# Presentation: 145080

## Decision BriefingPPBES:NOAA IT Planning 

- Dennis Morgan
- representing the
- NOAA IT Planning Working Group
- February 20, 2007

**Notes:**
Filename: NOAA IT Planning 2.20.07 v4 CIO Council DECISION BRIEFING with backup slides.ppt 

## 		Outline

- Purpose
- Issue
- Coordination
- Alternatives
- Example
- Recommendation
- Decisions Required

## Purpose

_*Decision Briefing:*_
- To set the stage for FY2010-2014 NOAA IT Planning & Execution Strategies

## Issue

- FY2009-2013 IT Planning Guidance had little impact on development of PPBES deliverables
- Program Adjustments were not influenced
- Not relevant to Programmatic IT
- Matrix external to POP process
- Complex, confusing, and burdensome process
- Result:
- What we did last year did not result in any program adjustments for IT Infrastructure (except in the IT Services and Satellite Services Programs)
- No additional funding requested to support IT Security C&A process (except in the IT Services and Satellite Services Programs)
- Problem:
- How do we get program adjustments for IT Infrastructure into PPBES planning for FY2010-2014?

**Notes:**
FY2009-2013 IT Planning Guidance had little impact on development of PPBES Planning & Programming deliverables (e.g, POPs, Strategic Portfolio Analyses, Program Plans, NOAA Program Brief, and Program Decision Memorandum)
Program Adjustments (Within Core / Above Core) were not influenced by IT Planning Data
Not relevant to planning for Programmatic IT 
Matrix external to the POP process
Process was complex, confusing, and burdensome
Clarification required from NOAA CIO

FY09 Program Adjustments for IT Infrastructure
IT Services Program requested $62.1M to improve NOAA’s IT Infrastructure.
Satellite Services requested $2.6M to provide essential IT Security infrastructure for NESDIS Systems located in the NOAA Satellite Operations Facility (NSOF). This increase will provide baseline IT security controls for NSOF systems to include six National Critical systems that provide critical infrastructure services to the American people. The systems to benefit from this request are:  ESPC NOAA5001 (formerly CEMSCS), GOES NOAA5003, POES NOAA5026, DMSP NOAA5027, DCS NOAA5004, and SARSAT NOAA5023. 

## Coordination Completed: 
LO/SO CIO Reps serving on IT Planning WG
Program Planning & Integration (PPI)
CIO Council 
Goal Teams

Coordination Planned:
Synchronize with IT Cost Accounting Working Group
NOAA CIO & CFO Councils  Collaborative Synergy 
LO/SO CIOs working directly with AAs, DAAs, CFOs, GTLs, and PMs

- LO/SO CIO Reps serving on IT Planning WG
- Program Planning & Integration (PPI)
- CIO Council
- Goal Teams
- Coordination Planned:
- Synchronize with IT Cost Accounting Working Group
- NOAA CIO & CFO Councils  Collaborative Synergy
- LO/SO CIOs working directly with AAs, DAAs, CFOs, GTLs, and PMs

**Coordination**

**Notes:**
Coordination Completed: 
LO/SO CIO Reps serving on IT Planning WG
Program Planning & Integration (PPI)
CIO Council 
Goal Teams

Coordination Planned:
Synchronize, as appropriate, with newly-formed IT Cost Accounting Working Group on the IT budget areas to improve consistency
NOAA CIO Council and NOAA CFO Council will provide collaborative synergy 
LO CIOs working directly with AAs, DAAs, CFOs, GTLs, and PMs

## Alternative A (Status Quo) provides a Planning Matrix to determine IT Infrastructure costs, but no assistance for Programmatic IT

