![](media/image1.png){width="0.9791666666666666in" height="0.71875in"}

Department of the Interior

Office of the Secretary

Enterprise Management Information System

Revised Gap Analysis and Alternatives

![](media/image2.png){width="6.486111111111111in"
height="4.352083333333334in"}

January 28, 2003

*Submitted by:*

G&B Solutions, Inc.

1501 Farm Credit Drive

Suite 4400

McLean, VA 22102

\(703\) 883-4045

Table of Contents

[Section 1 Executive Summary 1](#executive-summary)

[Section 2 Background 3](#background)

[2.1 Introduction 3](#introduction)

[2.1.1 Need for an Integrated Management Information System
3](#need-for-an-integrated-management-information-system)

[2.1.2 Activity Based Cost Management (ABCM)
4](#activity-based-cost-management-abcm)

[2.1.3 Activity Based Costing (ABC) 4](#activity-based-costing-abc)

[2.1.4 Activity Based Management (ABM)
4](#activity-based-management-abm)

[2.1.5 Performance Measurement: A Theoretical Framework
5](#__RefHeading___Toc31511133)

[2.2 The Performance Measures Wiring Diagram
7](#the-performance-measures-wiring-diagram)

[2.2.1 The Software Tool 8](#the-software-tool)

[Section 3 Department of the Interior ABC Initiative
10](#department-of-the-interior-abc-initiative)

[3.1 The Arizona Pilot 10](#the-arizona-pilot)

[3.2 Cost System versus Performance Measurement System
11](#cost-system-versus-performance-measurement-system)

[Section 4 Gap Analysis 12](#gap-analysis)

[4.1 DOI MIS Design Principles 12](#doi-mis-design-principles)

[4.1.1 Gap Analysis and Mitigation Strategies
12](#gap-analysis-and-mitigation-strategies)

[4.2 Implementation Risks 16](#implementation-risks)

[Section 5 Feasible Alternatives 20](#feasible-alternatives)

[5.1 DOI MIS Alternatives 20](#doi-mis-alternatives)

[5.1.1 Alternative 1: Status Quo 20](#alternative-1-status-quo)

[5.1.2 Alternative 2: Build Warehouse
20](#alternative-2-build-warehouse)

[5.1.3 Alternative 3: Implement a COTS Solution
21](#alternative-3-implement-a-cots-solution)

[Section 6 Evaluation of Alternatives 22](#evaluation-of-alternatives)

[6.1 Selection Criteria 22](#selection-criteria)

[6.2 Cost 22](#cost)

[6.2.1 Flexibility 23](#flexibility)

[6.2.2 Ability to Meet Design Principles
24](#ability-to-meet-design-principles)

[Section 7 Conclusion 25](#conclusion)

[Appendix 1 Survey of Systems 26](#appendix-1-survey-of-systems)

[Appendix 2 Requirements 28](#appendix-2-requirements)

List of Figures

[Figure 2‑1: Performance Measurement: A Theoretical Framework.
6](#__RefHeading___Toc31511156)

[Figure 2‑2: Performance Measures -- Wiring Diagram
7](#__RefHeading___Toc31511157)

[Figure 3‑1: A Sample Performance Plan. 11](#__RefHeading___Toc31511158)

[Figure 4‑1: Strategic Plan Structure. 17](#__RefHeading___Toc31511159)

[Figure 4‑2: Rollup Structure 18](#__RefHeading___Toc31511160)

[Figure 4‑3: Cost Ladder. 19](#__RefHeading___Toc31511161)

[Figure 7‑1: Decision Framework. 25](#__RefHeading___Toc31511162)

List of Tables

[Table 2‑1: Benefits of Activity Based Cost Management.
5](#__RefHeading___Toc31511163)

[Table 6‑1: Cost Summary, Internal Data.
22](#__RefHeading___Toc31511164)

[Table 6‑2: Cost Comparison: Build Warehouse versus COTS.
23](#__RefHeading___Toc31511165)

# Executive Summary

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) commissioned a six week
project to establish the capabilities of existing baseline financial,
performance and workload, and time and attendance systems. The objective
of this study was to establish gaps between the capabilities of the
existing systems in the eight Bureaus and an enterprise wide management
information system.

A survey drafted by DOI was circulated to the Bureaus. The results of
the survey, personal interviews, the DOI website research, internet
research, and data collected formed the basis of analysis and
conclusions presented in this report.

DOI is aware that of the eight Bureaus, six Bureaus use the Federal
Financial System (FFS) and two Bureaus use the Advanced
Budget/Accounting Control and Information System (ABACIS). All Bureaus
use the Federal Personnel/Payroll System (FPPS). There are three
different Time and Attendance systems used and the content of the data
entered into the FPPS varies by Bureau.

There are ten gaps identified primarily related to cost, data coverage,
data accuracy, data dimension, data sources, data availability,
reporting, user access, security, user interface, and user training. The
mitigation strategies for these gaps are available through the
deliverables of the Arizona Pilot and ensuring that in the design of the
new DOI Management Information System (MIS) that these gaps are
addressed.

In addition to the gaps, four implementation risks were also identified.
These risks relate to the coding of outputs into the strategic plan,
coding of activities into the financial system, employee input into the
time and attendance system, and the level of detail that is required to
be maintained in the data warehouse. The mitigation strategies for these
risks primarily relate to policy decisions and process integrity.

The identification of feasible alternatives to close the gap leads to
the evaluation of three alternatives: 1) Status Quo, 2) Build a
Warehouse, and 3) Implement a Commercial off the Shelf (COTS) product.
Cost, Flexibility and Ability to meet the Design Principles of the DOI
MIS were used as the criteria. It was determined that Alternative 1,
Status Quo, did not satisfy the department's urgent need for an
enterprise management information system and would risk compromising the
mission goals without adequate information to track cost, performance
and workload measures. Alternative 3, Implement a COTS Product, proved
to be at a minimum 38 percent more expensive than Alternative 2, Build a
Warehouse. Furthermore, Alternative 3 is not flexible and would not
provide the functionality required. Therefore, Alternative 2 has been
chosen as the most cost effective and efficient way to install an
enterprise wide information system like the DOI MIS.

