# Presentation: 160862

## Information BriefingPPBES:NOAA IT Planning 

- Dennis Morgan
- representing the
- NOAA IT Planning Working Group
- January 23, 2007

**Notes:**
Filename: NOAA IT Planning 1.23.07 v3.ppt 

## 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 |

## 		Outline

- Purpose
- FY2009-2013 Cycle
- Importance
- Stakeholder Buy-In
- Risk Management
- Alternatives
- Recommendations for FY2010-2014
- Next Steps

## Purpose

- To set the stage for FY2010-2014 IT Planning
- Objectives
- To improve the IT Planning Guidance & Matrix
- To improve the process of collecting IT planning data from the NOAA programs
- To improve the use of IT planning data during Program Operating Plan (POP), Strategic Portfolio Analysis (SPA), and Program Plan development

## FY2009-2013 IT Planning: Background

- CIO Council identified need to address IT requirements in POPs
- IT Planning Working Group formed
- IT Planning Guidance & Matrix drafted
- Endorsed & issued by PPI
- Planning Guidance Memorandum III Supplemental
- Final IT Planning Guidance for Goal Team Leads & Program Managers (GTLs/PMs)
- Final POPs & IT Planning Matrices submitted by PMs

## FY2009-2013 IT Planning: Observations

- IT Planning Guidance & Matrix external to the POP process
- Linked from NOAA CIO website but _not_ PPBES Planning website
- Further clarification required from NOAA CIO
- Purpose, Assignments, and Due Dates
- Email message sent to GTLs/PMs
- Process was complex & confusing to PMs
- Needs to be improved & integrated into PPBES

## FY2009-2013 IT Planning:  Matrix Submissions

|  | Submissions | Coverage |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | All Areas | No Tech Refresh  | Minimal |
| Ecosystem | 9 of 9 | 3 | 5 | 1 |
| Climate | 5 of 5 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
| Weather & Water | 8 of 8 | 7 | 1 | 0 |
| Commerce & Transportation | 3 of 7 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Mission Support | 10 of 16 | 8 | 1 | 1 |
| TOTALS | 35 of 45 | 24 of  35 | 7 of 35 | 4 of 35 |
|  | 78% | 69% | 20% | 11% |

## FY2009-2013 IT Planning: Results

|  | FY2009 Current Program Resources
(CAS, 7/14/06) | FY2009 
IT Planning Data
(Low – High)* | % Planned for IT |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ecosystem | $1,034M | $52M - $112M | 5 – 11% |
| Climate | $250M | $21M - $26M | 8 – 10% |
| Weather & Water | $907M | $67M – $72M | 7 – 8% |
| Commerce & Transportation | $172M | $9M - $31M | 5 – 18% |
| Mission Support | $1,777M | $59M - $115M | 3 – 6% |
| TOTALS | $4,140M | $208M - $356M | 5 – 9% |

- * Low = actual data; High = estimates to compensate for data gaps

## FY2009-2013 IT Planning: Minimum IT Budget by Area

- }

## 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

## Importance of IT Planning: Critical Success Factors

- Stakeholder Buy-in
- Risk Management
- Clear, understandable, repeatable process for identifying IT requirements
- PMs must use their IT Planning data to determine 100% Requirement Resources during POP development
- Indicate what portion of IT costs are covered by Current Program Resources
- Describe Capability Gaps influenced by IT Planning data
- Identify Alternatives/Options that indicate IT Planning data were considered and describe benefits resulting from increased IT funding
- Awareness of Desktop Management, Technology Refresh, and IT Security needs

## Stakeholder Buy-In to IT Planning

| Stakeholder | Current Buy-In*
* IT Planning Working Group’s perception | Buy-In Required for 
Successful IT Planning |
| --- | --- | --- |
| NEC | Unknown | Green |
| NEP | Unknown | Green |
| PPI | Yellow | Green |
| PA&E | Unknown | Green |
| NBO | Unknown | Green |
| CFO Council | Unknown | Green |
| CIO Council | TBD | Green |
| GTLs | Yellow | Green |
| PMs | Yellow | Green |

- NOAA won’t be successful at integrating IT planning into PPBES unless _**all**_ stakeholders are on-board
- LO CIOs must work directly with AAs, DAAs, CFOs, GTLs, and PMs

