A Legislative Perspective on Information Technology Budgeting

1. A Legislative Perspective on Information Technology Budgeting Presented to IPMA October 1, 2007

2. Budget Overview • The Constitution requires legislative appropriation made by bill, before any funds may be paid from the state treasury. (Article 8, Section 4). • A budget bill is similar to other legislation (with a few exceptions). It must follow the same process (i.e., vote requirements, subject to amendments, etc.) and rules (veto, scope/object, etc.). • The Legislature typically adopts three budgets • Operating • Capital • Transportation • Appropriations can be contained in other legislation (but that happens infrequently).

3. The Legislature • Two chambers: House (98 members) and Senate (49 members). • Any member can introduce a bill. • The Legislature typically conducts much of its work in committees. • Ways & Means (Senate) deals with the Operating Budget. • Appropriations (House) deals with the Operating Budget. (This work is also done by two Appropriations subcommittees – General Government & Audit Review and Education) • Any member can propose amendments on the floor and any committee member can propose amendments in committee. • Sessions • 105 Day in odd numbered years • 60 Day in even numbered years

4. Budget Process Timelines • Oct 07 - Agency request due to OFM* • Dec 07 - Gov’s 2008 supplemental released* • March 08 - Legislature adopts 2008 supplemental • Spring 08 - Agencies begin working on 2009-11 request • Aug/Sept 08 - 2009-11 Agency Request due to OFM* • Dec 08 - Gov’s 2009-11 Budget released* • April 08 - Legislature adopts 2009-11 Budget * Copies provided to the Legislature

5. Based on my observations, members tend to ask: • What is the problem being addressed? • Will this solve the problem? • What good things will happen if this is funded (or bad things if it is not)? • Is the proposal likely to meet expectations if funded? • Are there other (more?) cost effective approaches available? • Are there any other decisions linked to this (either required, mutually exclusive, or enabled)?

6. Observations About the 2007 Session • Any GFS or related proposal had to compete with all other proposals. • Very large projects (HRMS, OMNI, ProviderOne) have had issues in recent years. • By my count, the Governor proposed more than 140 IT related projects or items totaling $343 million (all funds). • Many of the items were related to the web. Others were GIS. Others were equipment. Some were large and some were small.

7. Is the state making the most of any/all investments in Information Technology • Is there sufficient organizational capacity in each agency requesting funding for a project? • Is the project the best solution for the problem? • Has the project proposal been fully developed? • How does the proposal compare to other IT related requests? • Are we leveraging knowledge, experience and common infrastructure? Can we do more? • Can we do more from an enterprise approach? • What do other states do?

8. What did the Legislature do? Short Term: • Continued project oversight requirements for certain projects. [Sec. 901] • Continued video telecommunication oversight requirements. [Sec. 904] • Added a provision requiring consultation on Enterprise Services. [Sec. 903] • Created the IT Project Pool. [Sec. 1621]

9. What did the Legislature do? Long Term: “ The Legislature finds that opportunities are being missed to use the expertise in the Department of Information Services and to leverage the purchasing power of the department to drive down the cost of securing information services.” [Sec. 962 (1)] • Establish a statewide workgroup to examine • Statewide information services strategy • Approval and oversight process of IT projects • Leveraging DIS • Strengthening the role of the ISB • Opportunities to provide cost efficient & equitable access to digital resources • Approaches used in other states. • Report due December 1, 2007

10. Appendix: Selected Information Technology Provisos in SHB 1128

11. Section 902 - Information Systems Projects. Sec. 902 INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROJECTS. Agencies shall comply with the following requirements regarding information systems projects when specifically directed to do so by this act.     (1) Agency planning and decisions concerning information technology shall be made in the context of its information technology portfolio. "Information technology portfolio" means a strategic management approach in which the relationships between agency missions and information technology investments can be seen and understood, such that: Technology efforts are linked to agency objectives and business plans; the impact of new investments on existing infrastructure and business functions are assessed and understood before implementation; and agency activities are consistent with the development of an integrated, nonduplicative statewide infrastructure.     (2) Agencies shall use their information technology portfolios in making decisions on matters related to the following:     (a) System refurbishment, acquisitions, and development efforts;     (b) Setting goals and objectives for using information technology in meeting legislatively-mandated missions and business needs;     (c) Assessment of overall information processing performance, resources, and capabilities;     (d) Ensuring appropriate transfer of technological expertise for the operation of any new systems developed using external resources; and     (e) Progress toward enabling electronic access to public information.     (3) Each project will be planned and designed to take optimal advantage of Internet technologies and protocols. Agencies shall ensure that the project is in compliance with the architecture, infrastructure, principles, policies, and standards of digital government as maintained by the information services board.     (4) The agency shall produce a feasibility study for information technology projects at the direction of the information services board and in accordance with published department of information services policies and guidelines. At a minimum, such studies shall include a statement of: (a) The purpose or impetus for change; (b) the business value to the agency, including an examination and evaluation of benefits, advantages, and cost; (c) a comprehensive risk assessment based on the proposed project's impact on both citizens and state operations, its visibility, and the consequences of doing nothing; (d) the impact on agency and statewide information infrastructure; and (e) the impact of the proposed enhancements to an agency's information technology capabilities on meeting service delivery demands.

