**USDA OCIO Integrated IT Governance Process**

**CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE INTEGRATED PLANNING PROCESS FOR
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IGP for IT)**

**v. 2.0**

DRAFT as of 5/17/2007

***TABLE OF CONTENTS***

**PREFACE [2](#preface)**

1.0 BACKGROUND [2](#background)

1.1 Introduction [2](#introduction)

1.2 Document Overview [2](#document-overview)

1.3 What is New about the IGP for IT, for USDA IT Planners and Managers?
[2](#what-is-new-about-the-igp-for-it-for-usda-it-planners-and-managers)

2.0 CURRENT IT GOVERNANCE SITUATION AT USDA
[2](#current-it-governance-situation-at-usda)

2.1 Introduction [2](#introduction-1)

2.2 Motivation for an Integrated Approach to IT Governance
[2](#motivation-for-an-integrated-approach-to-it-governance)

2.3 The Current State of IT Governance at USDA
[2](#the-current-state-of-it-governance-at-usda)

3.0 USDA's Integrated IT Governance Process
[2](#usdas-integrated-it-governance-process)

3.1 Introduction [2](#introduction-2)

3.2 Objectives of the IGP for IT [2](#objectives-of-the-igp-for-it)

3.3 Proposed System Attributes (why put this info in here? Shouldn't
this be what OCIO attempts to follow?)
[2](#proposed-system-attributes-why-put-this-info-in-here-shouldnt-this-be-what-ocio-attempts-to-follow)

3.4 Expected? System Capabilities [2](#expected-system-capabilities)

3.5 Components of the IGP for IT [2](#components-of-the-igp-for-it)

3.6 Processes of the IGP for IT [2](#processes-of-the-igp-for-it)

3.7 User Groups [2](#user-groups)

3.8 Policies and Standards Underlying the IGP for IT
[2](#policies-and-standards-underlying-the-igp-for-it)

3.9 Tools of the IGP for IT [2](#tools-of-the-igp-for-it)

3.10 Interfaces of the IGP for IT with other External Processes and
Systems
[2](#interfaces-of-the-igp-for-it-with-other-external-processes-and-systems)

3.11 Assumptions [2](#assumptions)

3.12 Adverse Effects [2](#adverse-effects)

4.0 Operational Scenarios [2](#operational-scenarios)

4.1 Introduction [2](#introduction-3)

4.2 Reframing the Current Portfolio Scenario
[2](#reframing-the-current-portfolio-scenario)

4.3 USDA Portfolio Evaluation Scenario [**Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc156968990)

5.0 Summary of Impacts [2](#summary-of-impacts)

5.1 Introduction [2](#introduction-4)

5.2 Operational Impacts [2](#operational-impacts)

5.3 Organizational Impacts [2](#organizational-impacts)

6.0 Glossary and Acronyms [2](#glossary-and-acronyms)

7.0 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS [2](#referenced-documents)

7.1 Standards and Guidelines [2](#standards-and-guidelines)

7.2 OMB Documentation [2](#omb-documentation)

8.0 Appendices [2](#appendices)

# 

# PREFACE

This Concept of Operations (ConOps) is a conceptual overview of the
proposed Integrated IT Governance Process (IGP for IT). The ConOps is
intended to support the evolution of a fully integrated, modernized, and
functional process where United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Information Technology (IT) investments can be traced from their
conception through their implementation and return on investment. In
addition, individual investments will be considered as part of an
overall IT portfolio and evaluated as such in light of USDA's future
needs and directions.

Because of this future dimension, the ConOps will be a living document
and will be coordinated in a collaborative manner with industry, public,
and Government stakeholders to ensure the viability of the concepts
represented. The proposed IGP for IT will include all of the associated
processes, guidance and technical documentation, software, hardware,
policy, and personnel required for ensuring that USDA IT investments are
carefully managed from concept development through their retirement and
that the USDA IT infrastructure grows in coordination with industry,
federal, and agency directions.

The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) is engaged in an
ongoing effort to establish, maintain, and support an integrated IT
investment analysis and decision-making environment. IGP for IT, when
completely implemented, will provide a dynamic means of capturing,
retaining, and presenting IT investment information so that the OCIO has
the necessary tools to carry out legislated mandates. This document is
intended to introduce and provide an overview of the structure of the
IGP for IT.

Figure 1 shows the structure of the guidance and technical documentation
that supports the IGP for IT. The documentation consists of this Concept
of Operations document, three "how-to" guides that lay out the
activities, requirements, roles, and responsibilities for USDA personnel
to participate fully in the IGP for IT, a series of technical manuals
describing essential components of the IGP for IT---such as the EA, the
EVM process, and the IT strategic planning process---and an IGP for IT
Glossary.

This documentation suite is being developed iteratively over the FY
2007--- FY 2008 time frame. Figure 1 provides the estimated FY quarter
when it is anticipated that version 1.0 of each document will be
available.

![](media/image2.png){width="5.392361111111111in"
height="4.422916666666667in"}

Figure 1

-   **Concept of Operations**

> The ConOps (this document) provides a description of the overall
> governance process and its various elements.

