# Presentation: 281711

## Business Case for the XML.gov Registry

- Washington, DC
- August 1, 2002

**Status Briefing**

*This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and information of the client to whom it is addressed.*

## Agenda

- XML.gov Value Proposition/Profile: Performance Measures, Metrics and Scoring for Benefits in the VMM Analysis
- Alternatives Definition and Analysis
- Cost Models/Cost Element Structures for All Alternatives
- Next Steps

## VMM Decision Framework Development - Overview

| Value  |  | Risk | Cost |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Direct User | Score | Risk Assessment | CustomizedCost Element Structure |
|  | Score |  |  |
| sub-criteria (scale)** | Score |  |  |
|  |  |  | 1.0  Development |
| Social | Score |  |  |
|  |  |  | 1.1 |
|  | Score |  | 1.2 |
| sub-criteria (scale)** | Score |  | 1.3 |
| Gov. Financial | Score |  | ... |
|  |  |  | 2.0 Implementation |
|  | Score |  | 2.1 |
| sub-criteria (scale)** | Score |  | 2.2 |
| Gov. Operational /Foundational | Score |  | 2.3 |
|  | Score |  | ... |
| sub-criteria (scale)** | Score |  | 3.0 Operating Support |
| Strategic Political | Score |  | 3.1 |
|  | Score |  | 3.2 |
| sub-criteria (scale)** | Score |  |  |
|  |  |  | 3.3 |
|  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  | ... |
|  | VALUE SCORE | RISK SCORE | COST |

**Return on Investment**

**Value per Dollar Invested**

**Risk Tolerance Boundary**

- 	** project specific sub-criteria

## Introduction to Performance Measures, Metrics, and Scoring for Registry/Repository Benefits

- A performance _**measure**_, such as “total number of users” is associated with each benefit. The measure identifies how the initiative owners would demonstrate that they have delivered the benefit in question. If the benefit were “increased size and awareness of user community,” it might be measured by “total number of users”
- The term _**metric**_ simply refers to actual numbers associated with a given measure. The ideal total number of users may be
- 	100,000–  100,000 is the metric.
- For each measure, we must determine threshold (min), targeted, and ideal levels of performance.
- 	**Threshold (T)=** minimum level of performance that must be achieved in order to get any value out of the initiative.
- 	**Target=** target level of performance, what the initiative owners are shooting for.
- 	**Ideal (I)=** level of performance in the best of all possible worlds, if everything works out perfectly.

- Metrics and Scoring of Benefits

## Ease of Use of XML Resources and Information 
	Average annual % increase in the number of artifacts in government-sponsored registry/repositories 
	T= 15  / target= 60 / I=100 
Single Authoritative Source for Agreed Upon Schemas for XML Artifacts for Inherently Governmental Data/Government-Unique Requirements
	Survey of direct user/customer population segments within chosen sample of communities of interest (e.g. human resources, environmental): 
	% of respondents indicating that they use schemas in government-sponsored registry/repositories as the primary way of conducting electronic business transactions with the Government  
	T=25 / target= 65  / I=80 
Improved Search, Discovery and Access and Analysis Capabilities for Functional Users/Communities of Interest
	Average number of clicks per search/query to achieve desired results
	T= 5 / target= 4  / I= 3

*	**Average annual % increase in the number of artifacts in government-sponsored registry/repositories *
*	**T= 15  / target= 60 / I=100 *
- Single Authoritative Source for Agreed Upon Schemas for XML Artifacts for Inherently Governmental Data/Government-Unique Requirements
*	**Survey of direct user/customer population segments within chosen sample of communities of interest (e.g. human resources, environmental): *
*	**% of respondents indicating that they use schemas in government-sponsored registry/repositories as the primary way of conducting electronic business transactions with the Government  *
*	**T=25 / target= 65  / I=80 *
- Improved Search, Discovery and Access and Analysis Capabilities for Functional Users/Communities of Interest
*	**Average number of clicks per search/query to achieve desired results*
*	**T= 5 / target= 4  / I= 3*