| Programmatic IT | IT Infrastructure  |
| --- | --- |
| $481M (FY08 Budget, President’s Request) | $119M (FY08 Budget, President’s Request) |
| Examples
Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS)
Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) | Examples 
N-CIRT; NOC; MOC; WOC
Technology Refresh; Telecommunications; Seat Management  |
| PMs plan in POPs
GTLs submit program adjustments in Program Plans
Budget & Execute funding by LO/SO
Pros: none
Cons
FY09 Matrix not relevant
Little impact on development of PPBES Planning & Programming deliverables 
POPs, SPAs, Program Plans, NOAA Program, PDM 
Complex, confusing, and burdensome process
Competes with POP development
Burdensome to IT Planning WG because of increased interaction required
Non-responsive to Feedback received thru PPI online survey  | PMs provide data via IT Planning Matrix
IT costs are built into overhead (LO/SO tax)
PMs plan in POPs 
FY09: IT Services and Satellite Services only
GTLs submit program adjustments in Program Plans 
FY09: Program Support and Satellite Sub-Goals only
Budget & Execute funding by LO/SO
Pros
78% of PMs submitted FY09 Matrix
Identified $208M in NOAA-wide requirements
Cons
FY09 Matrix relevant (but insufficient) 
Incomplete IT Planning data 
22% of PMs did not submit FY09 Matrix
53% of Programs addressed every IT Area
62% of Programs addressed Tech Refresh
Required estimates to compensate for data gaps
Requires LO/SO tax or direct bill for IT Infrastructure
IT Services and Satellite Services only programs to propose adjustments for IT Infrastructure  |

## Alternative B uses “Program Headcount” and “IT portion of Fully-Loaded FTE” to determine IT Infrastructure costs, and provides a Planning Checklist for Programmatic IT

| Programmatic IT | IT Infrastructure  |
| --- | --- |
| $481M (FY08 Budget, President’s Request) | $119M (FY08 Budget, President’s Request) |
| Examples
Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS)
Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) | Examples 
N-CIRT; NOC; MOC; WOC
Technology Refresh; Telecommunications; Seat Management  |
| PMs plan in POPs
GTLs submit program adjustments in Program Plans
Budget & Execute funding by LO/SO
PMs / System Owners identify requirements 
New IT investments for existing systems
New IT investments for new systems
PMs / System Owners use CIO Council-approved planning checklist 
Pros
Responsive to feedback from Goal Teams and PMs
Promotes conformance with NITRB/CITRB, NOAA EA, Strategic IT Plan, and IT Policy requirements
More complete IT data 
Improved communication between PMs & System Owners to ensure correct requirements and funding appears in POPs
WG works directly with Goal Teams (i.e., GTLs, Coordinators, PMs, System Owners) to ensure consistency across investments
Accounts for funding from all Exhibit 300s in NOAA Budget
Cons
Burdensome to CIO Council, EA Committee, & IT Planning WG because of increased interaction required | PPI modifies POP format in CasaNOSA to include # of Contractors & Associates by Capability
PMs plan in POPs (via Program Headcount)
GTLs submit program adjustments in Program Plans
Budget & Execute funding by LO/SO
Use NOAA Headcount to determine IT portion of Fully-Loaded FTE planning figure
NOAA Headcount = 19,341 employees
Add Annual IT Cost ($6,153/FTE) to the Fully-Loaded FTE planning figure in FY10-14 Planning Guidance 
Pros
Requires little involvement from CIO Council, EA Committee, & IT Planning WG 
Query CasaNOSA after POPs are published to determine NOAA’s 100% Requirement 
Cons
Requires LO/SO tax or direct bill for IT Infrastructure
Completeness of data relies on accuracy of Program Headcount
 |

**Notes:**
NITRB/CITRB Review Requirements: costs associated with developing deliverables that satisfy ...
Basis for Investment
Project Management
Risk Management
IT Security
Architectural Compliance

MOC/LDAP = Messaging Operations Center / Lightweight Directory Authentication Protocol
NOAA Headcount = 19,341 (MOC/LDAP, 1/29/07)
12,669 Feds 
318 Corps 
4,754 Contractors 
1,600 Associates

## Alternative C uses new capability in IT Services Program to plan for IT Infrastructure costs, and provides a Planning Checklist for Programmatic IT