-   **"How To" Guides**

> There are several "How To" Guides that are part of the IGP for IT
> documentation:

-   **Guide to Investment Planning and Review**

> This guidance document provides guidance for both for NEW investments
> and for CONTINUING investments. In every year, every component in the
> active portfolio (those in CONTROL, STEADY STATE, and EVALUATION) as
> well as all new investments (PRE-SELECT and SELECT) go through the
> Investment Planning process. This guide provides the steps for
> planning an investment and getting it through the approval and review
> process.

-   **Guide to Investment Management (Financial Perspective)**

> This guidance document provides the structure and activities needed to
> ensure that all investments are tracked from the investment approval
> through their implementation and their generation of returns to USDA.
> Through this process, USDA will be tracking all IT acquisitions
> independent of where the investment is in the CPIC process.

-   **Guide to Portfolio Evaluation (Enterprise and Agency)**

> This guidance document outlines the method to be used in evaluating
> the USDA IT Investment Portfolio at both the USDA level and the Agency
> level. The intent of this portfolio evaluation is to identify
> opportunities for advancement of the USDA infrastructure (reduction of
> redundancy, planning future updates, combining efforts to increase
> synergy, etc.) while ensuring that USDA investments are aligned with
> the mission of the Department and its Agencies..

-   **Technical Manuals on Specific IGP for IT Components**

> The IGP for IT documentation also covers the technical description of
> ICG components, including the following:

-   **Capital Investment Planning and Control (CPIC)**

> Provides detailed instructions for the completion of OMB documentation
> that is required for all major IT investments. This documentation is
> updated annually to accommodate changes required by OMB.

-   **Strategic Planning for IT at USDA**

> Describes the process for developing the 5-year IT strategic plan for
> USDA and how that plan is used to filter the investment decisions made
> by the Department.

-   **Earned Value Management (EVM) System**

> Provides the background and the mechanics for implementing EVM as the
> key measurement strategy for IT investments. OMB requires that EVM be
> integrated in the life cycle of projects that meet certain thresholds,
> but the USDA IGP for IT intends to require EVM information from the
> majority of its IT investments.

-   **Enterprise Architecture (EA)**

> EA is the program that is responsible for building and maintaining the
> knowledge base of information (the EA repository) that supports
> investment decision making throughout USDA. The manual describes what
> EA is, how it will be developed and enhanced over time, and how it is
> used in the investment decision making process.

-   **"Line of Sight" for USDA IT Spending**

> Describes the business processes and supporting information systems
> required to ensure that USDA stakeholders have insight into the
> tracking and management of USDA IT investments throughout each
> investment's life-cycle.)

-   **System Development Life Cycle Framework**

> Describes the structured framework of activities expected of any IT
> investment opportunities. Agencies are welcome to select their own
> development methodology, but to ensure compatibility at the
> Departmental level; all Agencies must map their methods to the
> Department's SDLC framework.

-   **USDA Governance Roles and Responsibilities**

> Describes the various governance groups and their roles and
> responsibilities in the IGP for IT, including how the roles interact
> in the IT investment decision-making processes.

-   **Glossary**---contains a list of key terms, *as they are used by
    the IGP for IT*. Many of these terms do not have one, agreed-upon
    definition in the IT management community. Therefore, it is crucial
    to understanding the flow and processes of the IGP for IT that
    stakeholders use the Glossary on a regular basis to ensure a common
    understanding of the concepts and processes addressed.

-   **User Manuals for Specific IGP for IT Tools**---the IGP for IT
    documentation also includes user manuals for ICG tools such as the
    EA Repository (EAR), WorkLenz, and others.

#  

# 1.0 BACKGROUND 

### 1.1 Introduction

The Information Technology Management Reform Act (ITMRA) of 1996 (also
known as the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 or 40 U.S.C. 1401(3)), charges
Federal Government CIOs with responsibility for supervising and
coordinating the design, acquisition, maintenance, use and disposal of
information technology by agencies and for monitoring the performance of
information technology programs and activities. At USDA, the Office of
the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) is also responsible for assuring
that USDA's information management functions are consistent with the
principles of the Paperwork Reduction Act and with information security
and privacy requirements. The Clinger-Cohen Act also requires executive
agencies to develop a CPIC process for making technology, budget,
financial and program management decisions.

Each year the complexity of the IT environment grows and making sound IT
investment decisions requires greater amounts of information. For the
investment year 2007, USDA has 303 individual IT investments, with 66 of
these considered major investments (need to get 2008 statistics from
CPIC when available). OCIO needs to respond effectively to the challenge
posed by the diversity, complexity, and enormous volume of IT
investments being proposed by stakeholders throughout USDA.

### 1.2 Document Overview 

The IGP for IT ConOps serves as a vehicle to communicate the high-level
characteristics of the IGP for IT to USDA IT stakeholders. The IGP for
IT concept is the result of analyzing the challenges involved in the
management of IT investments throughout the federal government and many
of the subprocesses described in this document take their direction from
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Government Accountability
Office (GAO), Presidential directions, and IT industry best practices.

The document contains the following sections.

-   The Preface places the ConOps in the context of other IGP for IT
    documentation.

-   Section 1 introduces the IGP for IT ConOps.

-   Section 2 describes the motivation for the IGP for IT and the
    current IT governance situation at USDA.

-   Section 3 describes the proposed IGP for IT.

-   Section 4 describes operational scenarios that help demonstrate how
    the IGP for IT functions.

