Business Process Analysis BPA

1. 1 Business Process Analysis (BPA) Information Resource Request Business Process Improvement May 2008 Final Presentation Enterprise Information Strategy & Policy Division

2. 2 Agenda Business Process Analysis (BPA) Initiation Workshop Objectives Current Process Desired Process and Activities Automation Potential E-Forms and Electronic Submission Implementation Plan Q&A

3. 3  Workshop Objectives Define and document the existing process for the Information Resource Request (IRR) Identify administrative, legislative, and regulatory requirements Define a user experience that promotes adoption by targeted user population Define and document a consensus-driven  future business process Explore e-form-enablement/automated IRR workflow 1 and 2 went hand in hand. As we defined and documented the existing IRR process, we identified the requirements along the way. We leveraged the statute and policy reviews that had already been completed by EISPD. Define a user experience This is usually targeted toward e-forms, but we extended the �user experience� to encompass the workflow processes for customer agencies. Agency input was extremely valuable. Refocused where the process ultimately began based on this perspective. Define and document e-form-enabled business process Now that we�ve established methods to support an electronic signature method, the electronic submission of an e-form can become an automated process. We�ve also outlined multiple submission methods, including: Electronic only (with digital signature) A half-n-half approach � where a wet signature is scanned in and submitted electronically along with the e-form containing the data And the current manual print method. 1 and 2 went hand in hand. As we defined and documented the existing IRR process, we identified the requirements along the way. We leveraged the statute and policy reviews that had already been completed by EISPD. Define a user experience This is usually targeted toward e-forms, but we extended the �user experience� to encompass the workflow processes for customer agencies. Agency input was extremely valuable. Refocused where the process ultimately began based on this perspective. Define and document e-form-enabled business process Now that we�ve established methods to support an electronic signature method, the electronic submission of an e-form can become an automated process. We�ve also outlined multiple submission methods, including: Electronic only (with digital signature) A half-n-half approach � where a wet signature is scanned in and submitted electronically along with the e-form containing the data And the current manual print method.

4. 4  BPA Workshop Participants Forms Factory (EDS/SABER) Enterprise Information Strategy and Policy Division (EISPD) Investment and Planning Section (ITIP) DAS State Data Center (SDC) DAS State Procurement Office (SPO) DAS Enterprise Security Office (ESO) Customer Agencies Department of Human Services (DHS) Department of Transportation (ODOT) Thank you to the participants. Forms Factory Teri Watanabe � Forms Factory Program Manager, CFSP Allen Russ � Vice President of Document Solutions for Saber EISPD ITIP Sean McSpaden � ITIP Manager Ed Arabas, Darren Wellington, Matt Matson, Charlene Wood DAS SDC Lorie Campbell, Kurtis Danka, Claudia Light, Darin Rand, Ben Tate DAS SPO Philip Harpster DAS ESO Dennis Miller Cinnamon Albin Customer Agencies DHS � Pete Mallord, Melody Riley, Gerry Woock ODOT � Virginia Alster, Tim Avilla, Debbie Vick, Vickie Warner and additionally Dan Wells Thank you to the participants. Forms Factory Teri Watanabe � Forms Factory Program Manager, CFSP Allen Russ � Vice President of Document Solutions for Saber EISPD ITIP Sean McSpaden � ITIP Manager Ed Arabas, Darren Wellington, Matt Matson, Charlene Wood DAS SDC Lorie Campbell, Kurtis Danka, Claudia Light, Darin Rand, Ben Tate DAS SPO Philip Harpster DAS ESO Dennis Miller Cinnamon Albin Customer Agencies DHS � Pete Mallord, Melody Riley, Gerry Woock ODOT � Virginia Alster, Tim Avilla, Debbie Vick, Vickie Warner and additionally Dan Wells