It is anticipated that the building of the new warehouse will follow the
methodology used in building the Bureau of Labor Management (BLM) MIS.
However, it is crucial to integrate the work of the Arizona Pilot into
the design of the new DOI MIS, so that the gaps and risks identified can
be mitigated.

The Department is also planning to replace the core financial system
with a new Financial and Business Management System (FBMS). Since this
would not be operational for another seven years, the DOI MIS will
become a crucial information system that will feed the decision making
levels in DOI. It is imperative that the integration of this system with
the new FBMS is also considered for the future.

# Background

## Introduction

The U.S. Department of the Interior manages Federal lands, water
resources, and offshore areas to provide recreation, environmental
protection, and access to resources. DOI seeks to fulfill requirements
to deliver water and power; preserve America's cultural heritage; honor
the Nation's responsibility to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and
island communities; and generate scientific and other information.

DOI's mission is achieved through hundreds of programs and activities
carried out by its eight Bureaus and one principal office:

-   Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

-   Minerals and Management Service (MMS)

-   Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)

-   Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)

-   U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

-   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

-   National Park Service (NPS)

-   Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

-   Office of the Secretary (OS)

DOI employs approximately 68,000 employees who work at more than 2,400
sites across the country. Interior's annual budget is about \$13 Billion
and receives \$9 Billion in revenues.

### Need for an Integrated Management Information System

The draft Government Performance and Result Act (GPRA) Performance Plan
for DOI defines a mission that includes recreation, resource protection,
resource use, and serving communities. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) conducts annual reviews of programs that represent 20% of
DOI's annual budget. The President's Management Agenda calls for
transparency in measuring performance and costs across Government
Programs.

The increasing demands for information on strategic goals, measures,
cost and program implementation are unmet by existing systems. Appendix
1 lists the existing Departmental and Bureau systems. The current
systems do not provide consistent, timely management information to
measure cost and performance management of programs. An integrated
management information system would provide information to DOI employees
to measure progress against program delivery to measure cost and
performance in meeting the GPRA plan.

The DOI has chosen to use many tools to close this major gap between
demand and supply of management information. A major tool is Activity
Based Cost Management (ABCM).

### Activity Based Cost Management (ABCM)

Cost management is the practice of understanding what causes costs to
occur and then using that information to achieve a more desirable
outcome. Possible outcomes include:

1.  Cost reduction,

2.  Increased customer satisfaction, and

3.  Improved value received by customers.

### Activity Based Costing (ABC)

ABC is a method of measuring the cost of activities and the products and
services that consume those activities. ABC recognizes the causal
relationships between cost and activities. ABC answers the following
questions:

-   What is the total cost of this activity?

-   Is this activity performed for all customers?

-   Is this activity performed for all services?

-   What impact does this activity have on service value?

### Activity Based Management (ABM)

ABM is a discipline that focuses on the management of activities as the
route to continuously improving the value received by the customers.
This discipline includes cost driver analysis, activity analysis, and
performance measurement. ABM is the operational view of costs and seeks
to answer the following questions:

-   Is this a value-added activity?

-   What are the steps required to perform this activity?

-   What resources contribute to the cost of this activity?

-   How can we reduce the time required to complete this activity?

ABC and ABM are similar in that they focus on activities, determine
activity costs, determine process costs, and reveal non-value-added
activities. Table 2-1 lists some key informational benefits received
from both ABC and ABM.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Activity-Based Costing**          **Activity-Based Management**
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Focus on what things cost           Focus on how to change and improve
                                      costs

  More accurate product costs         Identification of redundant costs

  Determination of customer costs     Quantification of cost of quality
                                      by element

  Determination of contract costs     Identification of customer focused
                                      activities

  Support of contract negotiations    Measurement of the impact of
                                      re-engineering efforts

  Support of benchmarking             Better understanding of cost
                                      drivers

  Determination of shared services    Activity-based budgeting
  charge-out amounts                  
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc31511163 .anchor}Table 2‑1: Benefits of Activity
Based Cost Management.

ABC and ABM provide more accurate and reliable cost information to
government managers about products, services, and customers. This
approach would give government managers the ability to move from
managing costs to managing activities.

### Performance Measurement: A Theoretical Framework

In order to develop an integrated measurement system, it is first
necessary to design a performance measurement framework (Figure 2-1).
The framework is an architectural approach, rather like preparing
blueprints before bringing in the construction crew. This is in contrast
to what we frequently see, where managers rush out to buy software in
the belief that all they have to do is fill in the data to get results.
A performance measurement framework:

-   Considers the needs of all people who participate in the business.

-   Is defined by strategic imperatives.

-   Has internal and external context.

-   Provides hierarchical linkage between strategic and organizational
    goals, and performance of processes and activities.

-   Based in reality and fact.

-   Considers financial and non-financial measures in an integral
    fashion.

The framework consists of the application of a series of analytical and
measurement tools. These tools by themselves are interesting and provide
useful outcomes, but in combination with each other, they can create a
natural and powerful structure. The structure also involves a series of
decision support software tools in order to facilitate development of
the measures, track performance, and distribute performance results to
managers whose job it is to manage performance. The analytical tools
involve the following:

-   Analysis of stakeholder needs

-   Setting organization goals---analysis of critical success factors,
    critical business issues

-   Analysis of activities

-   Analysis of processes

-   Development of measures and collection of current performance

-   Identification of internal and external benchmark comparisons

-   Goal development

-   Activity-based costing and assignment:

    -   Processes -- Cost objects

    -   Measures wiring diagrams

![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.873611111111111in"
height="5.570138888888889in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc31511156 .anchor}Figure 2‑1: Performance
Measurement: A Theoretical Framework.