12. Section 902 - Continued.      (5) The agency shall produce a comprehensive management plan for each project. The plan or plans shall address all factors critical to successful completion of each project. The plan(s) shall include, but is not limited to, the following elements: A description of the problem or opportunity that the information technology project is intended to address; a statement of project objectives and assumptions; a definition and schedule of phases, tasks, and activities to be accomplished; and the estimated cost of each phase. The planning for the phased approach shall be such that the business case justification for a project needs to demonstrate how the project recovers cost or adds measurable value or positive cost benefit to the agency's business functions within each development cycle.     (6) The agency shall produce quality assurance plans for information technology projects. Consistent with the direction of the information services board and the published policies and guidelines of the department of information services, the quality assurance plan shall address all factors critical to successful completion of the project and successful integration with the agency and state information technology infrastructure. At a minimum, quality assurance plans shall provide time and budget benchmarks against which project progress can be measured, a specification of quality assurance responsibilities, and a statement of reporting requirements. The quality assurance plans shall set out the functionality requirements for each phase of a project.     (7) A copy of each feasibility study, project management plan, and quality assurance plan shall be provided to the department of information services, the office of financial management, and legislative fiscal committees. The plans and studies shall demonstrate a sound business case that justifies the investment of taxpayer funds on any new project, an assessment of the impact of the proposed system on the existing information technology infrastructure, the disciplined use of preventative measures to mitigate risk, and the leveraging of private-sector expertise as needed. Authority to expend any funds for individual information systems projects is conditioned on the approval of the relevant feasibility study, project management plan, and quality assurance plan by the department of information services and the office of financial management.     (8) Quality assurance status reports shall be submitted to the department of information services, the office of financial management, and legislative fiscal committees at intervals specified in the project's quality assurance plan.

13. Section 903 - Enterprise Services. Sec. 903 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE SERVICES. Agencies may make use of the department of information services when acquiring information technology services, products, and assets.     "Information technology services" means the acquisition, provisioning, or approval of hardware, software, and purchased or personal services provided by the department of information services.     If an information technology enterprise service is provided by the department, or an agency has a specific requirement to acquire hardware, software, or purchased or personal services directly, the agency shall consult with the department of information services.

14. Section 904 - Video telecommunications. Sec. 904 VIDEO TELECOMMUNICATIONS. The department of information services shall act as lead agency in coordinating video telecommunications services for state agencies. As lead agency, the department shall develop standards and common specifications for leased and purchased telecommunications equipment and assist state agencies in developing a video telecommunications expenditure plan. No agency may spend any portion of any appropriation in this act for new video telecommunication equipment, new video telecommunication transmission, or new video telecommunication programming, or for expanding current video telecommunication systems without first complying with chapter 43.105 RCW, including but not limited to, RCW 43.105.041(2), and without first submitting a video telecommunications expenditure plan, in accordance with the policies of the department of information services, for review and assessment by the department of information services under RCW 43.105.052. Prior to any such expenditure by a public school, a video telecommunications expenditure plan shall be approved by the superintendent of public instruction. The office of the superintendent of public instruction shall submit the plans to the department of information services in a form prescribed by the department. The office of the superintendent of public instruction shall coordinate the use of video telecommunications in public schools by providing educational information to local school districts and shall assist local school districts and educational service districts in telecommunications planning and curriculum development. Prior to any such expenditure by a public institution of postsecondary education, a telecommunications expenditure plan shall be approved by the higher education coordinating board. The higher education coordinating board shall coordinate the use of video telecommunications for instruction and instructional support in postsecondary education, including the review and approval of instructional telecommunications course offerings.

15. Section 962 - Information Services Work Group. Sec. 962   (1) The legislature intends to improve the administration and coordination of state information technology. The legislature finds that opportunities are being missed to use the expertise in the department of information services and to leverage the purchasing power of the department to drive down the cost of securing information services.     (2) The office of financial management, the department of information services, and the legislature shall form a 2007 interim workgroup on improving state strategies, administration, and coordination of information technology. The workgroup shall consist of:     (a) The director or designee of the department of information services, and the director or designee of the office of financial management;     (b) A member of the information services board;     (c) Two members of the senate, appointed by the president of the senate, one member from each of the two largest caucuses of the senate;     (d) Two members of the house of representatives, appointed by the speaker of the house, one member from each of the two largest caucuses of the house of representatives;     (e) The workgroup shall invite representatives of the following to participate:     (i) One large state agency;     (ii) One small agency;     (iii) The state board for community and technical colleges;     (iv) The state library;     (v) A research university;     (vi) A regional university; and     (vii) Two members of the public.     (f) The workgroup shall choose its cochairs from among its legislative membership.     (3) The workgroup shall review the following issues:     (a) A statewide information services strategy;     (b) The approval and oversight process of information technology projects;