5. 5  BPA Project Plan December 2007, conducted 4, half day sessions January 25, 2008, conducted combined session to: Define and prioritize electronic approval approaches within context of new workflow process requirements Document the �to-be� business process Explore e-form-enablement/automation May 6, 2008, present business process improvements to project stakeholders The business process analysis workshop Existing analysis and documentation Build on current knowledge without being tied to how it was done in the past Current IRR workflow Focus on what is currently occurring within the existing workflow Incorporate feedback from affected and customer agencies Identify challenges and desired improvements Desired IRR workflow Focus on an automated process that seeks to improve: Customer service Quality of data Cost and processing efficiencies Identify challenges and possible solutions Electronic approval approaches Educational seminar Solution-building session to identify approaches given automated workflow Documentation and presentation Deliver a comprehensive analysis of the e-form-enabled workflow as the foundation for launching an e-form implementation project in 2008 The business process analysis workshop Existing analysis and documentation Build on current knowledge without being tied to how it was done in the past Current IRR workflow Focus on what is currently occurring within the existing workflow Incorporate feedback from affected and customer agencies Identify challenges and desired improvements Desired IRR workflow Focus on an automated process that seeks to improve: Customer service Quality of data Cost and processing efficiencies Identify challenges and possible solutions Electronic approval approaches Educational seminar Solution-building session to identify approaches given automated workflow Documentation and presentation Deliver a comprehensive analysis of the e-form-enabled workflow as the foundation for launching an e-form implementation project in 2008

6. 6 Initial review and approval of IT projects involving acquisition (s) > $75,000 In support of CNIC, Information Security, and GIS Initiatives, EISPD performs 100% review regardless of dollar amount of: Mainframe, Midrange, Server hardware IT Security hardware, software, and services Non-ESRI GIS Software and Services Agencies must complete an Information Resources Request (IRR) and Business Case/Feasibility Statement for projects >$125,000 More rigorous business case development and risk assessment is required for larger investment requests Recommendations regarding approval or denial of the request, and ongoing QA oversight requirements are given to State CIO for final decision

7. 7 Objective 2: ID Regulatory RequirementsStatutes and Policies Oregon Revised Statutes ORS 184.473-184.477 � IT Portfolio Management ORS 283.505�283.510 � Acquisition and coordination of telecommunications systems ORS 291.038 � State Agency IT planning, acquisition, installation & use Additional statutory guidance � ORS 184.305, 184.340, 283.140, 283.500, 291.018, 291.037, 291.047, 293.595 Executive Orders: 01-25, 00-02, 99-05, 98-05 Note: All acquisitions are subject to Department of Justice legal sufficiency and Department of Administrative Services purchasing rules Statewide Policy IT Investment Review and Approval (July 2003, Updated April 2004) Technology Strategy Development and Quality Assurance Reviews (February 2004) Note: Policies are scheduled for revision in 2007-2009 ITIP Policy URL: http://www.das.state.or.us/DAS/EISPD/ITIP/pol_index.shtml Administrative, legislative, and regulatory requirements (ORS) had been identified prior to this workshop. Policies are in the process of being updated to reflect current business practices and regulations Administrative, legislative, and regulatory requirements (ORS) had been identified prior to this workshop. Policies are in the process of being updated to reflect current business practices and regulations

8. 8 Objective 3: Define User Experience Promoting UseCurrent Process Workflow Leveraged existing process workflow diagram From work completed August 2007 In terms of scope, we focused the process From when an agency prepares an IRR To when the IRR is signed by the State CIO Leveraged existing process workflow diagram From work completed August 2007 In terms of scope, we focused the process From when an agency prepares an IRR To when the IRR is signed by the State CIO

9. 9 Objective 3: Define User Experience Promoting Use IRR Process � Known Issues Static for nearly a decade. IRR Form contains information that is no longer relevant �One-Size-Fits-All� approach Doesn�t fit well with current operating model (EISPD, CNIC Transition to SDC) Not effective as a control or enabling mechanism for operation of SDC Duplicates agency review and approval process Reactive Process begins when agency makes contact or when IRRs are received. Proactive preparation for review based on projected start dates defined during budget review and approval process needs to occur Not timely or consistent Volume of requests received at any given time can exceed EISPD resource capacity for review on top of existing workload Occurs late in the IT Investment Lifecycle Timing of review limits value proposition for agencies and DAS EISPD IT investment review and approval process had known issues based on 2007 review of information. IT investment review and approval process had known issues based on 2007 review of information.