| Programmatic IT | IT Infrastructure  |
| --- | --- |
| $481M (FY08 Budget, President’s Request) | $119M (FY08 Budget, President’s Request) |
| Examples
Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS)
Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) | Examples 
N-CIRT; NOC; MOC; WOC
Technology Refresh; Telecommunications; Seat Management  |
| PMs plan in POPs
GTLs submit program adjustments in Program Plans
Budget & Execute funding by LO/SO (PPAs)
PMs / System Owners identify requirements 
New IT investments for existing systems
New IT investments for new systems
PMs / System Owners use CIO Council-approved planning checklist 
Pros
Responsive to feedback from Goal Teams and PMs
Promotes conformance with NITRB/CITRB, NOAA EA, Strategic IT Plan, and IT Policy requirements
More complete IT data 
Improved communication between PMs & System Owners to ensure correct requirements and funding appears in POPs
WG works directly with Goal Teams (i.e., GTLs, Coordinators, PMs, System Owners) to ensure consistency across investments
Accounts for funding from all Exhibit 300s in NOAA Budget
Cons
Burdensome to CIO Council, EA Committee, & IT Planning WG because of increased interaction required | PPI modifies POP format in CasaNOSA to include # of Contractors & Associates by Capability
Plan via “NOAA IT Infrastructure Optimization” capability in IT Services POP (decisions made by CIO Council)
Submit program adjustments in Program Support Program Plan
Budget  by LO/SO (PPAs)
Execute funding by LO/SO (Centers of Excellence)
Pros
Responsive to feedback from Goal Teams and PMs 
Tight coupling between Programmatic IT and IT Infrastructure program adjustments tracked by PIRS
Eliminates LO/SO tax or direct bill for IT Infrastructure
Less burdensome to PMs
More successful approach to request Enterprise-wide IT Infrastructure Optimization funds in 1 Program Plan
Costs determined by IT Planning WG based on knowledge of IT efforts 
Uses same planning approach as Facilities and Fleet  Services
FY09 Facilities Program = $211M
FY09 Fleet Services (ships, aircraft) = $232M
Cons
Burdensome to CIO Council, EA Committee, & IT Planning WG because of increased accountability and interaction required
Shift in the way NOAA plans for Enterprise-wide IT Infrastructure |

**Notes:**
NITRB/CITRB Review Requirements: costs associated with developing deliverables that satisfy ...
Basis for Investment
Project Management
Risk Management
IT Security
Architectural Compliance

IT Infrastructure 
Budgeting
Presented through LO/SO-based Technical Budget
Execution
LO/SO PPA distributes funding to appropriate LO/SO Center of Excellence (COE)

## Example: Alternative C - AWIPS Program Adjustment

**Example: Alternative C - ****AWIPS Program Adjustment**

- Planning

- Programming

- Budgeting

- Execution

- Programmatic IT:
- AWIPS

- Local Forecasts and Warnings  POP
- +1.0M

- IT Infrastructure

- W&W Program Plan
- +1.0M

- NWS PPA
- +1.1M

- NWS PPA
- +0.65M

- +0.7M Appropriation

- IT Services POP
- +0.1M

- Program Support Program Plan
- +0.1M

- NWS Center of Excellence PPA
- +0.05M

- Communication

## Recommendation

- Alternative C
- Uses new “NOAA IT Infrastructure Optimization” capability in IT Services Program to plan for Enterprise-wide IT Infrastructure costs; _and_
- Provides a CIO Council-approved Planning Checklist for Programmatic IT
- Benefits
- Shows NOAA CIO Council actually listened to Feedback from the Goal Teams to build a process that will serve both the customer and the CIO Council, leading to more accurate planning of NOAA's IT costs
- CIO Council, EA Committee, and IT Planning WG will be providing a valuable service to NOAA by identifying IT Infrastructure costs since PMs have little knowledge in these areas
- PMs & System Owners will be more fully-equipped to identify requirements for new Programmatic IT investments in new and existing systems

## Decisions Required

- Select best alternative for FY2010-2014 NOAA IT Planning & Execution Strategies
- Grant approval for Working Group to partner with PPI and Goal Teams to implement CIO Council decision
- CIO Council Chair agrees to deliver Info Briefing to PA&E and CFO Council, and submit Virtual Info Briefing to NEP/NEC
- FY2010-2014 Planning Phase begins on 3/1/07, and POP development commences on 4/16/07

## BACKUP SLIDES

## PPBES Checklist for Programmatic IT Investments

- Developed Checklist v1 on 2/14/07 to cover ...
- New IT investments for _existing_ systems
- New IT investments for _new_ systems
- Produce Checklist v2 by 3/1/07
- Share with CIO Council by 3/6/07
- CIO Council decides by 3/13/07
- Share with Goal Teams & PPI (for inclusion in Planning Guidance) by 3/16/07
- Distribution to Program Managers & System Owners by 3/23/07

