Statewide Technology Management

Finding 1.

Higher Quality Information Will Improve Statewide Technology Management

As a result of House Bill 1516, DIR established the Statewide Technology Management and Reporting Initiative to build stakeholder partnerships for the purpose of evaluating the processes and systems used by oversight agencies to collect and manage technology information. Through this initiative, DIR and an interagency advisory group provided a high-level assessment of the value of information collected for managing statewide technology functions, and concluded that improvements were needed.

Currently, oversight agencies collect a great deal of information from state agencies to meet statutory and regulatory requirements. The automated information systems and processes used to collect this information are described in the Appendix. Additional agency reporting requirements connected to these systems and other data collection instruments are contained in Exhibit VII.

Strategy 1.1 calls for expanding established partnerships by convening a Technology Reporting Alignment Committee comprised of both agencies with oversight responsibilities and other stakeholders. The committee’s objective is to coordinate data collection to better support a statewide view of technology assets, staffing, spending, and planning, and to improve the ability of agencies to manage their technology projects and operations.

Strategy 1.2 calls for defining technology information categories that are essential to the regulatory functions of multiple oversight agencies. Defining terms such as “projects” and “assets,” then using those definitions when reviewing technology statewide, would provide a consistent and clear basis for evaluation and discussion.

Strategy 1.1

Convene an Alignment Committee to coordinate the collection and reporting of technology information.

The partnerships established by the Statewide Technology Management and Reporting Initiative could be expanded to continue the process of standardizing data collection processes and systems to gather a consistent set of technology data. A formal committee charged with this responsibility would be positioned to guide the implementation of key actions called for in this report.

A Technology Reporting Alignment Committee comprised of representatives from oversight agencies, the Governor’s Office, the Quality Assurance Team, the Contract Advisory Team, and other stakeholders is illustrated in Exhibit IV.

Exhibit IV

Proposed Technology Reporting Alignment Committee

View details of Exhibit IV

The Alignment Committee would coordinate with established groups, teams, and initiatives related to technology planning and implementation to evaluate the information collection and reporting processes and systems in the state. A key first step would be to establish standardized technology data collection criteria. This criteria would be based on a common vision of collecting information in a format that meets the needs of each agency or group, while also supporting statewide technology management functions and agency efforts to manage assets, projects, and operations.⁹

Because the Alignment Committee includes oversight agency representation, along with representation from the Governor’s Office, Office of the Attorney General (OAG), and other stakeholders, it would have the perspective needed to identify requisite policy changes, enforcement, education and training, leadership, and other statewide actions needed to implement this report’s recommendations before considering modifications to automated systems.¹⁰ The committee would consider the impact of any recommended changes based on agency costs, such as agency staff time to meet new requirements and costs associated with modifying automated systems.

Key Actions

• DIR should convene an Alignment Committee comprised of representatives from DIR, LBB, CPA, TBPC, SAO, OAG, the Governor’s Office, QAT, CAT, and other stakeholders.
• The Alignment Committee should operate under the principle of “collect once, use often,” where practical, and when it can be accomplished without interfering with regulatory and oversight responsibilities of member agencies.
• The Alignment Committee should determine the best manner and timing for collecting needed technology information not currently collected.
• The Alignment Committee should implement strategies and key actions in this report in coordination with member agencies, groups, reporting agencies, and other stakeholders while ensuring any costs associated with recommended changes do not exceed value.
• DIR should include in its 2006 Biennial Performance Report any viable Alignment Committee recommendations, including legislative proposals, to streamline technology management and reporting that cannot be immediately implemented.

Strategy 1.2

Establish Statewide definitions for key technology information.

Currently, oversight agencies, QAT, and CAT collect similar information multiple times through the data collection instruments cited in the Appendix. Common criteria for collecting similar types of data, including metrics, definitions, and the intent and rationale for each piece of technology data collected is the starting point for improving the value of data that the state collects.¹¹

While it may not always be possible to apply the principle of “collect once, use often,” for all categories of technology information collected by the state, the Alignment Committee could establish common approaches and criteria for collecting and reviewing information to enable a statewide analysis of technology assets, projects, and operations. This would provide data for improved evaluation of current technology outcomes, and for determining ways to improve these outcomes based on best-practice approaches and metrics.

By developing common definitions for key technology terms to the extent possible, categories of technology such as those illustrated in Exhibit V could be collected once and used multiple times across the state.

Exhibit V

Categories of Technology Information Collected by Oversight Entities

View details of Exhibit V

The Statewide Technology Management and Reporting Initiative has begun the work of coordinating with oversight agencies and workgroups to help synchronize the collection of the information in Exhibit V. One successful outcome has been the combining of templates for capturing planned commodity procurements and purchases related to data center operations. Discussions have begun with the LBB, CPA, and TBPC to coordinate data collection for projects, assets, and contracts to reduce duplicate data gathering and to find ways to analyze the collected information to improve statewide technology management.

The Alignment Committee could take these improvements a step further by focusing on options for improving technology spend management. Currently available spend information provides only a general estimate of technology resources and their costs; it does not contain enough detail to establish a solid foundation for understanding statewide costs for technology assets, staffing, and operations.¹² Better spend detail and accuracy are needed to manage the state’s technology resources and to evaluate, as required by HB1516, the potential benefits of consolidating technology assets, staffing, and services.¹³

Based on input from oversight and reporting agencies, a number of options that have the potential to benefit the state could be explored by the Alignment Committee to improve spend management. For example, existing coding options within USAS and USPS could be used to capture expenditures for major technology projects and staffing. Another option is to develop common data collection strategies using Texas Project Delivery Framework templates, contracting information from TBPC, and property accounting information from CPA to capture consistent, statewide data on technology spending.¹⁴ State law now requires return on investment data to be collected by three separate instruments at LBB and DIR (IRSPs, the Texas Project Delivery Framework, and ITDs), which could be synchronized and focused to ensure consistency and value for managing the state’s technology investment.

Since projects are not defined the same way through IRSP, QAT, ITD, and Texas Project Delivery Framework reporting, the Alignment Committee could explore options for developing common definitions for “project,” “major project,” and “capital project”. Such common definitions would help coordinate and simplify state agency reporting and enable a better statewide view of how well projects are functioning. Further, if agencies were to identify major project expenditures in USAS, it could help reconcile ITD information with USAS expenditure information to ensure that technology budget levels and actual expenditures are in line with legislatively approved levels.

Finally, the Alignment Committee could determine the value of tracking more technology assets through CPA’s SPA system, and coordinate SPA data on these assets with SITAR and ITD asset information. This could provide a clearer picture of statewide computers, servers, and other assets, while ensuring that all three systems avoid duplicate reporting for the same assets.

Key Actions

• The Alignment Committee should establish standardized technology data collection criteria to improve statewide technology management.
• The Alignment Committee should develop enterprise definitions for key technology categories that are important to multiple oversight agencies and groups.
• The Alignment Committee should develop specific options to improve spend management to identify and track technology assets, project budgets and expenditures, and staffing.