The framework provides an approach to address measures at all levels in
the organization. Stakeholders are represented by organization-level
measures such as return on investment (ROI), customer satisfaction, and
employee satisfaction. Process measures can be detailed at whatever
level of aggregation makes sense, and activity performance may be
tracked in detail or not. The challenge is to know which measures are
the critical few. Depending on level of responsibility and purview, each
manager will have a different perspective on which measures to watch.
Senior managers need to watch organization level measures, i.e. those
that depict the degree to which the interests of stakeholders are being
addressed. In the event of a deviation from expectations or for routine
inquiries, senior managers need to "drill" down from organization level
measures to process measures to find out how well they are performing.
Operating managers, who are responsible for process performance and
workers, all need to understand their goals and current performance by
activity. Finally, everyone needs to know how the measures that they are
responsible for link to strategies and other measures for which others
are responsible. This is accomplished by the combination of two
tools---the Measures Wiring Diagram and the software that captures all
aspects of measures at all levels.

The framework in Figure 2-1 satisfies the requirements for information
that can be used by DOI to measure GPRA performance plan goals.

## The Performance Measures Wiring Diagram

The measures wiring diagram (Figure 2-2) is a graphic representation of
the links between measures as they are decomposed from stakeholders to
organization level measures, to processes, and finally to departments
and activities. The purpose of the measures wiring diagram is to ensure
the resulting measurement system is designed to work correctly.

The performance measures wiring diagram is a method of displaying and
organizing all the performance-related data into a comprehensive format.
It takes all measures and corresponding results and presents them in a
way which decision makers can use to help run the business. It is a
simple, yet complete, system to link measures at all levels of the
organization together.

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.491666666666666in"
height="4.604861111111111in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc31511157 .anchor}Figure 2‑2: Performance Measures
-- Wiring Diagram

Activities are at the core of the performance measures wiring diagram.
Analysis of activities provides the initial data and forms the key
initial foundation of the model. Activities are linked in two different
directions. The first direction assigns activities to processes. All
activities are done within the context of a process. Next step is to
align processes with organization goals. Activities are then "wired up"
to processes, and processes to strategies, by depicting an assignment
path. The next step is to put measures and goals on processes, so that
the achievement of the process goals will directly relate to the
achievement of the organization goals. Measures must be concrete,
measurable, realistic, and relate to the organizational goals. The
organization measures should be equal to the sum of process and activity
measures.

Once process level measures have been established, activity-based
measures are developed, using the same logic as described for processes.
Activity measures must clearly depict the contribution made to the
processes within which they function, and to their linked strategies.
This logic extends down to the job or individual performer level. This
completes the performance measures wiring diagram, covering the business
unit view.

### The Software Tool

Software developments since 1995 have created significant capability for
designing effective and inexpensive Enterprise Wide Cost Management
Solutions (EWCMS) solutions. Of particular importance has been the
development of generic capabilities such as data warehousing, data base
software, on-line analytical processing (OLAP) tools, graphic user
interface tools (GUI), simulation modeling, and Internet browsers linked
with communications. Powerful capability offered by personal computing
permits these new tools to manipulate substantial volumes of data,
previously unimagined. Languages and protocols facilitate the open
movement of data from one software environment to another. These new
tools offer significant opportunities for the acquisition, integration,
manipulation, and distribution of data in multidimensional and
multi-attribute perspectives, which are fundamental to effective
Enterprise Cost Management Systems (ECMS).

Consequently, general ledger suppliers who have usually included modules
for fixed assets, accounts payable, cost accounting, and accounts
receivable, are now adding production planning, human resource planning
and tracking, order processing, inventory tracking, and Executive
Information Systems (EIS). By adding utility, software providers also
offer highly desirable integration of the system so those users only
have to concern themselves with managing one data processing solution.
However, these systems have disadvantages, too. In order to be
applicable to the widest possible range of customers, these systems have
to be highly flexible with many different settings available, but once
established, the system becomes highly inflexible. Thus, users are very
much locked in to a rigid structure. The second disadvantage is that
these systems may offer excellence in one or two capabilities, but are
less adequate in others. For example, the general ledger system may be
good, whereas the personnel module may be less adequate.

However, with the development of the new software and communications
tools and highly effective transport of data between them, it is
becoming feasible to manipulate data in one software product and pass it
on to another for further processing or distribution. There are three
levels of processing in most applications coupled with the
communications to suppliers and users of the information: (1) data, (2)
query, and (3) application. The approach used by most ERP solutions is
to store data (in a data base such as DBII or Oracle) only once, at the
data level. Data is then made available to any application that needs
it. In the application layer, data is processed or manipulated and put
back in the data warehouse or made available to people who wish to see
the data. Data is made visible on computer screens by way of the GUI,
which paints an electronic image on a computer screen.

Recent developments in OLAP tools have provided them with massive
capability such as the ability to perform all the mathematics required
to prepare a budget or to model ABC results. OLAP tools obtain data in a
secure manner from either the data warehouse or manual sources and
distribute the information through built-in GUI. OLAP tools interface
with simulation modeling tools to perform what-if scenarios. The GUI
interface can now link to the Internet without having the application
software on the user's computer. Information is provided over the
Internet by sending one screen at a time; thus, it is no longer
necessary to have continuous on-line terminal hook up, nor is it
necessary to send large amounts of data.

The implications of these new tools to ECMS are that much of the
information can be obtained electronically from either a data warehouse
or from diverse data bases using SQL (standard query language) queries.
Information that is not maintained electronically may be entered
manually into a data base such as Microsoft Access or even Excel. If
needed, data can be manipulated in the application layer (e.g., general
ledger or activity costing), and can then further organized for
comparative analysis by an OLAP tool. In an environment where
specialized competent applications are developed, users may choose to
use the best ABC application software on the market, the most suitable
general ledger for their business, or the best process mapping software.
Information from these applications can then be organized into data
cubes using an OLAP tool ready for distribution and then a GUI to
present the data. The GUI software provides a user-friendly environment
with push buttons and pull down menus, reports that can be displayed in
table or graphic form, with trends or performance ranges highlighted by
different colors. The combination of GUI software with modeling
capability in OLAP provides for data to be manipulated simply by users
grabbing lines on a graph with a mouse click and then dragging the curve
to a more desirable profile, and by doing so the software automatically
updates the data base. Information can be distributed and manipulated by
many users over the Internet. If necessary, security facilities exist to
ensure that only the right people have access to information.