10. 10 Objective 3: Define User Experience Promoting Use Existing Process Barriers Incomplete understanding of IRR requirements No process transparency Lack of knowledge of IRR�s disposition When received Who assigned to Expected timeframe Where it is in review process When it has been approved Difficult access to signed IRR documents IT investment review and approval process had known issues based on 2007 review of information. IT investment review and approval process had known issues based on 2007 review of information.

11. 11 Objective 4: Define & Document Consensus Driven future processOpportunities for Improvement EISPD processes IRR form Communication and interaction with agencies Agency processes Enhanced project initiation/planning Intra-agency collaboration Agencies, EISPD, SDC and SPO Adjunct processes and documentation QA Reviews/Ongoing Oversight Reporting Budget Development Process Budget form (107BF14) Business Case (Major IT Projects) We identified numerous opportunities within these broad categories. EISPD processes � As examples: We discovered that the IRR form was not �asking the right questions� both from the agency and EISPD perspectives. EISPD also identified ways in which a customer service orientation could be furthered by proactive communication and interaction with agencies. Agency processes A lot of focus came to bear on the types of information and documentation that agencies need to gather and create as part of creating an IRR. Cross-agency collaboration We looked at early involvement with the State Data Center and State Procurement Office. Adjunct processes and documentation We determined that these activities were outside the scope of the current process improvement effort, and should be pursued in future improvement cycles. There were many, many more opportunities that were identified (on the order of four pages), so we categorized them into process improvement effort steps. We identified numerous opportunities within these broad categories. EISPD processes � As examples: We discovered that the IRR form was not �asking the right questions� both from the agency and EISPD perspectives. EISPD also identified ways in which a customer service orientation could be furthered by proactive communication and interaction with agencies. Agency processes A lot of focus came to bear on the types of information and documentation that agencies need to gather and create as part of creating an IRR. Cross-agency collaboration We looked at early involvement with the State Data Center and State Procurement Office. Adjunct processes and documentation We determined that these activities were outside the scope of the current process improvement effort, and should be pursued in future improvement cycles. There were many, many more opportunities that were identified (on the order of four pages), so we categorized them into process improvement effort steps.

12. 12 Objective 4: Define & Document Consensus Driven future processPhased Approach Phased approach to process improvements Phase 1 improvements Improve and streamline the major process steps to the greatest extent possible Eight opportunities leading to dramatic improvements for the overall objectives: Improve communication and awareness surrounding the IRR process Reduce or eliminate wait time Phased approach To keep progress manageable and achievable. To reap the most benefits by defining a process that could be followed no matter the level of automation. Version 1 improvements Major process steps Again, no different from the current process, but with impactful improvements to the activities that occur at each process step. To occur in 1Q08 Eight opportunities We narrowed the focus even further and identified eight opportunities that would lead to dramatic improvements for the overall process improvement objectives. Improve communication and awareness Proactive communication Regular interaction with agencies Reduce or eliminate wait time Both on the agency side and EISPD Phased approach To keep progress manageable and achievable. To reap the most benefits by defining a process that could be followed no matter the level of automation. Version 1 improvements Major process steps Again, no different from the current process, but with impactful improvements to the activities that occur at each process step. To occur in 1Q08 Eight opportunities We narrowed the focus even further and identified eight opportunities that would lead to dramatic improvements for the overall process improvement objectives. Improve communication and awareness Proactive communication Regular interaction with agencies Reduce or eliminate wait time Both on the agency side and EISPD

13. 13 Phase 1 Tasks 1. Identify when an agency should develop an IRR 2. Re-engineer the process to reinforce the need and benefit of early engagement of SDC and EISPD Program Leaders 3. Define a streamlined submission process 4. Define process for agencies to know receipt and assignment of IRR 5. Define process for agencies and EISPD to know status of IRR in the review process 6. Define process for agencies and other organizations to know IRR�s final disposition 7. Provide access to signed documentation and create a line of sight to the IRR 8. Identify metrics to measure outcome of new process Eight version 1 objectives: The first two objectives were addressed in one process improvement step. Eight version 1 objectives: The first two objectives were addressed in one process improvement step.