## Coordination: Working Group Members

| LO/SO | Member | Phone |
| --- | --- | --- |
| NMFS | Jim Sargent  | 713-2372 x172 |
| OAR | Teck Sai | 713-9040 x199 |
|  | Sandy Wine | 713-9040 x127 |
| NWS | Brenda Taylor  | 713-3513 x120  |
| NOS | Christine McNerney  | 713-1156 x104  |
|  | Sharon Aaron | 713-1156 x109 |
| OCIO | Dennis Morgan  | 713-3555 x205 |
|  | Trena Simon | 713-0541 x168 |
| NMAO | Greg Bass | 713-7734 |
| NESDIS | Jim Goudouros | 713-3388 |
|  | Al Robinson | 713-9198 |
| WFMO | Judith Westbrook | 713-6310 |

## Coordination: Program Planning & Integration (PPI)

- Sue Kennedy & Dennis Morgan (12/21/06)
- Reviewed Working Group’s Alternatives & Recommendations for FY10-14 IT Planning
- Discussed modification of POP format & CasaNOSA
- Discussed responsiveness to Goal Team feedback
- Dan Mamula & Dennis Morgan (1/29/07)
- Discussed modification of CasaNOSA

## Coordination: CIO Council

- Sue Kennedy’s Discussion (12/12/06)
- Review of FY09–13 Planning Phase and CIO Council Guidance
- Feedback received from GTLs and PMs via online survey
- Dennis Morgan’s Info Briefing (1/23/07)
- PPBES: NOAA IT Planning
- Approval for Working Group to coordinate with Goal Teams (1/23/07)

## Coordination: Goal Teams

- Ward Seguin (Weather & Water) attended Info Briefing (1/23/07)
- Working Group met with Goal Team reps (1/25/07)
- Emily Menashes (Ecosystems)
- Adrienne Antoine (Climate)
- Ward Seguin (Weather & Water)
- Ashley Chappell (Commerce & Transportation)

## Feedback: Goal Teams (Face-to-Face)

| Goal | Weather & Water | Ecosystems | Climate | Commerce & Transportation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| POC | Ward Seguin | Emily Menashes | Adrienne Antoine | Ashley Chappell |
| Feedback | One view of the IT world is:
IT desktop equipment
Infrastructure connecting and supporting desktop equipment (disks, networks)
Programmatic systems like AWIPS.
Desktop and infrastructure supporting office automation are funded through office overheads, and are not easily quantified by Program Managers
Program Managers are able to develop cost, schedule, and performance for IT changes/upgrades associated Program specific systems like AWIPS. | PMs are in the best position to focus on programmatic changes and the new IT requirements that they generate, as opposed to routine or infrastructure IT services that are standard across NOAA.
There is no data system available to PMs that provides IT information to them by Program, so they need to go back to LOs to obtain the information.  For cross-LO programs, it is difficult to obtain compatible information.  
LOs are in a better position to provide baseline information and information on maintenance, refresh, and system-wide changes needed to meet general IT requirements.
Consistent information about how IT costs are currently funded is not readily available.
Adjustments To Base (ATBs) should include inflationary costs for IT equipment and services. | The third Planning Memo instructed the use of $144K when planning for new FTE's in the out-years. In the details it mentioned that this covered the IT resources (including refresh) for that FTE. This helps the Program Manager plan for the IT resources additional employees will require.  (This was the number to use if Program Managers didn't have a more concrete number they themselves calculated)
It is difficult to gather current IT infrastructure data by goal program because the program staff are not centrally located. They are in different labs, staff offices, and line offices.
It is important that the Planning phase have information and documentation on major IT systems that will be needed for the program or new activity (e.g. GFDL’s requests for supercomputing capabilities for Climate research, or system requests for NIDIS Drought Portal). This should be information requested and put into the POP or the IT data call. | Current resources cover IT
C&T Programs consider the majority of these costs as embedded into program operating costs. 
Programs use core dollars to cover life cycle replacements and refresh as well as software and security maintenance costs
A rough estimate is 5-10% per program to cover IT costs for desktop management, networking, technology refresh and IT security
 |

## Feedback: Goal Teams (PPI Online Survey)

- _Precede POP development_
- Should work to make sure as many council and other data calls are done before POPs are developed.
- Recommend all council data calls be done outside the CasaNOSA POP and be completed earlier than the CasaNOSA POP start date.
- It may have been more useful to program managers if the IT Planning Data Call was done in December 2005 - January 2006 in preparation for FY2009 POP development. That would have been a good time of year for the program managers to complete the Matrix, and it would have provided the CIO Council time to review my data and provide comments, feedback, and suggested improvements to each program manager and Goal Team Leads. Instead, I was faced with competing priorities (i.e., POP development vs. IT Planning Matrix). Do I need to tell you where I spent most of my time?
- _Integrate with POP_
- CIO requests improved from last year but not in POP....will this information connect?
- CIO guidance wasn't integrated into the POP and so caused some confusion in our program and others.