# Department of the Interior ABC Initiative

## The Arizona Pilot

The Department of the Interior has decided to implement a pilot for
their ABC initiative. In this pilot they will use the Strategic Plan
that complies with GPRA and create software to test the pilot. DOI's
Activity Based Costing System Pilot Core Implementation team oversees
testing of six department wide ABC models developed to capture cost and
performance metrics for Invasive Species, Recreation, Maintenance, Law
Enforcement, Wild land Fire and Indirect Cost. These models will be
tested in Arizona. The pilot began in January and is expected to end
around April 30, 2003.

The Core Implementation team has three major responsibilities:

-   Selecting appropriate office/work units who will participate in the
    pilot test;

-   Collecting, analyzing, and validating test data for each functional
    area; and

-   Serving as a communications link between employees involved in the
    pilot test and DOI ABC personnel.

DOI has already begun the process of implementing ABCM through the
Arizona pilot. Based on the draft GPRA Performance Plan the following
framework is in place at a high level. However the actual measurement of
the strategic goals requires an integrated cost management system. The
purpose of this report is to suggest a feasible alternative to achieve
that goal. A sample of the work being done by the Arizona pilot is given
below in Figure 3-3. The implications of this framework are discussed
later in this report.

The deliverables for the pilot are:

-   Define standard activities that can be linked to outputs and will be
    used by all Bureaus

-   Define crosscutting activities and obtain agreement from Bureaus

-   Evaluate Pilot Software

-   Populate software and test data

The deliverables will serve four of the DOI Missions (recreation,
resource protection, resource use, and serving communities).
Concurrently, DOI is evaluating the alternatives for a robust solution
that can be deployed Department wide by October 1, 2003.

![](media/image5.wmf){width="6.377083333333333in"
height="4.673611111111111in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc31511158 .anchor}Figure 3‑3: A Sample Performance
Plan.

## Cost System versus Performance Measurement System

Historically there has been a Performance Measurement System unrelated
to a Cost System, due to DOI's legislative reporting requirements. The
Performance Measurement System is a Microsoft Access Database in to
which information is entered manually. In the current Strategic Planning
Cycle, Figure 3-3 is the framework which defines the End Outcomes
(Outcome Goal and Outcome Measures), Intermediate Outcomes (Outcome Goal
(Strategies) and Outcome Measures), and Outputs.

The Cost System, as envisioned by DOI, will define activities and these
activities will also be measured by Outputs. The link between the
Strategic Plan and the Cost System will be established by the Outputs of
the Cost System being linked to the Intermediate Outcomes in the
Strategic Plan. Some of the outputs will be qualitative in nature and
will be tracked outside of the Cost System.

# Gap Analysis

## DOI MIS Design Principles

DOI, having decided that ABCM is an important tool to meet the
information needs of many stakeholders, has created high level design
criteria for a DOI MIS. In the absence of a robust requirements
document, these design principles and a study of the BLM MIS system was
used by G&B to create high level requirements. This helps to measure the
gap between the existing capabilities of the systems at the Bureau level
and the proposed DOI MIS system.

An internal document circulated to the ABC Steering Committee details
eight design principles:

1.  A single source of management information accessible by all
    employees

2.  Cost information will be based on official accounting transactions

    a.  time as recorded by employees through a time and attendance
        system

    b.  record of what they buy

3.  Costs will be coded to reflect actual work performed or actual
    resources consumed rather than budget activity

4.  Uniform definitions of crosscutting activities will be used by all
    Bureaus

5.  Individual Bureaus can choose to define additional or lower level
    activities but must be consistent in linking to crosscutting
    activities

6.  Data will be real time so that finance and performance data will be
    daily and as soon as generated by other source systems

7.  Data will be entered once, but will be accessible for multiple
    purposes

8.  Reports will be predefined or generated by the user without
    technical help

### Gap Analysis and Mitigation Strategies

Based on the above principles the following requirements (in Column 1 of
the table below) may be derived for the purpose of this Gap analysis
only. The focus in the survey was to focus on features, functionality,
and capabilities of the systems from a user perspective. While data
warehousing has a standard technical architecture, the resource
consumption in implementation is driven by the amount of complexity and
customization in a particular project.