-   Section 5 summarizes operational and organizational impacts caused
    by the IGP for IT.

-   Section 6 provides additional information such as an acronym list
    that can be used to enhance readability and understanding of the
    document.

-   Section 7 provides a list of reference documentation that was used
    in the creation of the document.

-   Section 8 is reserved for appendices.

### 1.3 What is New about the IGP for IT, for USDA IT Planners and Managers?

In 2007, OCIO initiated an effort to significantly revise, update, and
enhance the current investment management practices at USDA. This
section lists the major expected changes in the IGP for IT when the IGP
for IT is fully implemented. These changes---particularly those that
will be required in the 2007 planning year---are explained in more
detail in Section 3.0 and in the detailed "how-to" guides that accompany
this ConOps.

1.  All investments must be framed to have either a one-to-one
    relationship or a one-to-many relationship with the systems that
    they describe in their documentation.

> There can be no cases in which a single system is divided among
> multiple investments. If such cases exist prior to planning year 2007,
> they will have to be reframed by their owner into the 1:1 or 1:many
> structure.

2.  When one investment describes more that one system, all the systems
    within that investment must have the same Business Reference Model
    code (derived from the BRM in the EA).

> This change assumes that agency architectures and the USDA EA are kept
> in careful alignment by the EA team.

3.  All investments---both major and non-major---will continue to be
    documented in the investment management system (currently, that
    system is the WorkLenz tool). Beginning in 2007, additional data
    elements will be required for all non-majors to ensure enough
    information is available at the Investment Planning and Review stage
    to allow "line of sight" tracking of the investment through the rest
    of the IGP for IT, including acquisition approval (AA), procurement,
    and portfolio evaluation.

> Expanded life cycle categories---Life cycle system costs will be
> estimated and captured at the system level and rolled up into the
> total investment. (Currently, expanded life cycle cost is kept only at
> the investment level).
>
> In addition to new templates being completed by all investments,
> non-majors will now complete additional narrative information in
> WorkLenz. A new template is being developed to help project managers
> identify which information fields within WorkLenz now will apply. This
> new information maintained in WorkLenz will allow OCIO to phase-out
> and then eliminate several data calls that occur regularly, beginning
> with the Business Supplemental Data (BSD).
>
> Additional required data for non-majors will include:

-   New narrative sections

-   Acquisition strategy---All investments will now complete an
    Acquisition Plan template in WorkLenz. A new template is being
    developed to help project managers pre-populate the plan with
    related data elements already in WorkLenz (re-use) and to identify
    those data elements that must yet be completed. This will occur in a
    phased-approach based on fiscal year. Placing this template in
    WorkLenz will allow OCIO to reduce substantially the AA request data
    format currently is use. Additionally, it will connect in one place
    the investment planning and acquisition management information upon
    which AAs are requested and approved

4.  All investments---including non-majors---will now report regular
    cost and schedule performance data. (Currently, only major
    investments that are above the EVM threshold of \$20 million, report
    monthly EVMdata through WorkLenz. The OCIO is preparing guidance to
    help project mangers of non-major investments utilize WorkLenz for
    project performance monitoring).

5.  A USDA System development life cycle (SDLC) framework is being
    adopted to standardize the cost/schedule reporting. Agencies will be
    required to map their own system development methods to the USDA
    framework. This will provide consistency when analyzing
    cost/schedule performance data.

6.  A peer review process will be established by which investment
    documentation prepared during the Investment Review and Planning
    process will be reviewed. This peer review, provided by a subset of
    Enterprise Change Control Board members, will review the quality and
    consistency of the investment documentation.

7.  The AA process is being restructured and streamlined by reusing
    investment information that is provided during the annual planning
    cycle. This information will be used to tie the acquisition request
    back to the original investment and is required for providing "line
    of sight" from investment planning through procurement. When the IGP
    for IT is fully implemented, this information flow will be
    automated.

8.  Portfolio review and evaluation at both the agency and USDA levels
    will precede investment planning and review to ensure that USDA IT
    investments are being driven not only by agency mission but also by
    the evolving USDA (and federal) IT architecture.

9.  The IGP for IT will be supported by a virtual investment
    knowledgebase consisting of multiple tools that have been structured
    to work together as one entity. Currently, this investment knowledge
    base consists of WorkLenz, the Enterprise Architecture Repository
    (EAR), and the security system, ASSERT.

# 2.0 CURRENT IT GOVERNANCE SITUATION AT USDA

### 2.1 Introduction

This section describes the current IT governance process currently in
place at USDA and the motivation for implementing the IGP for IT.

### 2.2 Motivation for an Integrated Approach to IT Governance 

USDA has been ahead of the curve in IT governance in the federal arena.
The USDA Capital Planning and Investment (CPIC) process and the Guide
that supports it have been used as models by numerous other federal
agencies. Furthermore, USDA has made progress on a number of other
fronts in terms of advancing the practice of IT management, including
participation in the vast majority of Presidential Initiatives, the
investment in an evolving EA, and the development of an AA process for
approving IT acquisitions.

During this time, however, the government's understanding and
appreciation for the role of effective, integrated IT governance has
continued to grow. Over the years, OMB has continued to evolve its
understanding of and requirements for an EA that drives agency and
investment decisions. OMB continues to drive federal agencies toward
higher levels of system aggregation and reduction of redundancy by
stressing the commonalities of similar lines of business (LoBs) and the
efficiencies that can be gained from adopting a LOB approach to planning
and portfolio review. For such an approach to be successful, a mature,
EA-based portfolio evaluation approach must be closely integrated with
the investment planning and review cycle.