16. Section 962 - Continued.        (c) Leveraging the expertise and purchasing power of the department of information services;     (d) Strengthening the role of the information services board in enhancing the utilization of services offered by the department of information services; and     (e) Opportunities to provide cost efficient and equitable access to digital resources, including online databases, for faculty and students at public institutions of higher education, state employees, and the public.     (4) As part of its review, the workgroup shall consider approaches used in other states to achieve its goals.     (5) Staff support for the workgroup shall be provided by the senate committee services, the house of representatives office of program research, the office of financial management, and the department of information services.     (6) Legislative members of the workgroup shall be reimbursed for travel expenses in accordance with RCW 44.04.120.     (7) The task force shall report its findings and recommendations to the governor and the appropriate committees of the legislature by December 1, 2007.     (8) This section expires December 31, 2007.

17. Section 1621 - Project pool. Sec. 1621   A new section is added to 2005 c 518 (uncodified) to read as follows:FOR THE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT--TECHNOLOGY FUNDINGGeneral Fund--State Appropriation (FY 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . $26,277,000Special Technology Funding Revolving AccountAppropriation (FY 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . $37,964,000          TOTAL APPROPRIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . $64,241,000     The appropriations in this section are provided solely for deposit to and expenditure from the data processing revolving account and are subject to the following conditions and limitations:     (1) The appropriations in this section, for expenditure to the data processing revolving account, are to be known as the "information technology funding pool" and are under the joint control of the department of information services and the office of financial management. The department of information services shall review information technology proposals and work jointly with the office of financial management to determine the projects to be funded and the amounts and timing of release of funds. To facilitate the transfer of moneys from dedicated funds and accounts, the state treasurer is directed to transfer sufficient moneys from each dedicated fund or account to the special technology funding revolving account, hereby created in the state treasury, in accordance with schedules provided by the office of financial management pursuant to LEAP Document ITA-2007 as developed by the legislative evaluation and program committee on April 20, 2007, at 13:01 hours.     (2) In exercising this authority, the department of information services and the office of financial management shall:     (a) Seek opportunities to reduce costs and achieve economies of scale by leveraging statewide investments in systems and data and other common or enterprise-wide solutions within and across state agencies that include standard software, hardware, and other information technology systems infrastructure, and common data definitions and data stores that promote the sharing of information across agencies whenever possible;     (b) Ensure agencies incorporate project management best practices and consider lessons learned from other information technology projects; and     (c) Develop criteria for the evaluation of information technology project funding proposals to include the determination of where common or coordinated technology or data solutions may be established, and identification of projects that cross fiscal biennia or are dependent on other prior, current, or future related investments.

18. Section 1621 - Continued.      (3) In allocating funds for the routine replacement of software and hardware, the information services board and office of financial management shall presume that agencies should have sufficient funding in their base allocation to pay for such replacement and that any allocations out of these funds are for extraordinary maintenance costs.     (4) Funds appropriated in this section shall not be released for information technology projects with a risk-severity assessment level two or greater under the policies of the information services board until a feasibility study has been completed and approved by the information services board. If the feasibility study indicates a need for funding exceeding that allocated for the current biennium, justification of increased project costs shall be incorporated in an annual report from the department of information services to the information services board, the office of financial management, and the legislative evaluation and accountability program committee. Implementation funds shall not be released until the project is approved by the legislature.     (5) Funds in the 2007-09 biennium may only be expended on the projects listed on LEAP Document IT-2007, as generated by the legislative evaluation and accountability program committee on April 20, 2007, at 13:01 hours. Future biennia allocations from the information technology funding pool shall be determined jointly by the department of information services and the office of financial management.     (6) Beginning December 1, 2008, and every biennium thereafter, the department of information services shall submit a statewide information technology plan to the office of financial management and the legislative evaluation and accountability program committee that supports a consolidated funding request. In alternate years, a plan addendum shall be submitted that reflects any modified funding pool request requiring action in the ensuing supplemental budget session.     (7) The department of information services shall report to the office of financial management and the legislative evaluation and accountability program committee by October 1, 2007, and annually thereafter, the status of planned allocations from funds appropriated in this section.     (8) State agencies shall report project performance in consistent and comparable terms using common methodologies to calculate project performance by measuring work accomplished (scope and schedule) against work planned and project cost against planned budget. The department of information services shall provide implementation guidelines and oversight of project performance reporting.     (9) The information services board shall require all agencies receiving funds appropriated in this section to account for project expenses included in an information technology portfolio report submitted annually to the department of information services, the office of financial management, and the legislative evaluation and accountability program committee by October 1st of each year. The department of information services, with the advice and approval of the office of financial management, shall establish criteria for complete and consistent reporting of expenditures from these funds and project staffing levels.     (10) In consultation with the legislative evaluation and accountability program committee, the department of information services shall develop criteria for evaluating requests for these funds and shall report annually to the office of financial management and the legislative evaluation and accountability program committee by November 1st the status of distributions and expenditures from this pool.

19. The Current Biennium