The gaps are the inability of the current systems (BLM MIS, OROS, or
other ad hoc systems) to meet the design principles established above
and the functionality and usability requirements detailed below.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Functionality, capabilities**: Description or list of basic features
  to be developed as part of this project and criteria for measuring
  them. Internal / external specifications, requirements, and other
  documents when developed will be referenced appropriately.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Requirement           | Gap                   | Mitigation            |
+=======================+=======================+=======================+
| 1\. Cost Data         | Six of eight Bureaus  | The installation of   |
| Coverage -- provide   | do not have cost data | DOI MIS will close    |
| visibility to 80% of  | available. Though     | this gap. The Arizona |
| DOI, which will       | they use FFS and      | pilot will make       |
| account for \$13.2    | ABACIS and have       | available an activity |
| Billion               | financial data        | dictionary with       |
|                       | available, cost data  | appropriate codes.    |
|                       | at the transaction    | When these codes are  |
|                       | level is not          | installed in both the |
|                       | available. In         | financial and payroll |
|                       | addition, the time    | systems, the data at  |
|                       | and attendance system | the transaction level |
|                       | does not capture time | will be captured.     |
|                       | associated with       |                       |
|                       | activities.           |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 2\. Data Accuracy --  | BLM and BOR reconcile | When Requirement 1 is |
| data reconciles to    | to the general ledger | completed, the        |
| the general ledger    | for activity cost and | reconciliation will   |
|                       | project cost          | be possible.          |
|                       | respectively.         |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 3\. Dimension -- by   | FFS allows all        | The Arizona Pilot has |
| Cost Activity:        | Bureaus to roll up by | to ensure that the    |
|                       | Object Class,         | outputs for           |
| -   Program           | Activity, Program,    | intermediate outcomes |
|                       | Office, State, and    | equal the activity    |
| -   Project           | Bureau. However the   | they have defined. If |
|                       | performance           | they do not match,    |
| -   Activity          | management system     | while costs can be    |
|                       | does not exist in any | reported by activity, |
| -   Object Class      | of the Bureaus where  | performance measures  |
|                       | the current Strategic | will not roll up      |
| -   Goals             | Plan has been         | appropriately.        |
|                       | approved.             |                       |
| -   End Outcomes      |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| -   Intermediate      |                       |                       |
|     Outcomes          |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 4\. Data Sources      | The data sources,     | The implementation of |
|                       | especially for        | DOI MIS will ensure   |
| -   Input from        | current performance   | that all data is      |
|     standard          | reporting, are not    | based on transaction  |
|     transaction       | based on              | systems.              |
|     systems           | transactions. It is   |                       |
|                       | based on multiple ad  | DOI must ensure that  |
| -   Input from        | hoc Bureau specific   | Bureaus with no web   |
|     standard data     | systems.              | based tools for time  |
|     bases             |                       | and attendance data   |
|                       | The front ends of the | entry are mandated to |
| -   Time and          | time and attendance   | use an automated      |
|     attendance        | systems used by the   | system. This will     |
|     systems           | Bureaus are not       | require resources for |
|                       | standard. The use of  | a new system and more |
|                       | time keepers to enter | importantly employee  |
|                       | time sheets into the  | training.             |
|                       | FPPS terminal is      |                       |
|                       | prevalent.            |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 5\. Reporting:        | Three out of Five     | The work done by the  |
|                       | Bureaus have a        | Arizona pilot will    |
| -   For a focused     | warehouse             | ensure that uniform   |
|     group of          | implementation for    | reporting is          |
|     financial         | their individual MIS. | possible. In the      |
|     community users:  | They can meet most of | implementation of the |
|     ad hoc views,     | the reporting         | DOI MIS, explicit     |
|     reporting, and    | requirements. However | standards will have   |
|     export capability | the definition of the | to be established for |
|                       | hierarchy is not      | reporting so that the |
| -   For the casual    | uniform among         | requirements are met. |
|     user: a tool to   | Bureaus.              |                       |
|     access reports    |                       | The use of special    |
|     on-line           | Also the ability to   | query tools like      |
|                       | link to the detail is | Brio, Cognos, or a    |
| -   Limited number of | dependent upon        | report generator like |
|     pre-defined       | feeding transactions  | Crystal Reports needs |
|     reports           | into the warehouse.   | to be standardized.   |
|                       |                       |                       |
| -   Ability to report | Those without an MIS  |                       |
|     by account number | can typically use FFS |                       |
|                       | to report financial   |                       |
| -   Ability to print  | data, but performance |                       |
|     full dimension    | and cost data are     |                       |
|     hierarchy for any | unavailable.          |                       |
|     dimension         |                       |                       |
|                       | Multiple tools exist. |                       |
| -   Ability to print  |                       |                       |
|     report selection  |                       |                       |
|     with hierarchy    |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| -   Ability to link   |                       |                       |
|     to detail         |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 6\. Data Availability | Again, only three out | The DOI MIS system    |
|                       | of five Bureaus have  | when implemented will |
| -   Daily or real     | a data warehouse that | meet this gap.        |
|     time              | has interfaces to     | However, the ability  |
|                       | transaction systems.  | to compare at the     |
| -   Monthly           |                       | activity level to the |
|                       | The ability to        | prior year.           |
| -   Quarterly         | compare activity cost |                       |
|                       | to prior year may not |                       |
| -   Data is available | be possible.          |                       |
|     for the current   |                       |                       |
|     and entire        |                       |                       |
|     previous fiscal   |                       |                       |
|     year (beginning   |                       |                       |
|     with FY05)        |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| -   Include FY04 data |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Usability:** List of criteria concerning access, ease of use, ease of
  learning, and ease of maintenance. This also includes user interface,
  help features, documentation, and training materials. Usability will be
  a key differentiator.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+-------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Requirement             | Gap                 | Mitigation          |
+=========================+=====================+=====================+
| 1\. User Access         | The BLM MIS is      | It is one of the    |
|                         | available to all    | design principles   |
| -   All employees       | BLM employees. The  | of the DOI MIS to   |
|     should have access  | OROS pilots provide | provide access to   |
|     to the data         | limited to access   | all the employees.  |
|     electronically      | to different levels | This has cost and   |
|                         | of users. All other | design              |
|                         | Bureaus provide     | implications. The   |
|                         | limited access to   | use of internet as  |
|                         | employees depending | the platform to     |
|                         | on the system.      | provide read only   |
|                         |                     | access at the basic |
|                         |                     | level can be part   |
|                         |                     | of the              |
|                         |                     | requirements.       |
+-------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| 2\. Security            | While security      | This will be part   |
|                         | standard exists     | of the requirement  |
| -   A rudimentary       | among the Bureaus,  | for the new DOI     |
|     security framework  | especially for the  | MIS.                |
|     to allow either     | core systems, there |                     |
|     full read access or | is no uniform       |                     |
|     no access to the    | standard enforced   |                     |
|     data                | throughout the DOI  |                     |
|                         | for MIS Systems.    |                     |
+-------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| 3\. User interface      | There are currently | The new DOI MIS     |
|                         | multiple tools used | when implemented    |
| -   Interface should    | for the user        | will provide a      |
|     fit the skills of   | interface.          | standard Graphical  |
|     the user group      |                     | User Interface.     |
|                         |                     |                     |
| -   Leverage existing   |                     |                     |
|     user group          |                     |                     |
|     interface standards |                     |                     |
|                         |                     |                     |
| -   Web interface       |                     |                     |
+-------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| 4\. User Training       | These criteria were | To be included in   |
|                         | not tested in the   | the requirements    |
| -   Expert user         | survey for each     | for the new system. |
|     training should not | system.             |                     |
|     take more than 4    |                     |                     |
|     hours               |                     |                     |
|                         |                     |                     |
| -   Casual users should |                     |                     |
|     have self-training  |                     |                     |
|     that takes less     |                     |                     |
|     than 1 hour         |                     |                     |
+-------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+

The above ten gap items are the major ones identified through the survey
and interview process. Appendix 2 is a listing of additional
requirements that should be incorporated in specifications for the new
DOI MIS system. In the next section, we will discuss the implementation
risks that can be identified based on the Gap Analysis.

