Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
“OW CPIC Scoring Criteria”8/05/2010
OW – Governance Framework for EA
Information Steering Committee (ISC) Created Providing senior mgt governance construct for IT investments
ISC Strategic Plan – get IT goals/language on EA
Prepared 5-year strategic plan to set direction for OW IT portfolio and program process improvement
Information Management Project Management Office (IM PMO) Created
Established formal PMO to lead IT portfolio change management and business improvement
Serve as a support function to ISC Providing consultation on all IT investments (ISC and program offices) Core team for managing IT projects and EA (development only)
OW Information Steering Committee (ISC) Structure
Chair of ISC is the OW Deputy Assistant Administrator (DAA)
Deputy Office Directors from each main program office or business unit
Office of Wetlands and Watersheds (OWOW) Office of Waste Water Management (OWM) Office of Science & Technology (OST) Office of Ground Water Drinking Water (OGWDW) Resource Management Office (RMS)
With Appointed Alts.. Typically IT Team Leads
ISC Responsibilities Core Mission
Approve all IT investments/budget Invest/disinvest Coordinate with IIS (agency IT governing
body) Coordinate with CIO
No vote by PMO
ISC Investment Review Policy Clearly defines roles/responsibilities
Tied to ISC Strategic Plan/goals
Strong alignment to budget process and BAS
References Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 with language about development/maintenance of an OW EA program is required by Federal law A-130 “Management of Federal Information Resources” A-11 “Annual Budget Guidance” Additional Federal/Agency criteria for Security/Quality
ISC Investment Review Policy (cont)Scope of Policy
ISC approves/votes Majors business case and objectives
IIS scores all Majors
PMO provides EA assistance through applying FSAM steps 4/5 Alternatives Analysis template and applied process Reuse identification Cost, value, risk analysis Assist in milestone development (EVM) metrics Etc etc
Applies to CPIC Lites only
Small/other still in control of each Program Office
Policy language for review categories“The OW PMO reviews the CPIC Lite submission and
provides a recommendation to the ISC”
The submission is reviewed for: Completeness of submission Strength of business case Alignment with Segment Architecture (business
as well as technical) Reasonableness of timeline and budget Overall project management approach
2012 CPIC Scoring Criteria “Development Process” ISC “Sponsor” over the CPIC process Project charter is completed and signed by
ISC Sponsor each BY Recommends new scoring criteria (with
PMO consultation) Each ISC member is pre-briefed on the
criteria (feedback is addressed) ISC approves final scoring criteria thru
official decisional meeting (April)
Scoring Process PMO OEI Liaison (Wendy S.) works with system
owners to complete the CPIC templates Upon official submission, Segment Architect
reviews/scores each investment Seg Arch works closely with IMO and OEI Liaison
to explain scoring results (take notes ) Opportunities for scoring improvements provided
to system owners They have a chance to improve the CPIC documentation
or face a low score Seg Arch scores again based on improvements
ISC Scoring Review Final scoring presented to each ISC member via pre-brief process
ALL CPIC Lites and Scoring results for each PO provided (transparency and Enterprise governance)
All PMO investments (including Small/other) reviewed and voted by ISC members!!
Additional data/info provided by PMO This is where we influence future decision points and strategic topics
Examples include; Total costs of entire portfolio and per Program Office
Small/others included ($)
2011 Pres Bud/CPIC vs 2010 Opt Plan/CPIC vs 2012 CPIC
WCF Dollars by Office/Application compared to CPIC budget requests 57% of STORET is WCF 24% of our entire OW portfolio is WCF
Criteria Categories
15 Questions (macro-level) (High/Med/Low)
9/15 based on quality of information in CPIC
5/15 based on EA artifacts/ISC Governance
1 question this year for alignment to Open Govt
Scoring Results for Lites
BY2012 OW CPIC Lite Ranking Summary
Program Total High Total Moderate Total Low Not applicable
OWOW8 4 3
IO6 6 3
OWOW7 5 3
OGWDW5 7 3
OGWDW7 3 3
2
IO4 4 5
2
IO6 4 5
OGWDW5 3 6
1
OST4 5 6
OGWDW1 4 10
Benefits of CPIC Scoring Drivers change and you must have a way to measure adaptation to changes
(Open Govt)
Fair and equitable way to assist Program Offices (ODs and DODs) during times of budget cuts
ODs/DODs respect a neutral assessment and consultation
Identifies areas for strategic improvement (PM Maturity, Risks, Alternative Analysis, Training, FTE skills, etc)
Segment Architect My involvement in the review process keeps me informed At the close of CPIC scoring; I align my 2011 EA budget needs to gaps Identify areas for EA consultation and strategic assistance EA as driver and elevates importance of Segment Architecture engagement
Forces OW to think of our IT Portfolio holistically and not in program silos What’s in the best interest of OW!! SDWIS NextGen example