Over the years, USDA has also developed an appreciation for the fact
that its IT infrastructure results not only from the implementation of
large systems projects, but also through the implementation of many,
smaller projects. This fact points to the need to track all IT
acquisitions because of their impact on the EA. At the same time,
financial accountability mandates that IT expenditures are carefully
tracked and tied back into the investment review process. This
guarantees financial accountability to the level of individual
purchases, and permits insight into how individual purchases align with
major and non-major investments and allows how individual purchases
aligned with the target EA.

The goals of IGP for IT include:

1.  Transparent and timely decisions

2.  Leverage cross agency opportunities for improved citizen services
    and cost savings

3.  Increase information security and stakeholder privacy

4.  High fiscal accountability; budget request supported by project
    planning

5.  Implement a consistent USDA IT infrastructure

6.  Measurable returns from our IT investments

7.  Compliance with federal and presidential mandates

### 2.3 The Current State of IT Governance at USDA

Despite USDA's history of good IT governance, the current IT governance
environment consists of a number of independent systems and processes
that do not adequately fulfill the evolving expectations---from the
citizen, Congress, the President, and emerging IT best practices---for
IT governance.

Currently at USDA, several processes exist---a formal CPIC process, the
analysis of and participation in Presidential and cross-Departmental
initiatives interests, the review of IT systems, the evolving
development of an EA program, the use of the E-Board to review planned
IT capital investments---that help USDA address the corporate planning
needs of the Department. Over the past three or four years, these
processes have become more integrated as the need to meld the different
points of view into one planning process has become obvious.

However, these processes remain mainly stove pipe processes. Any
interaction among them up to now has been strictly mechanical and
external to the processes themselves. As such, they have limited ability
to address comprehensively the entire lifecycle management of IT
investments while at the same time supporting all aspects of USDA's
evolving IT infrastructure. The intent of the IGP for IT is to integrate
these processes internally to increase their interoperability and thus
their ability to meet the increasing demands for USDA IT investment
accountability.

# 3.0 USDA's Integrated IT Governance Process

### 3.1 Introduction

This section describes the IGP for IT with respect to the objectives of
the IGP for IT; operational policies and constraints that apply to the
IGP for IT; the components---processes, user groups, policies and
standards, and tools---of the IGP for IT; IGP for IT interfaces with
other external processes and systems, assumptions and constraints
concerning the IGP for IT, and adverse effects that may occur if the IGP
for IT is not implemented.

### 3.2 Objectives of the IGP for IT 

The IGP for IT is intended to ensure that all USDA IT investments:

-   Support the Departmental and agency mission, particularly in terms
    of the services provided to citizens, and

-   Contribute to the USDA's enterprise-wide IT infrastructure.[^1]

To accomplish these goals the USDA IGP for IT must:

-   Provide line of sight visibility for OCIO and agency CIO's on IT
    investments from their conceptual development through their
    implementation and eventual retirement.

-   Provide information for decision-making on all IT investments on an
    annual basis so that IT investments can be continually monitored for
    their contribution to the two major objectives listed above.

-   Involve all USDA senior IT decision-makers in appropriate ways and
    at appropriate times in the IT decision-making process to ensure
    that the point-of-view of all USDA stakeholders is considered.

-   Integrate and automate as much of the investment tracking
    information as possible to provide this information to
    decision-makers at the lowest possible overhead cost.

### 3.3 Proposed System Attributes (why put this info in here? Shouldn't this be what OCIO attempts to follow?)

From an overall system perspective, the IGP for IT possess the following
attributes.

-   Usability -- the processes, systems, and policies of the IGP for IT
    must be understandable and usable for IGP for IT stakeholders.

-   Security -- IGP for IT information should be accessible by those
    users with a need to have the information. Unauthorized persons
    should not be allowed into the IGP for IT tools and databases.

-   Modularity -- the IGP for IT must be implemented with the ability to
    use plug-in components (processes and tools) that can be updated or
    replaced with minimal impact to remaining components as workload and
    technology change.

-   Comprehensiveness---the IGP for IT must have the ability to provide
    support for the entire lifecycle of IT investments, including their
    eventual retirement and replacement.

-   Flexibility -- the IGP for IT must be flexible enough to meet the
    needs of the Department while providing individual agencies the
    ability to meet the specific needs of their own stakeholders and
    customers.

-   Scalability -- the IGP for IT in all its parts, including cost
    tracking, EA, procurement tracking, and so on, must be able to
    support multiple users at multiple levels in an effective and timely
    way.

### 3.4 Expected System Capabilities 

To meet the challenges of today and the future, the IGP for IT should
provide the following capabilities:

-   Provide access to investment information for all users based on
    established user rights and privileges to ensure that its users are
    able to access all of the investment information that they are
    entitled to see.

-   Manage the creation, review, and approval new investments.

-   Support the development, storage, and sharing of investment
    documentation and review throughout the investment lifecycle.

-   Support the collection and reporting of cost/schedule data for all
    investments.

-   Ensure that AA data can be tied back to the systems and investments
    that generated the AA request.

