2 Washington State Office of Financial Management Roadmap for Financial and Administrative Policies, Processes, and Systems Urgent Business Needs Strategy May
3 DISCUSSION DRAFT Roadmap for Financial and Administrative Policies, Processes, and Systems Urgent Business Needs Strategy Table of Contents I. Introduction...1 II. Roadmap Exemption Process...3 A. Authority and Current Policy...3 B. Roadmap Exemption Governance...3 C. Roadmap Exemption Guiding Principles...4 D. Solution Options...4 E. Roadmap Exemption Request and Approval Process...5
4 1 I. Introduction The Roadmap is a business improvement program that will, with sponsorship and funding, transform the state s financial and administrative policies, processes, and information systems to solve the back office business problems common to all state agencies. This transformation will be accomplished incrementally over the next seven fiscal years through a series of business initiatives. The scope and approximate schedule of the Roadmap program is laid out in the Roadmap Solutions Framework report and illustrated in the Roadmap Business Initiatives chart on the next page (see Exhibit I-1). Agency business needs will change over time due to new regulations, unanticipated business opportunities, mandated organizational changes, emergencies, or other legitimate reasons. The preferred strategy is to ask agencies to meet their emerging back office business needs through policy, process, and/or minor system improvements until the enterprise functionality in the Roadmap program becomes available. This strategy leverages state investments in systems and data to reduce costs and achieve economies of scale. It also provides incentive for the central service and line agencies to work together towards: Widespread adoption of enterprise best practice business policies, practices, and streamlined business processes to support more efficient delivery of state services to Washington citizens and agencies. Improved core enterprise management systems to ensure alignment with performance management directions, to provide valuable strategic management information, and to assure accountability. The Roadmap program recognizes however that alternative strategies will be necessary to accommodate some urgent agency business needs that do not coincide with the established scope and schedule of the Roadmap program. This document proposes a governance and decisionmaking process for considering agency requests for exemptions from the established Roadmap plan.
5 Exhibit I-1: Roadmap Business Initiatives Chart Roadmap: Urgent Business Needs Strategy
6 3 II. Roadmap Exemption Process This report presents a proposed process to assess requests from agencies having urgent business needs that may not align with the scope and timing of the Roadmap. It describes the current financial and administrative systems approval policy, and the governance, guiding principles, solution options, and steps for the proposed Roadmap exemption process. A. Authority and Current Policy Under the authority granted by RCW Chapters , , , and grant authority, the Office of Financial Management (OFM) and the Information Services Board (ISB) establish policies requiring review and approval of agency investments in financial and administrative information systems. These are the policies currently in effect: Section of the Statewide Accounting and Administrative Manual (SAAM) requires written approval from the OFM Assistant Director for Accounting before significant investments are made to design, develop, and implement new systems or substantially change existing agency financial systems. For purposes of these requirements, significant investments are defined as requiring six or more staffmonths of effort. The ISB Technology Investment Policy and Standards exempt investments in systems that compete with or might be used in place of systems that serve a statewide function from agencies' delegated authority. These investments require Department of Information Services and/or ISB review and approval. In addition, investments in information systems require approval by the OFM Budget Division if they have budget impact. B. Roadmap Exemption Governance Requests for exemption from or a change to the Roadmap schedule to meet urgent agency business needs will require written approval by the Roadmap governance structure. Roadmap governance will consider the policy, business process, and business architecture issues associated with the urgent business need. Approval by Roadmap governance will constitute systems approval by OFM. However, the request will still need to be approved by the ISB if it has technology architecture impact and by the OFM Budget Division if it has budget impact.