**Notes:**
Questions
How effective and clear was the Council guidance? 
Were the required forms easily understood?

## Feedback: Goal Teams (PPI Online Survey) [cont.]

- _Complex, confusing, and burdensome_
- CIO - Very detailed and technical, so some requests for information were over our heads.
- Found the guidance from the CIO confusing and not particularly relevant to my program.  Despite the lack of relevance to my program, the CIO Council insisted that all programs complete their IT matrix.
- CIO data call was unreasonable. Programs depend on line offices to maintain equipment, such as routers. Programs had to request that information from the LOs. The CIO already has a direct connection to LOs, and LOs can approximately apportion activities to programs. Programs should not be dragged into counting pieces of IT hardware. Why does PPI endorse requesting so much detail in one area of activity when it is moving to focus on the big picture in most other areas of planning? In the future, the CIO should collect that data through its own channels.
- CIO guidance was ambiguous and confusing.
- _Clear and understandable_
- CIO request was clear, but not all offices use the same definitions for terms used.
- CIO Council requested IT needs and status by Program, when the data are tracked by LO.
- The CIO Council's guidance was straightforward; however, it would've been helpful if their online guidance was linked from the PPBES website, instead of just hanging on the NOAA/OCIO 'IT Planning and Budgeting' webpage. Also, I noticed that the link that was published in FY09 Planning Guidance Memo Supplemental III was the wrong one ('.htm' was omitted).
- CIO guidance was very thorough and clear.

**Notes:**
Questions
How effective and clear was the Council guidance? 
Were the required forms easily understood?

## Feedback: IT Planning WG

| Goal | Weather & Water | Ecosystems | Climate | Commerce & Transportation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| POC | Brenda Taylor (NWS) | Jim Sargent (NMFS)  | Sandy Wine (OAR) | Christine McNerney (NOS) |
| Feedback | Requires collaborative effort between LO CIO & LO CFO staff
Categories in budget formulation
Labor
Non-Labor 
Programmatic
Non-Programmatic  | IT execution funding is all over the board
Some divisions are rich in IT equipment and some are poor
Must identify what organizations are paying for IT now | Issue Council (and other) Data Calls 
Before POP development 
External to the CasaNOSA POP process
Collect the data before POP start date
Integrate data with the POPs
(talk to the It may stuff as a story from the trenches...)
Overall, Complex, Confusing and Burdensome
Definitions were too technical
Information required at a very detailed level 
Request was clear; guidance and definitions were not
Some categories not applicable/relevant to my Program
Collection by Program; Tracked by LO
Not linked to the PPBES website 
 | I have a couple of comments about our approach especially after meeting with the goal team liaisons last week.  It looks like IT is covered in all of the program budgets.  The only real guidance they need is to increase when there's something big they might not consider.  Ashley used IT Security as an example.  We have for several years asked for an IT Security initiative and been shot down.  If it comes as an increase through the programs, we might get better results.  We could suggest that each program, or goal, ask for an additional n% for improving security, the budgeting people could tax some of that for the NOAA-wide improvements and leave some in the programs for individual C&As, training, etc. 
Anyway, bottom line is I think we need to advise them on new big IT issues like NOAANet, a new email system (although it's probably too late for that one),  new phone system, etc., not the ordinary, day-to-day IT and the programmatic IT.  |

- Programs plan for programmatic IT and changes that have new IT requirements
- NOAA/OCIO already has guidance to facilitate the development of Budget 1-pagers & Exhibit 300s
- How does Planning by Program & Programming by Goal/Sub-Goal translate to Budgeting & Execution by LO/SO?
- Who’s paying for IT? Programs or overhead tax fund?
- Who’s using IT?