## Implementation Risks

The Gap Analysis has identified ten major gaps between the "ideal"
requirements and the existing systems. While the Arizona Pilot will
mitigate some of the risks and a robust requirements document will
address other risks, it is prudent to highlight some of the risks which
could affect the success of this implementation.

1.  Coding the Strategic Plan

> The current Strategic Plan has the following structure as given in
> Figure 4-4:

![](media/image6.wmf){width="3.83125in" height="2.872916666666667in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc31511159 .anchor}Figure 4‑4: Strategic Plan
Structure.

> It is critical that the [outputs link up to the goals associated with
> intermediate outcomes]{.underline}. Outputs are activities that are
> defined in the Cost System. If different outputs are mapped to the End
> Outcomes, a new layer will be created and there is a risk that this
> output may not map to an activity in the Cost System. If some of the
> outputs are not measurable, then this must be separately addressed in
> the system design for the DOI MIS. Qualitative goals like employee
> satisfaction or customer satisfaction may derive their output from an
> independent study and be input in a separate module. This is a measure
> that cannot be derived from transaction-based systems.

2.  Coding the Financial System

> Crucial to the mitigation of Risk #1, is the imperative that
> activities in the Cost System map to the outputs in the Performance
> Measurement System. Figure 4-5 below represents visually the data
> dimension roll up structure. This is critical to the design of the
> data structure within the new DOI MIS that is being contemplated. It
> will affect both the data sources and reporting if the integrity of
> the roll up structure is not maintained. It will also affect the
> volume of transactions that will be transported daily to the data
> warehouse once that is built.

![](media/image7.wmf){width="6.620138888888889in"
height="3.267361111111111in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc31511160 .anchor}Figure 4‑5: Rollup Structure

> If this rollup structure is not applied consistently across the
> Bureaus, then the rollup of transaction level data will be rendered
> meaningless.
>
> 3\. Employee Input into Time and Attendance Systems
>
> NPS is the largest Bureau with 20,000 employees that does not require
> employees to input an activity code for their time. Employee input
> represents a behavioral change that needs to be planned and
> appropriate resources need to be provided for implementing a new Time
> and Attendance System. The timing and introduction of a new Time and
> Attendance system needs to be evaluated in conjunction with the design
> of the DOI MIS.
>
> 4\. The Cost Ladder: Level of Detail Risk
>
> In the design principle for the DOI MIS, it has been stated that all
> employees should use the Time and Attendance system to input their
> time against uniformly defined activities. This is considered the
> direct trace method. The OROS pilot uses the survey method. The cost
> ladder below indicates that there is a trade off between degree of
> accuracy and level of effort required. While the survey method may be
> practical, BLM has shown using a Lotus Notes application that the
> direct trace can work with thin the DOI environment. To be consistent,
> DOI should ensure that all Bureaus follow a consistent method of
> tracking resource consumption in terms of labor dollars.

![](media/image8.wmf){width="6.749305555555556in"
height="3.3666666666666667in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc31511161 .anchor}Figure 4‑6: Cost Ladder.

> It is imperative that the Arizona Pilot address this issue in their
> deliberations about creating standard definitions for activities,
> processes, and data structure definition and data sources.

# Feasible Alternatives

## DOI MIS Alternatives

The Department has made an executive decision that it requires an
integrated management information system immediately. Therefore, keeping
the status quo is not an alternative. It could be argued, however, that
since the Department is going to replace the core financial system, the
DOI MIS project should be deferred and the status quo maintained until
FBMS is implemented. We will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages
of this approach. Since DOI already has a proven product operating at
BLM, the alternative of building a warehouse merits serious
consideration. A third alternative is to implement COTS software such as
OROS.

### Alternative 1: Status Quo

The Department maintains the current disparate systems within the
Bureaus and relies only on the Hyperion system for consolidated results
and the Access database for Performance reporting. Under this option,
DOI will have to make changes to existing systems as required to meet
the new needs of information.

Advantages:

1.  The current operations continue with minimal disruption

2.  Resources can be directed towards the new FBMS implementation

Disadvantages:

1.  The urgent need for DOI to obtain cost and performance measurement
    to meet the mandates and needs of stakeholders like OMB will not be
    met. Mission goals will be in jeopardy if there is no way to measure
    resource consumption and progress.

2.  The FBMS system will not be fully functional and operational for at
    least eight years commencing in FY 2004. The DOI needs a system in
    the interim to track costs and performance.

### Alternative 2: Build Warehouse

DOI already has the experience of building an MIS system at BLM. This is
fully functional and meets the design principles of DOI. The BLM MIS
tracks costs at a sub activity and program element level. Performance
and work load measurements are tied to the strategic plan and all
employees have access to this system. The data source is transaction
based systems and employee input into the Time and Attendance system.
This warehouse was customized for DOI using COTS solutions. A
proliferation of this system across all the Bureaus will immediately
satisfy the needs of stakeholders.

Advantages:

1.  The legacy systems continue with minimal disruptions.

2.  DOI staff will be able to access data within a year for management
    reporting.

3.  The DOI MIS will reduce manual processes, increase data availability
    and access, reduce response time to data calls and increase data
    quality.

4.  This alternative has the significant advantage of making changes to
    the data tables in the warehouse as the needs and priorities of the
    department changes each year.

Disadvantages:

1.  DOI will have to ensure that standard definitions exist for
    activities and build cross walks to legacy systems.

2.  Bureaus that do not have employee input into Time and Attendance
    will have to implement new systems.

3.  Compared to the BLM MIS, an additional system like ABACIS has to be
    integrated with the DOI MIS.

### Alternative 3: Implement a COTS Solution

Three Bureaus within DOI have commenced a pilot using COTS software
named OROS. This is one of the leading products for activity based
costing systems and has a good reputation. However, the pilots do not
have the objective of integrating the information of Bureaus. They are
contemplated as stove pipe systems to satisfy the Bureau's needs for
operational independence. For example, the pilots use a modeling
technique to arrive at labor costs by using a survey tool. Integrating
the time and attendance system with this tool will result in a
significant increase in cost and timeline as compared to the Lotus Notes
solution used by BLM.