-   Ensure that procurement tracking information ties to the AA request

-   Keep an archival reference of investment documentation as an
    investment proceeds though its lifecycle so that changes can be
    compared from one year to the next.

-   Store investment records in a manner that is independent of any
    particular hardware and software component over long periods of time

-   Adapt to changing technology in order to continue to provide access
    to and delivery of information desired by the IGP for IT stakeholder
    community

### 3.5 Components of the IGP for IT 

The IGP for IT is a complex information system that combines structured
and ad hoc processes, people in various user groups, some automated
tools, policies and instructions, and information flows. Through the IGP
for IT, information is created, collected, analyzed, evaluated, and
passed on to USDA and other federal decision makers for use by them in
making IT investment decisions.

Figure 2 depicts the components of the IGP for IT. At the heart of the
IGP for IT is the virtual knowledgebase than combines information
derived from the EA repository (EAR), the portfolio management tool
(WorkLenz), the security management tool (ASSERT) and other sources into
a virtual database than can support the needs of multiple processes and
users.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.997916666666667in"
height="3.9791666666666665in"}

Figure 2

These components are discussed in more detail below.

### 3.6 Processes of the IGP for IT

The IGP for IT consists of multiple processes that are combined to
produce the information required for sound IT investment
decision-making. These processes include processes that address the flow
of investments from planning through implementation and portfolio
evaluation. As seen in Figure 3, three major process
streams---Investment Planning and Review, Investment Management, and
Portfolio Evaluation, support USDA IT investment decision-making.

Other processes are also essential for the effective governance of IT.
The processes associated with the USDA EA program, for instance, ensures
that a current "target"

![](media/image4.png){width="9.453472222222222in"
height="5.572916666666667in"}

#### USDA IT architecture is available for investment planners to use in their planning and evaluation activities. Similarly, a security management program ensures that appropriate, up-to-date security guidance is available to investment managers. The major IGP for IT processes are briefly explained below.

#### Investment Planning and Review -- Every year, through the Investment Planning and Review element of the IGP for IT, the USDA OCIO prepares an IT budget for future IT spending based on data provided by agencies. This process begins with a memo that is sent from OCIO to all the USDA agencies and that lists the required actions and documentation for the agency's investments as well as due dates. Beginning in 2007, the beginning of this process was moved to an earlier start date in the fiscal year to provide more time for organizing, collecting and integrating IT data across disciplines such as EA, Cyber Security, and AA. The integrated process associated with the IGP for IT involves a broader and deeper degree of review and analysis, thus more time is needed for these activities before the budget is finalized and submitted for approval to OMB in September. 

#### Investment planning and review involves three major steps:

-   Document preparation and submission by the agencies

-   An iterative cycle of Investment review to ensure the quality and
    appropriateness of the investment

-   Investment approval for submission to the Office of Management and
    Budget.

#### Investment Management -- Every year, IT managers throughout USDA need to acquire services, equipment, hardware, software, and other supplies to support and implement their IT investments. Furthermore, by law at USDA all IT acquisitions above \$25,000 must be approved by the OCIO. This element of the IGP for IT replaces the previous "waiver" process and provides rigor and discipline to the IT acquisition process. 

In the IGP for IT, information collected about the investments in
Investment Planning and Review will be used to tie the AA request to the
specific investment/system that the acquisition will support. Upon OCIO
approval of the AA request, the information will then be forwarded to
the procurement tracking process to ensure that the purchases themselves
can be tracked to the investment/system level.

Finally, investment management also means that specific development
efforts are tracked for their cost and schedule variance. This step is
part of ensuring that the investment is meeting its cost and schedule
goals as planned in the investment documentation. Major investments will
follow the formal rigor of the EVM approach as the method of choice to
monitor project progress.

#### Portfolio Evaluation -- Every year, portfolio analysis is conducted on the portfolio USDA IT investments. Portfolio evaluation involves two key processes---agency portfolio review and USDA portfolio review. On an annual basis, agency and department architects and evaluators review the current investment portfolio to ensure that the portfolio supports the USDA mission and supports the direction of the USDA target architecture. 

#### The portfolio evaluation process uses information from a variety of sources in conducting the analysis. Performance information from existing investments is critical to the considerations of the portfolio team. Investments that are not making the projected progress in either cost or schedule could find themselves high-lighted in this review. The review will help identify systems that may be in need of replacement in the next several years and which will be viable for years to come.

![](media/image5.wmf){width="3.7222222222222223in"
height="3.9965277777777777in"}

The results of the agency and USDA-wide portfolio evaluation are then
provided to investment planners as they begin the next annual planning
cycle.

#### Enterprise Architecture (EA) -- The processes associated with the EA lead to the creation of three essential products that are key to the functioning of the IGP for IT. First, the EA provides a model of the current, "as is" environment. This as-is corresponds to a great extent to the current portfolio of "implemented" projects. Secondly, the EA provides a model for a target architecture, known in EA parlance as the "to be" architecture. Thirdly, the EA program provides a transition sequencing plan that shows, at a high level, the steps that need to be taken to move from the current to the target architecture. These products are provided to portfolio planners as they conduct their annual portfolio evaluations. In addition, the EA team uses the products of the EA to review investment documentation during the OCIO review cycle in investment planning and review. 