## Risk Management

| Risk | Owner | Impact | Probability | Severity | Mitigation | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Stakeholder Buy-in not obtained  | CIO Council | High | High | Red | Information Briefing for NEC, NEP, CFO Council, PPI, PA&E, NBO, GTLs, and PMs to ensure commitment at all levels | Requires CIO Council approval / decision |
| IT Planning Process not improved by Dec 06 / Jan 07 | CIO Council& WG | High | Medium | Yellow | Status Quo: 
Option 0-A (FY09-13 IT Planning) | Additional options prepared |
| WG members not sufficiently available  | CIOs | High | Low | Green | Identify required resources and schedule meetings | WG meets based on availability |

## Risk Management (cont.)

| Risk | Owner | Impact | Probability | Severity | Mitigation | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Unable to identify accurate headcount by Program  | PMs | High | High | Red |  Identify headcount by LO/SO
 Identify headcount by Goal
 |  MOC/LDAP provides headcount by LO/SO & Employee Type 
 Identifying additional alternatives |
| Establishment of IT spending baselines | CIO Council | High | High | Red |  Identify the organizations that pay for IT
 Understand the different methods used throughout NOAA 
 Recognize the diversity of IT planning & execution | Not started |

## Alternatives for FY2010-2014 Data Collection Process

| Alternative | ZERO - Status Quo
Standalone Matrix
Parallel with POP development | 1
Integrated Matrix
Parallel with POP development | 2
Standalone Matrix
Precedes POP development | 3
Integrated Matrix
Precedes POP development |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Description | Use Standalone Matrix in parallel with and on same schedule as POP development | Integrate Matrix fully with POP/CasaNOSA
Work closely with PPI on Planning Guidance Memo & POP User Manual 
Preload Matrix with IT estimates | Standalone Matrix
Implement separate IT Planning data call (Feb-Mar 07)
Preload Matrix with IT estimates
PMs & GTLs use IT data during POP, SPA, & Program Plan development (May-Oct 07)  | Integrate Matrix fully with POP/CasaNOSA
Work closely with PPI on Planning Guidance Memo & POP User Manual 
Implement separate IT Planning data call (Feb-Mar 07)
Preload Matrix with IT estimates
PMs & GTLs use IT data during POP, SPA, & Program Plan development (May-Oct 07)  |
| Pros | Achieved 78% response rate from PMs | May increase response rate
Add IT costs automatically to 100% Requirement Resources in POP/CasaNOSA | Responsive to Feedback received by PPI
Opportunity for IT Planning WG & CIO Council to review & provide input 
Ability to refine data and propose alternatives during POP development
MS-ITS PM will have NOAA-wide data prior to POP development
More accurate IT data 
Less burdensome to PMs 
Thought process occurring at 2 different times (Matrix 1st, POP 2nd) | Responsive to Feedback received by PPI
Opportunity for IT Planning WG & CIO Council to review & provide input 
Ability to refine data and propose alternatives during POP development
MS-ITS PM will have NOAA-wide data prior to POP development
More accurate IT data 
Less burdensome to PMs 
Thought process occurring at 2 different times (Matrix 1st, POP 2nd)
Add IT costs automatically to 100% Requirement Resources in POP/CasaNOSA |
| Cons | Non-responsive to Feedback received by PPI
Competes with POP development
Less accurate IT Planning data  
Only 69% of Matrices addressed every IT Area
Extremely burdensome to PMs
Disadvantage to developing 2 documents (Matrix & POP) | Non-responsive to Feedback received by PPI
Competes with POP development
Less accurate IT data  
Burdensome to PMs  | Disadvantage to developing 2 documents (Matrix & POP) | Cons removed based on 12/21/06 meeting with PPI (Sue Kennedy):
Difficulty convincing PPI to modify POP format
Difficulty modifying CasaNOSA |
|  |  | Cons removed based on 12/21/06 meeting with PPI (Sue Kennedy):
Difficulty convincing PPI to modify POP format
Difficulty modifying CasaNOSA |  |  |