## PPBES Deliverables

|  | Program Manager | Goal/Sub-Goal Team Lead | PPI | PA&E |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Planning | IT Planning Matrix * 
Program Operating Plan (POP) * | Strategic Portfolio Analysis (SPA)  | NOAA SPA *
 | NOAA Program Review *
 |
| Programming | Integrated Priority List  
Input to Program Plan  | Program Plan * |  | NOAA Program Brief *
Program Decision Memorandum (PDM) * |

- * NOAA CIO Council reviews/assesses and provides input/feedback

## Importance of IT Planning: Key Drivers

- All NOAA programs use IT to support their business
- IT costs are significant and need to be factored into planning
- NOAA Functional Model  Capital Management  Acquire, Build, & Maintain Infrastructure
- The money will _not_ be there unless planned for via PPBES
- Programs have to plan for their future IT costs
- OMB’s expectation: Ensure all current IT systems are compliant with IT Security policies before investing in new IT

**Notes:**
The NOAA Functional Model provides an accurate, comprehensive, high-level depiction and a common analytic framework and lexicon for understanding, planning, and communicating the work of NOAA. Within the Capital Management function, Observation Platforms (Satellites, Ships, Aircraft, Buoys), Facilities, and IT & Communication Systems play vital roles in Acquiring, Building, and Maintaining NOAA’s Infrastructure.
Program Managers need to plan for IT expenses to support their programs so that programs aren’t short-changing themselves in the future.
OMB’s Expectation, July 2006 memo from Karen Evans, Administrator, Office of E-Government and Information Technology: “In particular, I want to remind you of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-00-07, of February 28, 2000, "Incorporating and Funding Security in Information Systems Investments," instructs agencies on how to include security into the funding for information technology. This guidance is also included in OMB’s budget preparation policy, i.e., Circular A-11 and requires you to do two specific things. Under these existing guidance requirements, first, you must integrate security into and fund it over the lifecycle of each system undergoing development, modernization, or enhancement. Second, your steady-state system operations must meet existing security requirements before new funds are spent on system development, modernization or enhancement.” [source: OMB: M-06-19, Reporting Incidents Involving Personally Identifiable Information and Incorporating the Cost for Security in Agency Information Technology Investments (July 12, 2006)]
We want Program Managers to be able to plan for their funding more effectively so that they aren’t blind-sided by future IT costs that could adversely impact their programs and missions
How can we show the Program Managers how this process is less burdensome, gives them more flexibility to redirect their funding, and increases their ability to strengthen their programs?

## NOAA Exhibit 53 (FY08 Budget, 12/28/2006)

- OMB’s goal is a 5%/year government-wide reduction in IT infrastructure costs.
- If our IT planning efforts result in higher IT infrastructure costs, DOC & OMB will require NOAA to show clearly how supporting the federal Infrastructure Optimization Initiative (IOI) [e.g., movement toward consolidation in the areas of desktop management/help desk, telecommunications, and data centers] increases costs.

| NOAA Exhibit 53 | FY06 | FY07 | FY08 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Part 1. IT Systems by Mission Area | $457.968M | $488.144M | $480.961M |
| Part 2. IT Infrastructure & Office | $105.979M | $111.177M | $113.498M |
| Part 3. Enterprise Architecture & Planning | $4.040M | $4.119M | $4.193M |
| Part 4. Grants Management | $2.200M | $1.500M | $1.550M |
| Agency Total IT Investment Portfolio | $570.187M | $604.940M | $600.202M |

## Areas Covered by FY09-13IT Planning Matrix

- Application Hosting
- Archiving
- Data Networks (LAN)
- Desktop / Seat Management and Support
- Enterprise Architecture
- Facility Management
- High Performance Computing
- IT Security
- Metadata
- NOAAnet

- Technology Refresh
- Desktops
- Laptops
- Servers
- Mainframes
- Routers
- Switches
- Storage
- Telecommunications
- Web Presence
- Workforce Collaboration

## Communication

- Improved communication with Goal/Sub-Goal Team Leads, Goal Coordinators, and Program Managers, and System Owners is KEY!
- LO/SO CIOs must serve as Champions for the IT Planning effort to be successful
- IT Working Group members and LO/SO CIOs should conduct briefings _BEFORE_ the POP process starts
- Brief Goal/Sub-Goal Team Leads & Goal Coordinators
- Brief Program Managers
- Follow-up by attending Goal Team and Program meetings to provide assistance, answer questions, and collect feedback