**Performance Measures, Metrics, and Scoring: ****Direct User or Customer Value/Benefits**

- Metrics and Scoring of Benefits

## Ease of Submission for Posting Schemas and Artifacts
	Cycle time in business days from logon to notification of acceptance/rejection of submission 
	T= 5 / target= 3 / I= 2 
Broad Knowledge-Sharing Capabilities
	Annual % increase in the number of  users of  government sponsored reg/reps 
	T= 15 / target= 60  / I=100 
Improved Availability of XML Data and Information (such as Schemas and Artifacts) for Communities of Interest
	XML.gov Registry/Repository site/system “up” time in %
	T= 98 / target= 99.5  / I= 99.9  
Time Savings Due to Efficient and Effective Communications among Communities of Interest  
	% of users indicating that the use of XML artifacts reduced the time to conduct business
	T=50 / target= 75  / I= 90 

*	**Cycle time in business days from logon to notification of acceptance/rejection of submission *
*	**T= 5 / target= 3 /** **I= 2*
- Broad Knowledge-Sharing Capabilities
*	**Annual % increase in the number of  users of  government sponsored reg/reps *
*	**T= 15 / target= 60  / I=100 *
- Improved Availability of XML Data and Information (such as Schemas and Artifacts) for Communities of Interest
*	**XML.gov Registry/Repository site/system “up” time in %*
*	**T= 98 / target= 99.5  / I= 99.9  *
- Time Savings Due to Efficient and Effective Communications among Communities of Interest
*	**% of users indicating that the use of XML artifacts reduced the time to conduct business*
*	**T=50 /**** ****target= 75  / I= 90** *

**Performance Measures, Metrics, and Scoring: ****Direct User or Customer Value/Benefits**

- Metrics and Scoring of Benefits

## Coordination and Streamlining of Intergovernmental Data Collection and Sharing 
	Number of major intergovernmental projects that involve electronic communications/transactions using artifacts from govt-sponsored reg/reps
	T= 5 / target=35  / I= 50 
More Efficient Use of Taxpayer Dollars 
	Average annual % increase in the number of downloads of artifacts from govt-sponsored reg/reps
 	T=15 / target= 30 / I=50 

*	**Number of major intergovernmental projects that involve electronic communications/transactions using artifacts from govt-sponsored reg/reps*
*	**T= 5 / target=35  / I= 50*
- More Efficient Use of Taxpayer Dollars
*	**Average annual % increase in the number of downloads of artifacts from govt-sponsored reg/reps*
* **	**T=15 / target= 30 / I=50*

- Metrics and Scoring of Benefits

**Performance Measures, Metrics, and Scoring: ****Social Value/Benefits**

## Improved Interagency Collaboration (Current and Foundation for Future Collaboration)
	Number of major federal cross-agency projects that involve electronic communications/transactions using artifacts from govt-sponsored reg/reps
	T= 5 / target= 34 / I= 50 
Increase in Productivity and Efficiency in Government Operations
	Increases in productivity are a function of positive movement, meeting minimum levels of performance on an annual basis, for 5 key indicators. All of the following must occur in order to achieve productivity gains: average annual % increase in the number of artifacts in govt-sponsored reg/reps  15, % of users indicating that using artifacts from govt reg/reps saved time  50, number of major intergovernmental projects that involve electronic communications/ transactions using artifacts from govt reg/reps  5, number of major federal cross-agency projects that involve electronic communications/transactions using artifacts from reg/reps  5, average annual % increase in the number of downloads of artifacts from govt reg/reps  15.

	Have govt sponsored XML reg/reps yielded productivity gains in system development?
	Binary measure: Y/N  T=target=I 

*	**Number of major federal cross-agency projects that involve electronic communications/transactions using artifacts from govt-sponsored reg/reps*
*	**T= 5 / target= 34 /**** ****I= 50*
- Increase in Productivity and Efficiency in Government Operations
*	**Increases in productivity are a function of positive movement, meeting minimum levels of performance on an annual basis, for 5 key indicators. All of the following must occur in order to achieve productivity gains: average annual % increase in the number of artifacts in govt-sponsored reg/reps **** 15, % of users indicating that using artifacts from govt reg/reps saved time **** 50, number of major intergovernmental projects that involve electronic communications/ transactions using artifacts from govt reg/reps **** 5, number of major federal cross-agency projects that involve electronic communications/transactions using artifacts from reg/reps **** 5, average annual % increase in the number of downloads of artifacts from govt reg/reps **** 15.*
*	**Have govt sponsored XML reg/reps yielded productivity gains in system development?*
*	**Binary measure: Y/N  T=target=I*