## Recommendation for FY2010-2014 Data Collection Process

- Primary: Option 3  Integrated Matrix precedes POP development
-   Integrate Matrix fully with POP/CasaNOSA
-   Work closely with PPI on Planning Guidance Memo &
-         POP User Manual
-   Implement separate IT Planning data call (Feb-Mar 07)
-   Preload Matrix with IT estimates
-   PMs & GTLs use IT data during POP, SPA, & Program Plan
-         development (May-Oct 07)
- Backup: Option 2  Standalone Matrix precedes POP development

## Alternatives for FY2010-2014 Planning & Execution Strategies

| Alternative | A - Status Quo
Distributed Planning
Distributed Execution | B
Coordinated Planning
Distributed Execution | C
Coordinated Planning
Coordinated Execution |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Description | NOAA PMs provide all IT data 
Each Organization executes its IT Funding  | MS-ITS proposes new “Centralized IT Planning” Capability  !!! MAJOR CHANGE !!!
Accountability and interaction among CIO Council, EA Committee, IT Planning WG, GTLs, PMs, and LO leadership
IT Planning WG provides most IT data  
NOAA PMs provide some IT data 
“Centralized IT Planning” decisions made by CIO Council
Each Organization executes its IT Funding in accordance with NOAA corporate performance measures, standards, & criteria tracked closely by the EA Committee & MS-ITS PM | MS-ITS proposes new “Centralized IT Planning” Capability  !!! MAJOR CHANGE !!!
Accountability and interaction among CIO Council, EA Committee, IT Planning WG, GTLs, PMs, and LO leadership
IT Planning WG provides most IT data  
NOAA PMs provide some IT data 
“Centralized IT Planning” decisions made by CIO Council
NOAA OCIO executes IT Funding for all of NOAA |
| Pros | Achieved 78% response rate from PMs | More accurate IT data 
Less burdensome to PMs
Keeps the IT experts involved in IT Planning
Keeps IT Execution in the hands of the Organizations
Program-specific IT planning still performed at the program level | More accurate IT data 
Less burdensome to PMs
Keeps IT Planning & Execution in the hands of IT experts
Program-specific IT planning still performed at the program level
 |
| Cons | Less accurate IT data  
Only 69% of Matrices addressed every IT Area
Burdensome to PMs | Total shift in the way NOAA does business
Perception of NOAA OCIO ‘power grab’
Transfers Enterprise-wide IT planning from all 45 programs to 1 program (MS-ITS)
Burdensome to CIO Council, EA Committee, IT Planning WG, and MS-ITS PM | Total shift in the way NOAA does business
Perception of NOAA OCIO ‘HUGE power grab’
Transfers Enterprise-wide IT planning from all 45 programs to 1 program (MS-ITS)
Removes Organizations from the equation
Burdensome to NOAA OCIO, CIO Council, EA Committee, IT Planning WG, and MS-ITS PM
NOAA OCIO is not prepared to administer coordinated execution |

## Recommendation for FY2010-2014 Planning & Execution Strategies

- Option B  Coordinated Planning & Distributed Execution
-   New “Centralized IT Planning” Capability  MAJOR CHANGE
-   Widespread accountability and interaction
- CIO Council, EA Committee, IT Planning WG, GTLs, PMs, and LO leadership
-   IT Planning WG provides most IT data
-   NOAA PMs provide some IT data
-   “Centralized IT Planning” decisions made by CIO Council
-   Each Organization executes its IT Funding in accordance
-        with NOAA corporate performance measures, standards,
-        & criteria tracked closely by the EA Committee & MS-ITS PM

## Next Steps:What we need from you?

- Consider alternatives & recommendations for
- Data Collection Process  Option 3 (Integrated Matrix precedes POP development)
- Planning & Execution Strategies  Option B (Coordinated Planning & Distributed Execution)
- Ask questions & provide input to Working Group members by 1/31/07
- Attend Decision Briefing on 2/6/07
- Grant approval for Working Group to partner with PPI to implement CIO Council decision
- Grant approval for Working Group to deliver Information Briefing to GTLs and PMs
- CIO Council Chair delivers Information Briefing to PA&E and CFO Council, then submits Virtual Information Briefing to NEP/NEC
- FY2010-2014 Planning Phase begins on 3/1/07 and ends on 8/31/07