Statewide Technology Management
Finding 2.
Oversight Agencies Would Benefit from Sharing Technology Data
The state will benefit from a close examination of its oversight processes to ensure that oversight agencies can work in complementary fashion...15
* Shared Success: Building a Better Texas through Shared Responsibilities
2005 State Strategic Plan for Information Resources Management
The 2005 State Strategic Plan for Information Resources Management calls for managing data in a way that serves both the oversight needs of the state and the technology planning and implementation requirements of each agency through a unified view of the state’s technology investment.
Producing such a unified perspective would require Texas to collect information more strategically. Florida has developed a single technology data collection instrument that provides all the information needed by the Governor’s Office of Policy and Budget and the state Legislature. The instrument is used to capture technology costs and service requirements within legislative budget requests, and requires agencies to align proposed technology investments with business needs based on technology service areas.16
This type of approach provides the basis for developing commonly defined technology terms and definitions and an enterprise data model. Once accomplished, the process of “combining” automated systems to gather accurate data on assets, staffing, operations, and budget/expenditures could begin.
Strategy 2.1 would support the principle of “collect once, use often” while providing the basis for standardized technology data collection criteria, outlined in Finding 1. The proposed enterprise data model would rationally organize the large amount of financial, asset, project, and other technology information collected by the state.
Strategy 2.2 calls for allowing automated systems among oversight agencies to appropriately share information through effective data exchange methods.
Strategy 2.1
Develop an enterprise Data model to synchronize statewide Reporting.
An enterprise data model could support the sharing of technology information across oversight and reporting agencies and other stakeholders. By structuring such information as assets and inventories, staffing, and workload by technology service area or domain, the state could capture information consistently across agencies and analyze the information at various levels of detail.
For example, agencies could collect and report data to oversight entities at a relatively high level to ensure that statewide technology management functions are addressed. More detailed information at deeper layers of the model could be used by agencies on an optional basis to more effectively manage their assets, projects, and operations.
A proposed enterprise data model has been developed by Gartner, Inc., as a starting point for evaluating whether such a model would benefit Texas.17 The Alignment Committee could determine, in coordination with the Technology Reporting Advisory Group, whether the proposed model could effectively gather, normalize, and validate cost and workload information for overall technology operations statewide and within state agencies.
The state has used some elements of the proposed model. The LBB, in its Staff Performance Report to the 79th Legislature dated January 18, 2005, recommended that DIR submit to the Legislature a plan to consolidate the management of state data center services. As part of this study, DIR used Gartner’s Technology Benchmarking Chart of Accounts and Technology Measurement Database to identify the operational baseline costs of state agency data center services and to determine the magnitude of savings and resources needed to increase data center consolidation.18
Exhibit VI describes the seven high-level categories of the proposed enterprise data model, which Gartner developed by adapting its Chart of Accounts model used for the LBB study. Because the data elements in the model have been used by Gartner in public and private organizations in other states and countries, it has the capability of producing peer comparisons to benchmark agency and statewide performance against similar public and private sector organizations worldwide.19
Key Actions
- The Alignment Committee should evaluate and modify, if needed, the proposed enterprise data model to ensure that it identifies the necessary data, employing definitions most useful to oversight agencies, for improving statewide technology management.
- The Alignment Committee should consolidate data collection efforts and coordinate agency reporting schedules based on the enterprise data model.
- The Alignment Committee should establish consensus on the appropriate level and timing of data to be collected by each oversight agency.
Exhibit VI
Technology Areas in the Proposed Enterprise Data Model
This table describes each of the seven Technology Areas in the proposed enterprise data model.
| Technology Area |
Description |
| Enterprise Profile |
Includes high-level information related to business operations, technology costs, and staffing and salary data for administrative functions not captured in other domains. |
| Enterprise Computing |
Includes data pertaining to services on both mainframe and server platforms. Data is captured across various platforms. Specifically, the domain captures personnel and non-personnel costs, staffing levels, inventories, and workload information for each platform. |
| End-User Computing |
Includes data pertaining to the use and support of hardware and software assets for end-users – specifically, personnel and non-personnel costs, staffing levels, inventories, configurations and workload information. |
| Help Desk |
Includes personnel and non-personnel costs, staffing levels, and workload information pertaining to the Help Desk. A Help Desk is defined as any single location that distributes the receipt/placement of technical support calls or contacts to a predetermined group of support staff. |
| Communications and Networks |
Includes data pertaining to the provisioning of voice and data communications and connectivity. Personnel and non-personnel costs, staffing levels, and workload information is captured for each voice/data element. |
| Applications |
Includes personnel and non-personnel cost data pertaining to the maintenance and support of existing software applications/packaged solutions. Also provides detailed information about each application (e.g., application architecture, language, year developed). |
| Projects |
Includes personnel and non-personnel cost data pertaining to the full life cycle of technology projects, including applications development projects. Also provides detailed information about each active project, including project organization and management, solution details, cost, and schedule data. |
Strategy 2.2
Improve data sharing Among oversight agencies’ information systems.
Public and private sector organizations alike have found that although automation has generated much more data, a lack of infrastructure for data exchange, as well as any incompatibilities between systems, prevents both effective collection and analysis of this data in support of meeting business objectives.20
By expanding the capacity of the state’s automated information systems (Appendix) to share information based on common definitions and the enterprise data model, the state would be in a better position to establish common strategic directions, identify and address investment overlaps, and identify project synergies to improve overall performance. This could result in fewer investment overlaps, shared funding for infrastructure, risk mitigation, and streamlined reporting.21
The standardized data collection processes described earlier in this report would enable the Alignment Committee to develop a unified view of the state’s technology resources. This perspective would provide the basis for developing a common business and technical infrastructure and for targeting data collection efforts toward outcomes that benefit the state as a whole.
To fully implement the principle of “collect once, use often,” oversight agencies need to develop strategies that allow automated systems to share information. It is not intended that the state’s automated systems be combined in a way that compromises security concerns or inadvertently results in the release of confidential data. Rather, the focus would be enhancing the ability to electronically share information through appropriate data exchange methods.
Key Action
- The Alignment Committee should establish consensus on the most effective data exchange methods to appropriately share statewide technology data.
|