14. 14 Task 1. Identify When Agency Should Develop IRR Identified knowledge and process gaps in preparatory activities for IRR development Added new process step to the workflow: IRR should be initiated during the agency project initiation/planning step Development should be viewed as a collaborative effort

15. 15 Task 2: Early Engagement of SDC and EISPD Program Leaders Agency Project Planning Activities (continued) Communicate project status to EISPD Obtain Agency CIO support of project Obtained prior to IRR development Not formal approval of an IRR, but a touch pointto ensure Agency CIO supports the project Initiate IRR Coordinate with EISPD Engage SDC and EISPD Program Leaders Prepare relevant documentation Business case/cost benefit analysis Feasibility studies/opportunity evaluation Communicate project status to EISPD Regular coordination and communication with EISPD Method to be determined by agency � spreadsheets, e-mails, online updates, or meetings Obtain Agency CIO support of project Method � to be determined: Separate form? Attestation? Electronic signature? Initiate IRR Treat the process as a collaborative effort in completing the IRR. The IRR should not be considered ready for submission until EISPD, EISPD Program Leaders, SDC, SPO, etc., have been given the opportunity to provide input to the IRR. Prepare relevant documentation As necessary Communicate project status to EISPD Regular coordination and communication with EISPD Method to be determined by agency � spreadsheets, e-mails, online updates, or meetings Obtain Agency CIO support of project Method � to be determined: Separate form? Attestation? Electronic signature? Initiate IRR Treat the process as a collaborative effort in completing the IRR. The IRR should not be considered ready for submission until EISPD, EISPD Program Leaders, SDC, SPO, etc., have been given the opportunity to provide input to the IRR. Prepare relevant documentation As necessary

16. 16 IRR Process Workflow � Agency From the agency perspective, activities were defined for project planning and IRR development.From the agency perspective, activities were defined for project planning and IRR development.

17. 17 Task 3: Define a Streamlined Submission Process EISPD Actions Re-examine $ threshold limits for alignment with current policies, ORS, and OARs (i.e. $75K, $100K, $125K, $150K) Revise IRR Form Develop and revise supporting document templates Document IRR process and requirements and educate agencies Proactively collaborate with agencies throughout the IRR process IRR To identify a streamlined business process, the first step is to examine the information gathering tool � in this case, the IRR form itself. Supporting document templates Including business case IRR process and requirements and education Checklists and educational material Proactively collaborate with agencies throughout the IRR process Demonstrate a customer service orientation Engage in the process as a team IRR To identify a streamlined business process, the first step is to examine the information gathering tool � in this case, the IRR form itself. Supporting document templates Including business case IRR process and requirements and education Checklists and educational material Proactively collaborate with agencies throughout the IRR process Demonstrate a customer service orientation Engage in the process as a team

18. 18 IRR Supporting Documentation EISPD to revise IRR form and supporting document templates Business case Cost/benefit analysis Feasibility study/opportunity evaluation Risk assessment Timeline for completion: 2nd/3rd Qtr 2008

19. 19 IRR Guiding Documentation EISPD to create and publish guiding documentation to aid agencies during IRR development IRR workflow Agency IRR creation checklist EISPD IRR review checklist Timeline for completion: 2nd Qtr 2008 In addition to providing supporting and guiding documentation, EISPD is committed to proactively collaborate with agencies throughout the IRR process. In addition to providing supporting and guiding documentation, EISPD is committed to proactively collaborate with agencies throughout the IRR process.

20. 20 Additional IRR Improvements Potential E-form implementation � Phase 2 Use required fields to reduce risk of missing information Leverage interactive capabilities to provide form fillers all relevant information fields Provide multiple submission methods Electronic only sent via e-mail Current, manual process of printing and sending via interagency mail Combination of electronic and printed methods

21. 21 IRR Improvements � Submission Provide proof of signature Maintain interactive, electronic version of IRR Submission goals are to: Provide proof of signature Maintain interactive version for: Iterative changes SME comments EISPD Program Leader suggestions Agency revisions Advantage of electronic only process: Digital signature can be reverified Submission goals are to: Provide proof of signature Maintain interactive version for: Iterative changes SME comments EISPD Program Leader suggestions Agency revisions Advantage of electronic only process: Digital signature can be reverified

