|
|
 |
|
|
Statewide Technology Management
Finding 3.
State Agencies Would Benefit from Coordinated Technology Reporting
Wherever possible, data will be managed in a way that serves both the oversight needs of the state and the technology planning and implementation requirements of each agency.22
* Shared Success: Building a Better Texas through Shared Responsibilities
2005 State Strategic Plan for Information Resources Management
State agencies are required to periodically submit technology-related data to the state using at least twenty-three reporting instruments. Opportunities to consolidate required reporting could result from applying the principle of “collect once, use often.” While existing reports may continue to be required, sections could be eliminated if other reporting instruments collect similar information. This becomes increasingly feasible as oversight agencies develop common data collection processes and share information across automated systems, as described earlier in this report.
Exhibit VII describes current agency technology reporting and submission requirements.
Exhibit VII
Current Agency Technology Data Reporting and Submission Requirements
This table describes the Reporting Instruments utilized by each Oversight Entity to fulfill reporting requirements.
| Oversight Entity |
Reporting Instrument |
Description |
| Major Contract Questionnaire (MCQ) |
CAT requires submission of an MCQ, described in the TBPC Contract Management Guide,23 for every proposed contract that has a value of at least $1 million during the original term of the contract. |
| Statewide Property Accounting System (SPA) |
Agencies are required to inventory certain physical assets, including some computer hardware and software, through SPA. |
| Uniform Statewide Accounting System (USAS) |
All agency expenditures, including technology, are processed through USAS. |
| Uniform Statewide Personnel/Payroll System (USPS) |
Agencies are required to report personnel and payroll information through USPS. |
| Survey on Access to Information Resources by Persons with Disabilities |
DIR is required by HB2819 to implement an annual survey of agencies regarding their implementation of accessibility requirements. |
| Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Inventory |
Agencies report current and planned GIS datasets and applications through a biennial survey conducted by DIR for the Texas Geographic Information Council (TGIC). Currently, only agencies that participate in TGIC are required to report. |
| Information Resources Strategic Plan (IRSP) |
Agencies are required to submit a biennial IRSP. In 2004, these plans were submitted through SITAR. |
| Internet/Computer Training |
Agencies are required to complete a biennial e-learning survey describing their use of internet/computer training methods. |
| Statewide Information Technology Asset Reporting (SITAR) |
All non-higher education agencies were required to report high-level asset information, including mainframe and server inventories, through SITAR in 2004. In 2005, DIR requested more detailed asset information from the larger agencies in connection with the data center consolidation initiative, using spreadsheets. Currently, there is no set schedule for ongoing technology asset reporting to DIR. |
| Planned Procurement Schedule (PPS) |
Every six months, agencies are required to identify technology items they plan to purchase in the upcoming twelve months, currently collected through a spreadsheet. |
| Security Process Survey |
Agencies report annually on their implementation of security processes, using a web-based survey. |
| Security Incident Reporting System (SIRS) |
Every month, agencies are required to submit information about security incidents that occurred during the previous month. |
| Texas Project Delivery Framework: Post-Implementation Review |
A Post-Implementation Review must be submitted upon completion of a major project. |
| Texas Project Delivery Framework: Business Case |
Beginning in 2006, agencies are required to submit a Business Case document for each requested major technology project when the agency files its legislative appropriations request. |
| Texas Project Delivery Framework: Statewide Impact Analysis |
Beginning in 2006, agencies are required to submit a Statewide Impact Analysis document for each requested major technology project when the agency files its legislative appropriations request. |
| Information Technology Detail (ITD) |
Agencies describe their proposed technology development and procurement projects in the ITD schedule of ABEST at the same time the agency files its legislative appropriations request. |
| Legislative Appropriation Request (LAR) and Operating Budget |
An LAR is prepared biennially by each agency, detailing the amount of funding the agency is seeking from the legislature for the upcoming biennium. An annual operating budget must also be filed, which includes a Capital Budget Project Schedule. These are filed through ABEST. |
| Biennial Operating Plan |
Agencies are required to submit a Biennial Operating Plan each fiscal biennium. |
| Post Implementation Evaluation Review (PIER) |
A PIER must be submitted upon completion of a major project. |
| Project Monitoring Report |
For each project selected by the QAT, the agency must submit periodic project monitoring reports. The frequency can vary from project to project. |
| Texas Project Delivery Framework: Project Plan |
For each major project, the agency must submit a Project Plan, including sections on managing communications, configurations, performance, and risk. |
| Risk Analysis Questionnaire |
For each project selected by the QAT, the agency must complete a Risk Analysis Questionnaire. |
| Electronic State Business Daily (ESBD) |
Information on awards and solicitations for ESBD, and tracking of solicitations and contracts for contracts valued at $5 million and higher. |
Strategy 3.1 calls for eliminating technology reports and reporting requirements that are duplicative or unnecessary to support state technology management functions.
Strategy 3.2 calls for improved oversight processes that enable reporting agencies to effectively manage their technology assets, projects, and operations.
Strategy 3.1
Eliminate technology reports that are no longer needed.
The Technology Reporting Advisory Group has identified a number of reporting overlaps, cited earlier in this report, such as project and asset reporting to oversight agencies. It would benefit the state to assess the reporting instruments listed in Exhibit VII to evaluate opportunities to synchronize and streamline these reporting requirements.
While these reports and instruments are required to meet statutory requirements, an evaluation of their current effectiveness from a statewide technology management perspective could determine whether the value they provide outweighs the cost of producing them. For example, the ongoing need for DIR’s legislatively mandated report, Use of E-Learning in Texas State Agencies and Universities: A Report on the Status of Internet Training for State-Mandated Training Programs, could be evaluated based on these criteria.
Additional reporting reductions could occur from ensuring that each piece of data collected by the state is essential to performing statewide management functions. For example, the Advisory Group questioned the value of requesting information on the size of the monitors on agencies’ desktop computers as part of DIR’s asset reporting tool.
Key Actions
- The Alignment Committee, in coordination with the Advisory Group, should evaluate technology reports and reporting requirements and eliminate those that are duplicative or unnecessary to support state technology management functions.
- The Alignment Committee should develop legislative proposals, when needed, to streamline reporting and ensure that the data collected supports statewide technology management.
Strategy 3.2
Align reporting requirements with agency efforts to manage projects, assets, and operations.
According to the Advisory Group, data reported to the state does not always help agencies enhance compliance activities, lower costs, or effectively manage technology projects and assets. In other words, reported data does not fully benefit agency efforts to plan and manage their technology resources on a daily basis.24
One way to help agencies would be to align reporting requirements developed by oversight agencies with information that benefits asset, project, and portfolio management efforts by agencies. This would enable agencies to populate their asset, project, or portfolio systems or processes with the same data that is reported to the state.
The Advisory Group also indicated that the data requested by the state often has to be reported manually, or, if the data already exists in an agency information system, agencies typically have to manually process the data to meet state reporting requirements. Further benefits would result if oversight agencies established data exchange methods that allow agencies to submit information electronically so that manual reporting and re-entry of information is no longer required.
Key Actions
- The Alignment Committee, in coordination with the Advisory Group, should establish data collection criteria that concurrently address statewide technology management functions and agency efforts to manage their technology assets, projects, and operations.
- The Alignment Committee should develop data exchange methods that eliminate manual entry of agency data reported to the state and that provide agency access to this data, along with appropriate levels of statewide data.
|