#### System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) -- Cost and schedule status reporting requires a set of consistent expectations concerning the implementation structure for IT investments. It is within this framework that a common understanding between managers and evaluators can be built in terms of expected tasks and accomplishments, deliverables, and process gates from one life cycle phase to the next. This SDLC framework is provided by the SDLC (Figure 5). 

![](media/image6.wmf){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="1.1555555555555554in"}

Figure 5

#### By intention the USDA SDLC is a high-level framework that gives general guidance but that does not constrain the ability an agency to use whatever detailed development methodology they may decide to use within their agencies own agencies. During FY 2007, agencies will be expected to map their own system development methods to the USDA framework. Cost and schedule data will be tracked using the USDA framework to establish a common ground for interpreting project status. 

#### Security Management -- Security is a critical component of IT management. Security management processes have multiple roles in the IGP for IT, including investment planning review, AAR review, review of project implementations, and portfolio management. All USDA IT investments must consider the security guidelines and policies and security is involved in the initial OCIO investment review as well as in the review of AARs. 

#### Security must also play an important role in portfolio review and the scanning of future technologies. Security operations are evolving constantly, in response to advance in technology and advances in the sophistication of the threats and attacks on computer networks. Thus security management must have a seat at the portfolio evaluation and technology scanning tables to ensure a secure future for USDA investments.

#### Operations management -- Operations management oversees the general upkeep of the USDA IT infrastructure and the provision of shared services to USDA personnel. The processes associated with operations and maintenance are reviewed on an annual basis as part of the portfolio evaluation process. Operations management processes, while supporting the day-to-day functioning of the infrastructure, however, also has activities that link them to the IGP for IT at particular points.

For instance, telecommunications review is often required during the
investment planning and review process to guarantee that investment
managers are taking into account the telecommunications needs of the
investment. Similarly, operations management review of AAR's helps
guarantee that the proposed acquisitions are compatible with the current
situation. ![](media/image7.wmf){width="3.270138888888889in"
height="1.4638888888888888in"}

Operations management must also be involved in the development of the IT
transition sequencing plan serves as a means for scheduling updates to
the overall IT infrastructure. Large system innovations---IPV6 is a good
example---take their place in the target architecture based on the
evaluation and approval of the portfolio management team (including ECCB
review and OCIO approval). However, the innovation remains *only* in the
target architecture until a transition sequencing plan to move the
organization from the current situation to the target situation is
developed and executed. Since operations management controls the
environment that is the subject of the transition, they must be
intimately involved in the planning and execution of it.

#### IT Strategic Planning -- Strategic planning is the process of periodically identifying changes in the external environment that are driving change within the organization, assessing to potential effects of those changes, and adjusting the long term focus of the organization to respond most effectively to those changes, given the current strengths and weaknesses of the organization.

For an IT organization, the sectors of the environment that are of most
interest are naturally the technology sector, the labor sector (what the
demographics of the available workforce are), and to some extent, the
regulatory sector (how technologies are enabled or constrained in their
use by regulation). However, an IT strategy must also support the
business of the organization. Therefore, it is critical to good
strategic planning that changes in other business-related sectors are
also considered. At USDA, these strategic sectors would include the
agricultural industry, the political and socio-economic sectors, and
even the environmental sector. And, of course, the IT strategy must
support the enterprise-wide USDA strategy.

The IT strategy performs one of the key functions in the investment
process. While IT investments must advance the USDA technical
infrastructure, they must also support the USDA mission and vision. The
IT strategy is the document that provides assistance in aligning IT
investments with agency and Department vision.

#### Policy Development -- The IGP for IT must be supported by clear, effective policies that convey the expectations for participation in the process to all IGP for IT stakeholders. 

### 3.7 User Groups

Anyone who will interact with IGP for IT is considered an IGP for IT
user. The major user groups associated with the IGP for IT are described
briefly below.

#### OCIO -- The Office of the Chief Information Officer at USDA has several reasons for areas of interest in the effective of the IGP for IT. First and foremost, the IGP for IT is the principal mechanism through which the OCIO executes IT investment accountability requirements. In addition, the IGP for IT helps the OCIO identify potential areas for business transformation. OCIO owns the IGP for IT process and administers it on a continuous basis.

#### Agency CIOs -- CIOs at the agency level work closely with OCIO to enforce Department wide IT policies and procedures within the agency. They are responsible for planning and executing IT strategies at the agency level that support the agency mission while advancing the USDA-wide architecture.

#### Strategic Planners and Policy Personnel -- Strategic planner and policy personnel execute strategic initiatives and Departmental policies including policies associated with IGP for IT.

#### Human Capital Planners -- Human capital (HC) management ensures that the right resources are available to USDA at any given time. The HC planners establish and manage human capital policies, programs, and practices to sustain a knowledgeable workforce, whose skills support the agency\'s and USDA's target architecture and strategic directions.

#### E-Board -- The Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board (E-Board), comprised of senior-level policy executives, was established pursuant to the requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act. The E-Board's role is to ensure that USDA IT investments are managed as strategic business resources. 

#### Enterprise Change Control Board (ECCB) -- The ECCB facilitates collaborative decision making among Agencies to resolve common IT challenges and issues. OCIO established the Information Technology ECCB to assist USDA's OCIO in making investment decisions. In addition, the ECCB advises the USDA Chief Information Officer (CIO) and the USDA IT Leadership Team (ITL) of the value and opportunity to share or consolidate IT services, applications, and infrastructure.