Advantages:

1.  Perceived ease of implementation

2.  A COTS solution upgrades technology over the years

3.  The DOI MIS will reduce manual processes, increase data availability
    and access, reduce response time to data calls, and increase data
    quality.

Disadvantages:

1.  A COTS solution is easier to implement only when the standard
    options are chosen. Any customization will result in significant
    costs and often such customization is not an option.

2.  A COTS solution typically may not address the needs of all
    customers. DOI is a diverse environment.

3.  Once installed, the COTS solution can prove to be inflexible.

# Evaluation of Alternatives

## Selection Criteria

The three criteria that will be used to evaluate the alternatives are
cost, flexibility, and ability to meet the design principles.

## Cost

The scope of this project was defined as finding feasible alternatives
to close the gap and due to the limited resources available, a high
level analysis based upon DOI staff input. The internal information
suggests that the BLM MIS system cost \$2 million for use by 7,500
employees over a period of 17 months. The BIA pilot of OROS costs
\$182,000. An outside contractor is implementing this software and will
approximately take 12 months. The outside contractor's fee was not
provided. The total cost of the pilot has not been estimated. The
summary is below:

![](media/image9.wmf){width="3.9493055555555556in"
height="2.011111111111111in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc31511164 .anchor}Table 6‑2: Cost Summary, Internal
Data.

The above data unfavorably compares the COTS software to the Build
alternative due to the inadequacy of data on scalability of the pilot.
To mitigate this weakness in data, G&B Solutions obtained a project
financial planner provided by SAS, the parent company of OROS with
prices and resource requirements provided for a hypothetical project.
The estimated costs are presented in this model below (Table 6-3).

The analysis shows that there are three crucial elements by which the
COTS alternative is expensive.

1.  The labor rate is at least 25% higher than the Build alternative.

2.  The viewer licenses are at \$900 per user compared to the Brio
    alternative which is around \$168 per user.

3.  COTS will charge a licensing fee per user, whereas under the Build
    alternative, software costs include the development of web based
    training content.

Therefore using cost as the criteria, Alternative 1, Status Quo, is the
cheapest. Though some costs will be incurred to provide information
through ad hoc systems, this alternative does not meet the design
principles and the management information needs of DOI. Alternative 3,
Implement a COTS Solution, results in a cost increase of 38% at the most
conservative estimate over Alternative 2, Build Warehouse. In fact, if
the viewer software is to be provided for 75% of the DOI employees,
around 48,750 an additional cost of at least \$5 million after
significant discounts will be incurred. The alternative will be to build
a separate user interface which Alternative 2 already delivers within
its present cost estimates. Therefore, Alternative 2, Build Warehouse,
is the most cost effective solution.

![](media/image10.wmf){width="6.493055555555555in"
height="6.260416666666667in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc31511165 .anchor}Table 6‑3: Cost Comparison: Build
Warehouse versus COTS.

### Flexibility

As stated earlier, the ability of any vendor to be able to produce a
flexible solution is an important criterion. Alternative 1, Status Quo,
does not meet the Department's information needs. Alternative 3,
Implement a COTS Solution, requires a significant participation of DOI
staff to make the software work. The BLM MIS model has already been
tested and its functionality has been proven. It has the flexibility of
being modular and its Performance Measurement System can accommodate the
annual changes in performance measures. In the case of the COTS
software, there is an inability to track performance unless the
relationship between measures, outcomes, and activities are hard wired.
Typically the COTS software was written for manufacturing industries
that contain inventory of products, rather than service industries,
where the indirect costs are significantly higher. Alternative 2, Build
Warehouse, takes this into account and builds the logic through an
application based on the information needs specific to DOI and therefore
meets the needs of the service oriented DOI in a more cost effective and
compatible fashion. Above, all changes can be made to the logic and the
queries at a minimum cost and can be maintained much more efficiently
compared to the COTS software where changes to the original code will
almost be impossible and result in suboptimal work around routines.
Therefore Alternative 2, Build Warehouse, presents the most flexibility.

### Ability to Meet Design Principles

Alternative 1, Status Quo, fails to meet most of the design principles.
Alternative 3, Implement a COTS Solution, fails to meet the principle
that all employees should input their time one time into an automated
application that can feed the payroll system. The OROS product has been
built on the logic of Modeling and therefore a Survey Tool is used to
estimate the allocation of time between activities. Alternative 2, Build
Warehouse, as implemented in BLM allows for the direct tracing of costs
for labor dollars. Also, Alternative 2 meets all of the design
principles, whereas the ability of the COTS product to meet the many of
the design principles is yet to be tested. We will not have evidence
until the pilots are completed, which is scheduled to conclude in
October, 2003. These facts again favor Alternative 2.

Based on the above evaluation, it is our conclusion that the Build
Warehouse alternative is the best way to close the gap between the
capabilities of existing baseline systems and the required DOI MIS
system.

# Conclusion

The need for a Department level Management System has been well
established. The Bureaus also recognize this need, but have invested
resources in building their own MIS system. Some of them believe that
only summary information needs to be passed on to the Department,
whereas the design principle for the system is that the data sources
will be original transactions. This leads to the traditional issue of
what information technology processes need to be centralized and those
that need to be decentralized. The figure below visually presents the
framework for choosing the best strategy.

![](media/image11.wmf){width="5.25in" height="3.8208333333333333in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc31511162 .anchor}Figure 7‑7: Decision Framework.

If the Bureaus were to build their own systems like BLM, using the BLM
costs of \$266 per seat, for 65,000 employees, the cost would approach
\$17 million. The DOI MIS approach saves at least \$11 million, not
counting the productivity and other savings related to significant
improvement in response times. BLM has estimated an annual savings of
\$3 million since its implementation of MIS.