7 4 C. Roadmap Exemption Guiding Principles The following is a list of principles that provide guidance when evaluating urgent agency business needs solution alternatives. The established Roadmap scope and schedule will not change unless a significant business case has been made that the change would benefit the state. The decision must support the state Information Services Board (ISB), Enterprise Architecture Committee s objectives, which include the following: Promote efficient and effective use of state resources. Develop and implement a shared enterprise vision and architecture framework. Align information technology strategies and business goals. Improve business work flow via shared information technology infrastructure and unified policies. Maintain security and privacy. Facilitate cross-organizational sharing of enterprise data. Identify duplicate investments and opportunities for collaboration. Promote reuse of architectural components. Extend links among state, federal, and local jurisdictions. The decision must support the state s business objectives for the Roadmap program, which include the following: D. Solution Options Streamline financial and administrative business processes and facilitate widespread adoption of enterprise best practice business policies and practices, to support more efficient delivery of state services to Washington citizens and agencies. Improve core enterprise management systems to ensure alignment with performance management directions, to provide valuable strategic management information, and to assure accountability. Leverage the state s investments in systems and data to reduce costs and achieve economies of scale. Options for solutions to meeting urgent agency business needs will be considered in the following order of preference:
8 5 1. Implement policy, process, and/or minor system improvements until improved enterprise functionality is available through the established Roadmap plan ( minor is defined as requiring less than six staff-months of effort). 2. Adjust the Roadmap plan to accommodate the urgent business need with an enterprise solution sooner than previously scheduled. This can only be done if the adjustment will not compromise other key aspects of the Roadmap program. 3. Partner with the agency to implement information system components and functionality that will eventually become part of the Roadmap enterprise solution. This option requires strict adherence to Tier One enterprise information and technology architecture standards established by the ISB and must include a clear and feasible plan for how the functionality will be made available enterprise wide (i.e., a migration and integration plan). 4. Authorize the agency to implement a bare bones solution until the Roadmap program can address the business need, with the understanding that the agency will adhere to Tier One enterprise interfaces and data exchange guidelines and migrate to the enterprise Roadmap solution when it becomes available. The agency must also include a high-level migration and/or integration strategy. 5. Authorize the agency to implement a long-term, unique solution that adheres to Tier One enterprise information and technology architecture standards and interface and data exchange guidelines. E. Roadmap Exemption Request and Approval Process Exhibit II-1 below is an illustration of the process for requesting exemptions to the Roadmap to meet urgent agency business needs. The steps in the process are as follows: 1. An agency submits Section I (and a draft of Section II, if preferred) of the Roadmap Exemption Business Case (see Exhibit II-2) to the OFM Accounting Division as soon as it becomes aware of a significant financial or administrative business need that may not coincide with the established Roadmap plan. 2. Upon receipt of an initial notification of an urgent agency business need, OFM determines whether it falls within the scope of the Roadmap or has a direct impact on a Roadmap Tier One business process: If no, OFM writes a letter to the agency confirming the proposed project is outside the scope of the Roadmap program and does not require Roadmap governance approval (but may require other approvals). If yes, OFM continues to Step OFM coordinates a meeting with OFM, DIS, Roadmap staff, and the agency to gain understanding of the cause and impact of the urgent business need, discuss the various solution options, and attempt to reach agreement on a solution that will meet both enterprise and agency needs.
9 6 4. After this discussion, the agency decides whether or not to proceed with a request for an exemption from the Roadmap. If no, the agency notifies the OFM Accounting Division that it has decided not to pursue the request for an exemption. If yes, the agency will update Section I and complete Section II of the Roadmap Exemption Business Case (see Exhibit II-2) and submit it to the OFM Accounting Division as an official request for exemption from the Roadmap. 5. Upon receipt of an official request for an exemption from the Roadmap to meet an urgent agency business need, the OFM Accounting Division coordinates as necessary with OFM, DIS, Roadmap staff, and the agency to prepare the following: An analysis of how the proposal would impact the Roadmap objectives, risk, timing, funding, resources, and quality. A recommendation to the Roadmap executive sponsors. 6. The agency presents its business case and request for exemption to Roadmap governance. Roadmap governance reviews the agency business case and request for exemption, the OFM/DIS recommendation, and the Roadmap impact analysis. 7. Roadmap governance makes a decision on the agency s request for exemption and the adjustment to the Roadmap plan if recommended. If the exemption is approved, OFM advises the agency to proceed with its proposed solution once other required approvals are obtained. If the exemption is not approved, the agency will implement policy, process, and/or minor system improvements to meet the business need until enterprise functionality is available through the established Roadmap plan.
10 7 Exhibit II-1: Roadmap Exemption Request and Approval Process Roadmap Exemption Request and Approval Process Agency OFM / DIS / Roadmap Staff Roadmap Governance NO 1(a). Agency identifies financial / administrative business need that may not coincide with the Roadmap plan 1(b). Agency submits Section I of Business Case to OFM 2. Is business functionality within Roadmap scope? 3. OFM/DIS/ Roadmap staff / Agency meet to understand need and discuss options YES Iterative process Agency implements minor improvements to meet business need until enterprise solution is available NO 4. Does the agency still want to pursue an exemption to the Roadmap? YES 4(b). Agency updates Section 1 and completes Section II of Business Case and submits to OFM 5. OFM coordinates as necessary to prepare impact analysis and recommendation 6. Roadmap Governance reviews agency request, business case, impact analysis, and recommendation NO 7. Exemption approved? After obtaining additional approvals, agency proceeds with proposed solution YES
11 8 Exhibit II-2: Roadmap Exemption Business Case Contents Section I (submit this information with the original notification to OFM) A. Describe the business need and why a Roadmap exemption may be necessary. B. Describe the business process functionality and information needed. Section II (submit initially or with request for exemption after meeting with OFM, DIS, and Roadmap staff) A. Indicate which of the following solution options is being proposed; explain why each of the other options was rejected. 1. Implement policy, process, and/or minor system improvements until improved enterprise functionality is available through the established Roadmap plan ( minor is defined as requiring less than six staff-months of effort). 2. Request an adjustment in the Roadmap plan to accommodate the urgent business need with an enterprise solution sooner than previously scheduled. This request can only be approved if the adjustment will not compromise other key aspects of the Roadmap program. 3. Partner with the Roadmap team to implement information system components and functionality that will eventually become part of the Roadmap enterprise solution. This option requires strict adherence to Tier One enterprise information and technology architecture standards established by the ISB. 4. Implement a bare bones solution until the Roadmap can address the business need. The agency must adhere to Tier One enterprise interface and data exchange guidelines and agree to migrate to the enterprise Roadmap solution when it becomes available. 5. Implement a long-term, unique solution that adheres to Tier One enterprise information and technology architecture standards and interface and data exchange guidelines. B. Provide the following information for the proposed option: a. Business value and justification. b. Timeline and planned phases. c. Initial and ongoing costs and benefits. d. Evaluation of the risks to the agency and the state. e. For Option 3, describe how Tier One enterprise information and technology architecture standards will be met and how the functionality will be made available enterprise wide (i.e., an integration and migration plan). f. For Option 4, describe how enterprise data standards will be incorporated into the proposed solution. g. For Option 4, describe a high-level strategy for migrating to and/or integrating with the Roadmap enterprise solution when it becomes available. h. For Option 5, describe how Tier One enterprise information and technology architecture standards, and interface and data exchange guidelines will be met.