#### Program Managers and Domain Owners -- Senior managers within USDA---program managers and domain owners---are those who own the IT investments that help them run their areas more effectively. Therefore, they have great interest in understanding the IGP for IT and how to work within the process to get what they need in terms of IT capability. All of these managers, however, must understand that their IT investments must support both their agency's mission and the USDA architecture. Therefore, some investment recommendations will be that the multiple investment sponsors work together on a single investment, since the business processes outlined in the investment for support spans organizational boundaries.

#### Agency Portfolio Managers -- At each Agency, the portfolio manager manages the portfolio that contains all the agency's IT investments. The portfolio manager will participate in the full range of IGP for IT activities, from framing the investments in the portfolio through evaluating the appropriateness of the existing portfolio in terms of current support and future directions,

#### Enterprise Architects -- The Chief Architect at USDA oversees the Department's EA, a business-based framework for defining, analyzing, managing and transforming processes, data and technology required to maximize technology investments and to better achieve mission outcomes. Enterprise Architects at the agency level are charged with ensuring that the agencies are aligned with the Department's EA.

#### Project Managers -- In the IGP for IT, project managers (who are also called "investment managers"), track, manage, and report on progress of projects within agencies.

#### IT Security Office -- The Security Office executes and manages Departmental IT security policies. IT security staff serve review all investment documentation for security requirements.

#### CPIC Staff -- The CPIC staff are a component of OCIO. They execute and manage USDA's CPIC Process. The CPIC staff in carrying out OMB requirements serves as liaisons between OMB and the rest of the Department. 

#### Information Technology personnel -- IT professionals work closely with systems that support the processes and operations of agencies.

#### Program Management Office personnel -- The PMO staff supports the day-to-day and strategic operations of the OCIO.

### 3.8 Policies and Standards Underlying the IGP for IT

The following policies and standards underlie the IGP for IT:

-   Clinger-Cohen Act

-   EVM directive

-   USDA 25K directive

-   OMB EA requirements

-   OMB CPIC requirements

### 3.9 Tools of the IGP for IT

#### WorkLenz -- The investment management and tracking tool

#### MITS -- MITS is a collaborative tool used to monitor agencies' progress toward completion of all requirements in support of the President's Management Agenda (PMA). MITS allows agency representatives to view the items they are required to complete and report on status on an item-by-item basis. The initiatives monitored by OCIO include business cases, EVM, CyberSecurity, EA, Presidential Initiatives (PIs) and LoBs.

#### Assert -- Cyber Security System that tracks compliance with IT Security requirements (maybe)

***[Enterprise Architecture Repository (EAR)]{.underline}*** --The EA
management and tracking tool used to identify redundancies and also
opportunities for project or component collaboration and reuse.

### 3.10 Interfaces of the IGP for IT with other External Processes and Systems

The IGP for IT is USDA-wide, and operates within the context of the
Federal EA. As such, there are technical and organization interfaces
that can be expected to be managed as part of the process. The following
list names some of these interfaces.

#### Technical interfaces

-   WorkLenz and EAR need some level of integration.

-   Some interface with the Integrated Acquisition System will be
    required to complete "line of sight" reporting.

-   The ASSERT system may play a role in the IGP for IT.

#### Organizational interfaces

[Internal to USDA]{.underline}

OCIO and OCFO

OCIO and OBPA

OCIO and the agencies

[External to USDA]{.underline}

OMB -- influences a wide range of activity within OCIO, including EA,
the PIs, the CPIC guidance, and the use of EVM for major investments.
All of these elements affect the shape and success of the IGP for IT.

Other federal departments---particularly for IT investments dealing with
PIs

### 3.11 Assumptions

The IGP for IT relies on a set of assumptions that are derived from
USDA's operational policies or are inherent in an IT environment. The
IGP for IT assumes that:

-   Full implementation will occur over the next several years (07
    though 09).

-   Over the short term, the additional tracking and analysis required
    by the IGP for IT may require more resources at both the agency and
    the OCIO level.

-   Once they have been introduced to and educated in the IGP for IT,
    USDA agencies will support it.

### 3.12 Adverse Effects 

The risks of not proceeding with the implementation of the IGP for IT
are many and include the following.

-   USDA OCFO and OCIO will not be able to meet their
    Congressionally-mandated accountability requirements in terms of IT
    investments.

-   Public confidence would be shaken if USDA's ability to provide
    essential evidence of how USDA's IT investments support the citizen
    is diminished.

-   USDA will not get accountable return on its IT investments.

-   USDA IT investments could conflict with each other in terms of
    security, redundancy, data management, or other essential aspects of
    the EA architecture.

# 4.0 Operational Scenarios 

### 4.1 Introduction

The IGP for IT ConOps expresses what requirements OCIO envisions in the
implemented IGP for IT. The following scenarios are provided to convey
these needs in simple non-technical language.

A scenario is a step-by-step description of how the IGP for IT will
operate under a given set of circumstances. Scenarios are described in a
manner that enables readers to walk through them and gain an
understanding of how all the principal parts of the IGP for IT function
and interact.