The DOI should pursue building its own data warehouse using commercially
available database and query tools. The Department can also ensure that
this warehouse can be integrated with the FBMS that will be deployed
later in the decade. A proliferation of systems within Bureaus does not
ensure that actionable management information is available in a timely,
accurate manner with sufficient detail. Building a DOI MIS does.

# Appendix 1 Survey of Systems {#appendix-1-survey-of-systems .unnumbered}

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DEPARTMENT-WIDE SYSTEMS**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Core Financial System (FFS)                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   Federal Financial System (8 Bureaus/Offices)                      |
|                                                                       |
| Core Financial System                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   Advanced Budget/Accounting Control and Information System (2      |
|     Bureaus)                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Accounting and Aircraft System (OAS)                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payroll Personnel System                                              |
|                                                                       |
| -   Federal Personnel/Payroll System (FPPS)                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Interior Department Electronic Acquisition System (IDEAS)             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **BUREAU SPECIFIC SYSTEMS**                                           |
+=======================================================================+
| Bureau Level Executive Information Systems                            |
|                                                                       |
| -   Management Information System (BLM)                               |
|                                                                       |
| -   Administrative Financial System II (NPS)                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Federal Aid Information Management System (FWS)                   |
|                                                                       |
| -   Financial Reporting and Reconciliation System (NPS)               |
|                                                                       |
| -   Budget and Science Information System (GS)                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   TSC Management Information System (BOR)                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Budget Formulation Systems                                            |
|                                                                       |
| -   Budget Allocation System (FWS)                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Program and Budget System (BOR)                                   |
|                                                                       |
| -   Budget Formulation System (NPS)                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Loan Management Accounting System (BIA)                               |
|                                                                       |
| National Irrigation Management Information System (BIA)               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Trust Funds (BIA, OST)                                                |
|                                                                       |
| -   Trust Funds Accounting System                                     |
|                                                                       |
| -   Integrated Resources Management System                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Facility Construction, Operation, and Maintenance System (BIA)        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Land Management System (BLM)                                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Payment in Lieu of Taxes                                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Collection and Billing System                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Property Management Systems                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   FFS Fixed Assets Subsystem (BIA, BLM, GS, NPS)                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Moveable Property System (BOR)                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Property Management System (MMS)                                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Property Management Web (New System Being Developed by MMS)       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Personal Property Management Information System (FWS)             |
|                                                                       |
| -   Real Property Inventory (FWS)                                     |
|                                                                       |
| -   Federal Real Property Management (GS)                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   Property Accountability Ledger System (OSM)                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Inventory Systems                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| -   FEDSTRIP System (BOR)                                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   DORRAN (GS)                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Peachtree 2000 Inventory System (GS)                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Travel Management Systems                                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   Travel Manager Plus                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Minerals Revenue Management (MMS)                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Surface Mining Grant/Revenue System (OSM)                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   Grant Information Financial Tracking System                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Fee Billing and Collection System                                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   Audit Fee Billing and Collection System                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   Civil Penalty Accounting Control System                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Maintenance Management Systems (Various)                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Source:** Financial Management Status Report and Strategic Plan, *FY
2003 - FY 2007*

# Appendix 2 Requirements {#appendix-2-requirements .unnumbered}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Reliability:** (Release) criteria regarding the product's ability to
  keep running under stress and adverse conditions. This includes design
  robustness, design stability, and learning products.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  **Requirement**                        **Comments**

  1.Use a change control process (e.g.   
  configuration changes, distribution,   
  \... )                                 

  2\. No appreciable impact on PC client 
  reliability                            

  3\. Repeatable, consistent reporting   

  4\. System Control Reports             
  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Performance:** Criteria concerning product speed (e.g. time to
  perform certain function), also compared to previous revisions. Can be
  tested (performance test suite) or judged by simulation or applying
  modeling techniques.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  **Requirement**                        **Comments**

  1\. Minimized impact on the resources  
  used (LAN, WAN, system, service, \...) 

  2\. Execution of pre-defined reports   
  and ad hoc queries stays within        
  published time parameters              
  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Supportability:** All measures that make the product easy to support
  require less maintenance and minimize customer calls.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **Requirement**                      | **Comments**                  |
+======================================+===============================+
| 1\. All Phase1 dimensions have       |                               |
| identified definition/ content       |                               |
| owners                               |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 2\. A methodology and documentation  |                               |
| to administrate the Phase 1          |                               |
| dimensions                           |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 3\. Phase 1 Support Plan             | Allow a minimum of 2 months   |
|                                      | lead time for Help Desk       |
| -   Roles and responsibilities need  | requirements                  |
|     to be communicated appropriately |                               |
|     with adequate lead time for      |                               |
|     training, etc.                   |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 4\. Documentation --                 |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| -   Installation/Customization       |                               |
|     instructions                     |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| -   Systems Guide/Processing         |                               |
|     documentation                    |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| -   FAQs                             |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 5\. Authorization Process            |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| -   control/identification of users  |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Compatibility:** Description of the product's ability to
  coexist/run/interrelate with other products, and possible dependencies
  on those other product's revisions.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

***Requirement Comments***

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **Requirement**                      | **Comments**                  |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 1.  Linkage to specified systems     |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| -   FFS                              |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| -   FPPS                             |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Installability:** Criteria describing how easy / fast it is to
  install the product in a typical environment.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  **Requirement**                        **Comments**

  1\. Self-installable on client         

  2\. Easily installable from central    
  server                                 
  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Portability**: Design goals as to how the product can later on be
  ported to other hardware platforms and / or operating system revisions
  with minimal effort.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **Requirement**                      | **Comments**                  |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 1\. Platform                         |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| -   Client supported on different    |                               |
|     platforms                        |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 2\. Access over low speed connection |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 3\. Must run under native language   |                               |
| COE                                  |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Availability:** Criteria describing the time parameters for product
  availability to the user.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **Requirement**                      | **Comments**                  |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 1\. The server and application will  |                               |
| be "up" during 95% of normal         |                               |
| business hours in all geographies.   |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 2\. System/Application Recovery      |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| -   Within 3 business days           |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| -   Within 2 business days           |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 3\. Disaster Planning and Recovery   |                               |
| (DPRP) -- recovery within 2 weeks    |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+