22. 22 Task 4: Define Process for Agencies to Know Receipt and Assignment of IRR EISPD will notify agencies via e-mail When IRR has been received Who has been assigned to IRR EISPD will note that information on tracking spreadsheet Post spreadsheet on intranet/Internet Update as appropriate

23. 23 Task 5: Define Process for Agencies and EISPD to Know IRR Status in Review Process EISPD will define specific stages of review � For example Under analyst review Pending DAS/Other SME feedback/recommendations Pending agency update Recommendation (approval/conditional approval/denial) submitted to State CIO Etc. EISPD will expand on current IRR tracking process Post spreadsheet on intranet/Internet Update information on a regular basis

24. 24 Task 6: Define Process for Agencies & Other Organizations to Know IRR�s Final Disposition EISPD will create a final IRR disposition tracking process Post spreadsheet on intranet/Internet Update information on a regular basis

25. 25 Task 7: Provide Access to Signed Documentation and Create a Line of Sight to IRR EISPD will make a consistent set of IRR documentation available via intranet

26. 26 Task 8: Identify Metrics to Measure Outcome of New Process Phase 1 metrics will focus on process steps between submission and approval Wait time: submission to approval Processing time: IRR submission to State CIO for signature Number of IRRs that need additional information Number of EISPD conditional approvals Number of EISPD denials Processing time: Categorized by agency. Provide an overall average. Provide breakdown of average by category (<$75,000, >$75,000 - $250,000, >$250,000 to $1M, etc.). Processing time: Categorized by agency. Provide an overall average. Provide breakdown of average by category (<$75,000, >$75,000 - $250,000, >$250,000 to $1M, etc.).

27. 27 Task 8: Identify Metrics to Measure Outcome of New Process Phase 1 Metrics (Continued) Track overall cost estimates for entire project Break out agency�s cost estimates (time of IRR vs. time of contract vs. project at completion, etc.) Capture percentages of cost variance to hint at complexity Segment out projects that require QA Provide baseline metrics from 2005 to current Solicit process improvement feedback from agencies Six months after Phase 1 implementation

28. 28 Phase 2 Improvements Potential E-form implementation � Multiple submission methods Establish a common project phasing framework where IRRs are consistently submitted in planning stages of a project Define IRR information for level of review Consider large, midsize, and small agency capability to produce required analysis Consider appropriate level of information submission for different sized projects Match level of review with size and complexity of project/request Define signing authorities DAS Agency delegated procurement authority from DAS SPO Agency

29. 29 Phase 3 Improvements Define a process for requesting and obtaining additional information Define subject matter expert (SME) involvement Define SPO involvement Integrate support requests (SDC) and IRR process to the greatest extent possible Examine partnership with SDC � possible use of Remedy help desk/ticketing process to initiate IRR request process

30. 30 Phase �X� Improvements Review processes for specific types of IRRs: Achieve SDC 100% review of midrange/mainframe server request prior to IRR submission vs. after Achieve ESO 100% review of Security HW, SW, Services prior to IRR submission Implement GEO 100% review of GIS Software prior to IRR submission May be replaced by Enterprise GIS Software Admin Rule (rule not yet adopted)

31. 31 Phase �X� Improvements (Continued) Create an IRR refresh process to accommodate revisions/updates over time Define an IRR follow-up process When scope, budget or schedule increase beyond original estimates or thresholds for cost benefit analysis or QA Create documented process for tracking conditional approval items Receive notification & lessons learned report from agency when a project ends/is completed Align and integrate IT Investment Review & Approval Policy with the QA reviews policy

32. 32 Implementation Plan

33. 33 Thank you for your participation! Business Process Analysis Consulting

34. 34 Contacts State Chief Information Officer Dugan Petty, State CIO Angela Skyberg, Executive Assistant � 503-378-3175 (Main #) IT Investment and Planning Sean McSpaden, Manager - 503-378-5257 Charlene Wood, Executive Assistant � 503-378-8366 Scott Riordan � 503-378-3385 Darren Wellington � 503-378-2242 State Data Center - Plans and Controls Darin Rand, Manager - 503-378-3366