Understanding the process to develop a Model of Care An ACI Framework A practical guide on how to develop a Model of Care at the Agency for Clinical Innovation. Version 1.0, May 2013 AGENCY FOR CLINICAL
February 9, 2015 February 9, 2015 Page i Table of Contents General Characteristics... 1 Career Path... 3 Typical Common Responsibilities for the ure Role... 4 Typical Responsibilities for Enterprise ure...
Federal Register Vol. 58, No. 190 Presidential Documents Monday, October 4, 1993 Title 3 The President Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 Regulatory Planning and Review The American people deserve
ASSESSMENT REPORT April 23, 2014 Document History This document is controlled through the Document Management Process. To verify that the document is the latest version, please contact the First Data team.
GUIDELINES Flood System Repair Project Authorized Under the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1E), and the Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of
Prologue This amendment of The FAA and Industry Guide to Product Certification (CPI Guide) incorporates changes based on lessons learned and supports the broader use of this guide by providing additional
United States Department of Agriculture OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAl Review of Farm Service Agency s Initiative to Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) Audit Report 03501-0001-12
APPENDIX 1 DISASTER RECOVERY PLANNING FOR CITY COMPUTER FACILITIES March 2008 Auditor General s Office Jeffrey Griffiths, C.A., C.F.E. Auditor General City of Toronto TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...1
Alberta s First Nations Consultation Guidelines on Land Management and Resource Development (Updated November 14, 2007) Outline: Part I: Alberta s Guidelines Part II: Alberta Energy Part III: Alberta Environment
Defense Business Systems Investment Management Process Guidance June 2012 Executive Summary Section 901 of the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (FY2012 NDAA), now codified at Title 10
IT Project Management Practices Guide Introduction The IT Project Management Practices Guide (Guide) contains a repeatable, institutionwide approach for the management of application development and/or
Federal Communications Commission Information Technology Strategic Plan Implementing technology today to meet FCC business needs tomorrow Office of the Managing Director Information Technology Center July
September 2005 PUBLIC DRAFT Acknowledgements The Office of Management and Budget and the Federal Identity Credentialing Committee would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of the National
. VA Office of Inspector General OFFICE OF AUDITS & EVALUATIONS Department of Veterans Affairs Review of Alleged Improper Program Management within the FLITE Strategic Asset Management Pilot Project September
Audit of IT Asset Management Report Recommended by the Departmental Audit Committee for approval by the President on Approved by the President on September 4, 2012 e-doc : 3854899 1 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE
Characteristics of EXCELLENCE in Higher Education Requirements of Affiliation and Standards for Accreditation Online Version - Revised March 2009 (pages xii and xiii) Middle States Commission on Higher
ITIL V3 Application Support Volume 1 Service Management For Application Support ITIL is a Registered Trade Mark and Community Trademark of the Office of Government and Commerce. This document may contain
The U.S. President s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) PPP Incentive Fund December 2013 Contents 1. Overview...3 2. What is a PPP?...3 3. Overview of the PPP Incentive Fund Round 3...4 3.1 Tiered
Do not remove this if sending to pagerunnerr Page Title The Transport Business Cases January 2013 1 Contents Introduction... 3 1. The Transport Business Case... 4 Phase One preparing the Strategic Business
United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees March 2014 ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS HHS Strategy to Address Information Exchange Challenges Lacks Specific Prioritized
Iowa Department of Human Services Iowa Medicaid Accountable Care Organization (ACO) Agreement This Agreement is entered into by the following parties: Agency of the State (hereafter Agency ) Name/Principal
xe VA Office of Inspector General OFFICE OF AUDITS AND EVALUATIONS Department of Veterans Affairs Follow-Up Audit of the Information Technology Project Management Accountability System January 22, 2015