be strictly comparable to those generally marketed by telecom vendors (e.g., switched vs. dedicated access).
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal C | Objective 02–Telecommunications | Strategy 01–Network Services
Efficiency 02–Strategy 03–Average Price Per Interstate Minute on TEX-AN
Short Definition. The number of minutes for Interstate day traffic for all agencies, divided into the corresponding totals of the dollar amounts billed.
Purpose/Importance. Intended to show the absolute value of the price charged for Interstate. Due to the marketing of telecom vendors, these statistics provide a familiar point of reference for benchmarking to the general market.
Source/Collection of Data. The number of minutes for day interstate is obtained from the total for all agencies from the Telemanagement System for the months for the reporting period. This total amount is divided into the corresponding totals of the dollar amounts billed.
Method of Calculation. The number of minutes for day Interstate services is divided into the dollar amounts billed for Interstate calls. The data is derived from the Telemanagement System.
Data Limitations. Services may not be strictly comparable to those generally marketed by telecom vendors (e.g., switched vs. dedicated access).
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal C | Objective 02–Telecommunications | Strategy 01–Network Services
Efficiency 03–Strategy 03–Average Price Per Toll-Free Minute on TEX-AN
Short Definition. The number of minutes for 1-800 traffic divided into the corresponding totals of the dollar amounts billed.
Purpose/Importance. Intended to show the absolute value of the price charged for 1-800 (all categories, including off-to-on) Voice Traffic. Due to the marketing of Telecom vendors, these statistics provide a familiar point of reference for benchmarking to the general market.
Source/Collection of Data. The number of minutes for all 1-800 traffic is obtained from the total for all agencies from the Telemanagement System for the months for the reporting period. This total amount is divided into the corresponding totals of the dollar amounts billed.
Method of Calculation. The number of minutes for 1-800 traffic services is divided into the dollar amounts billed for Toll-Free calls. The data is derived from the Telemanagement System.
Data Limitations. Services may not be strictly comparable to those generally marketed by telecom vendors (e.g., switched vs. dedicated access).
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal C | Objective 02–Telecommunications | Strategy 01–Network Services
Efficiency 04–Strategy 03–TEX-AN Trouble Tickets as a Percentage of Lines in Service
Short Definition. The percentage of Trouble Tickets for nonduplicative troubles, as a percentage of total lines in service
Purpose/Importance. Measure counts the number of Trouble Reports versus lines in service. For each reporting period a trouble on a circuit is reported only once. This measure is important to gauge the number of circuits having problems during the course of the year. This impacts agencies’ ability to provide services to citizens.
Source/Collection of Data. AT&T is required to provide monthly reports on the trouble tickets reported. This is compared to the total lines in service as billed by the company.
Method of Calculation. The number of non-duplicative circuit trouble tickets reported is divided by the number of circuits billed.
Data Limitations. Troubles caused to the data circuits are out of control of the division (storms, fiber cuts, etc.).
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal C | Objective 02–Telecommunications | Strategy 01–Network Services
Efficiency 05–Strategy 03–Average Price of Data Services
Short Definition. The price for providing a data circuit from end-to-end for a TEX-AN customer (based on T1 circuits).
Purpose/Importance. Data rates for TEX-AN services can be compared against agreed upon negotiated rates based on user and industry input.
Source/Collection of Data. Data rates are published annually in the TEX-AN rate book and online.
Method of Calculation. Rates are determined based on cost of goods sold (bill from vendors) plus the overhead added by the agency. These rates are then billed to the customers.
Data Limitations. Rates do not include all costs (fringe benefits to state employees, rent space, power, etc.). Administrative overhead fees change from year to year, based on total needs of DIR.
Calculation Type. Non-cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Goal C | Objective 02–Telecommunications | Strategy 02–Network and Telecommunications Security Services
Output 01–Number of Security Assessments
Short Definition. DIR will perform or sponsor security assessments of state agencies’ and other authorized state entities’ networks.
Purpose/Importance. To assess network vulnerabilities and make recommendations regarding appropriate corrections
Source/Collection of Data. Count of agencies participating in DIR sponsored network security assessments.
Method of Calculation. Manual count of individual security assessments including follow-up or additional assessments of the same state entity.
Data Limitations. Participation by agencies is voluntary
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Higher than target
Goal C | Objective 02–Telecommunications | Strategy 02–Network and Telecommunications Security Services
Efficiency 01–Strategy 03–Average Cost of Security Assessments
Short Definition. This measure determines the average costs to perform a security assessment.
Purpose/Importance. Allows analysis of cost over time, based on network complexities
Source/Collection of Data. Hours logged into the Employee Timekeeping Systems and vendor billing within Remedy system.
Method of Calculation. Number of security assessments performed or sponsored by DIR, divided by the hours logged into the Employee Timekeeping System, multiplied by hourly rate which includes equipment, average hourly security analyst salary, operating expenses, and training. To this result, add Vendor costs divided by the number of security assessments.
Data Limitations. Agency participation in security assessments is voluntary.
Calculation Type. Cumulative
New Measure. No
Desired Performance. Lower than target
Back to Top | Previous Section
| Contents
| Next Section
|