The scenarios represented in the following sections describe examples of
how various situations may play out within the IGP for IT. The scenarios
are intended to give a flavor for how elements and processes of the IGP
for IT are expected to function. However, they are not intended to
identify all possible situations or users groups. Additionally, the
steps in the scenarios should not be interpreted as a fixed sequence of
events, but instead as an illustration of capabilities the fully
implemented IGP for IT will offer. Finally. overlap can occur between
different scenarios as a result of interaction between different users
or due to similarity between different activities.

### 4.2 Reframing the Current Portfolio Scenario 

The scenario represents an example of how an agency portfolio manager
may work to reframe investments in the 2007 planning year.

Step 1: OCIO sends out updated guidance for planning that introduces the
IGP for IT. The first step in implementing and integrated process is the
reframing of the current investment portfolio. OCIO guidelines suggest
that all investments must be reviewed to ensure that each investment
meets one of criteria. Either a) the investment has a one-to-one
relationship with the system it describes, or b) the investment has a
one-to-many relationship with the systems it describes, with all systems
from the same "family," or line of business (LoB). Line of business is
determined by the business reference model (BRM) classification assigned
to the system.

Step 2: The agency portfolio manager begins the analysis of the agency's
portfolio. The agency has four major investments and fifteen non-major
investments. The agency manager first looks at her major investments.
The first major investment, Alphabets Deluxe, is a major system
replacement effort designed to replace the largest programmatic system
in the agency portfolio. The portfolio manager determines that this
investment has a one-to-one relationship with the system that it
describes and therefore does not need to be reframed.

Each of the other three major investments describes multiple systems.
The portfolio manager looks over the previous year's documentation for
these investments in the WorkLenz tool and realizes that only the
"primary" BRM is listed for each investment. (This code means that the
majority of systems in the investment fall into the primary code area;
however, it does not guarantee that [all]{.underline} the systems fall
into the same classification.) Using the guidance provided by OCIO, the
portfolio management attempts to determine what BRM class is appropriate
for each system. She realizes that for two investments, all the systems
listed on each seem to fall within the same single business area, since
they all apply to different aspects of the same extended business
process. Now she has a choice. She can leave them as two separate
investments. On the other hand, because all the systems within the two
investments have the same BRM classification, she can also choose to
consolidate the two investments into one.

> The last major investment, however, has six systems that seem to be
> divided among two different BRM areas. . Each system has an identified
> sponsor. Working with the sponsors, the investment manager realizes
> that following the new rules, this major investment will have to be
> reframed as two separate investments, with three related systems in
> each investment. She also realizes that this will mean that she must
> somehow assess the existing 300 documentation to see how best to
> divide the documentation between the two new investments. Because of
> the differing sizes of the systems, when the division of the systems
> into their two respective BRM classifications is complete, the
> investment manager now realizes that she has one major and one
> non-major investment. She then proceeds to update the documentation
> accordingly.

Step 3: Once the portfolio manager has analyzed what needs to be
reframed in the major investments, she begins to conduct the same
analysis on the fifteen non-major investments. With less information
about the investments available to her, she must rely more on the
sponsors to help her understand which investments need to be reframed.
In the end, only four of the investments need to be reframed into new
families of systems. However, she encounters two examples of investments
in which no systems are described---a Shared Help Desk investment that
describes the support necessary for running the Help Desk and an
Information Technology Management investment that describes the support
needed for planning, oversight, IT strategy, and other IT management
activities. She realizes that these investments describe services that
are attached to non-system-specific tasks. To get clarification on how
to treat these investments, she calls the IGP for IT Help Desk.

# 5.0 Summary of Impacts 

### 5.1 Introduction

The implementation of IPG may have wide ranging impacts on both USDA and
its customers. The sub-sections below identify potential operational
impacts, organizational impacts, and impacts during development that
should be considered as OCIO implements the IGP for IT.

### 5.2 Operational Impacts 

The IGP for IT may have the following operational impacts:

-   Changes in procedures

-   Changes in quantity, type, and timing of data to be input into the
    IGP for IT

-   Changes in data retention requirements

-   New modes of operation based on emergency, disaster, or accident
    conditions

-   Changes in operational budget

-   Changes in operational risks

### 5.3 Organizational Impacts 

The IGP for IT may have the following organizational impacts:

-   The need for cross-functional, inter-disciplinary staff teams

-   The development of education and increased training for both IGP for
    IT staff and consumers

-   The need for additional personnel to support the IGP for IT

# 6.0 Glossary and Acronyms 

The technical terms used in this document are defined in the IGP for IT
Glossary that is available with the other IGP for IT documentation.

Acronyms used in this document are list below:

  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  Acronym          Definition

  AA               Acquisition Approval
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

# 7.0 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS 

The standards, guidelines, and OMB documentation that provides the basis
for the IGP for IT are described in the sections that follow.

### 7.1 Standards and Guidelines 

The standards and guidelines used in preparation of this document are
listed below.

### 7.2 OMB Documentation 

The following OMB documentation was used to support the generation of
this document.

# 8.0 Appendices 

There are no appendices contained or referenced herein.

[^1]: Contributing to the infrastructure simply means that every
    investment is considered in light of the "target" IT architecture
    and that investment decisions reflect this consideration. Even a
    decision to maintain a legacy system at operational levels can be a
    contribution to the infrastructure.