- Metrics and Scoring of Benefits

**Performance Measures, Metrics, and Scoring: ****Operational/Foundational Value/Benefits**

## Efficient Reuse and Adaptation of Existing XML Efforts and Consolidation of Currently Fragmented Federal XML Efforts
	Ratio of submissions to retrievals of schemas on govt-sponsored reg/reps
	T= 1:3 / target=1:40  / I= 1:100  
Minimization of Administrative Burdens Associated with Posting/Creating XML Artifacts
	% of agency managers indicating that the administrative burden of posting/creating XML artifacts is minimal
	T= 50 / target=75  / I= 90
Facilitation of Data and Information-Sharing Among Disparate Systems and Entities/Interoperability 
	Number of major intergovernmental (state/local w. federal) projects that involve electronic communications/transactions using artifacts from govt-sponsored reg/reps
	T= 5 / target=35  / I= 50

*	**Ratio of submissions to retrievals of schemas on govt-sponsored reg/reps*
*	**T= 1:3 / target=1:40  /**** ****I= 1:100*
- Minimization of Administrative Burdens Associated with Posting/Creating XML Artifacts
*	**% of agency managers indicating that the administrative burden of posting/creating XML artifacts is minimal*
*	**T= 50 / target=75  / I= 90*
- Facilitation of Data and Information-Sharing Among Disparate Systems and Entities/Interoperability* *
*	**Number of major intergovernmental (state/local w. federal) projects that involve electronic communications/transactions using artifacts from govt-sponsored reg/reps*
*	**T= 5 / target=35  / I= 50*

- Metrics and Scoring of Benefits

**Performance Measures, Metrics, and Scoring: ****Operational/Foundational Value/Benefits**

## Which Alternatives Will Be Compared and How Have They Been Defined?

- _Status Quo/Base Case_: Undertaking no coordination activities to standardize data and ensure the interoperability of all government-sponsored registry/repositories. Allowing any and all agencies to build, operate and maintain as many reg/reps with as many different underlying technologies and specifications as they choose.
- _Single Unified Registry/Repository_: Building a *single* federal reg/rep from scratch that will require that *every* federal agency wishing to publish schemas or artifacts go through/ provide submissions to the central reg/rep for review and approval. This alternative requires the termination of all current XML activities in agencies (EPA, DoD, etc) and would require existing activities to be subsumed by the new single reg/rep.
- _Federated/Distributed Model_: Each agency or entity may stand up its own reg/rep. However, they must do so according to certain specifications that ensure interoperability with the central government-wide (XML.gov) portal/reg-rep. For those agencies electing not to build their own reg/reps, they may publish information on the central reg/rep.

- Alternatives Analysis

## Standard Cost Element Structure

**System Development and Planning:** includes personnel costs associated with the studies, planning, documentation, and analysis required for the project along with any personnel, hardware and software necessary for a testing environment of new systems or applications.  It captures program management and oversight type activities.
**System Acquisition and Implementation:** includes the acquisition of the actual project hardware and software, as well as the personnel required to accomplish implementation.
**System Maintenance and Operation: **includes upgrades, maintenance, and recurring training.

- Cost Element Structure

## Standard Cost Element Structure: System Planning and Development

**Standard Cost Element Structure: ****System Planning and Development**

- Cost Element Structure

## Standard Cost Element Structure: System Acquisition and Implementation

**Standard Cost Element Structure: ****System Acquisition and Implementation**

- Cost Element Structure

## Standard Cost Element Structure: System Maintenance and Operation

**Standard Cost Element Structure: ****System Maintenance and Operation**

- Cost Element Structure

## Next Steps 

- Complete Cost Estimates for 3 Alternatives
- Populate VMM Framework, Run Model and Analyze VMM Output
- Compare Value of Alternatives and Select Alternative/Develop  Recommendation
- Complete First Draft

- Next Steps