Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Weekly Infrastructure Planning Status Update. September 15, 2009 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Transcription

1 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Statewide Strategic IT Consolidation (ITC) Initiative Weekly Infrastructure Planning Status Update Deloitte Consulting LLP September 15, 2009 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

2 Agenda Status, Issues, and Next Steps: o Infrastructure Consolidation o Service Excellence Topics for discussion: o Data Collection and Discovery Status Update o DOT MassMail Update o Common Helpdesk Strategy and Next Steps o Network Cost Analysis -2-

3 Infrastructure Consolidation Status Summary Behin nd Plan Status Data Center Services Key Achievements Key Issues Key Next Steps Finish drafts of consolidation plans for EOEEA and ANF Conducted workshop to review Detailed Infrastructure Consolidation playbook with ITD on 9/10. Completed first draft of detailed consolidation plans for EOHED and EOLWD Key data from EOHHS, EOTPW, and EOPSS missing and will require assumptions for the 9/30 deliverable. Provide draft of the Data Center Services Consolidation Plan Complete EOHHS pilot case study by 9/30 At Risk and Active Directory Obtained and analyzed DOT messaging business requirements Developed draft AD requirements matrix Completed discovery for DOR, PERA, and CHSB Ability to achieve DOT-MassMail consolidation by 11/1 affected by delay of Go/No Go decision by executive sponsors Finalize DOT project plan and begin execute Complete DOT MassMail case study by 9/30 Schedule and complete remaining discoveries At Risk Website / Portal Finalized web portalization KPIs Updated list of non-compliant websites Initiated discussion on Web IA case study for 9/30 EOEEA, EOHED, and EOE have delayed portalization activities due to resource and funding constraints Incorporate updated Web IA content into Secretariat plans Complete Web IA case study by 9/30 Plan On Network Services Reviewed Network and Telecom Services playbook Current Network Architecture has 3 different options for the new network without timeline for implementation. Provide Network Architecture team with Data Center services projection as waves are defined. Legend: On Plan At Risk Behind Plan -3-

4 Service Excellence Consolidation Status Summary Status Key Achievements Key Issues Key Next Steps On Plan Service Excellence Revised and redistributed recommendation for how to address the challenges for chargeback for IT Consolidation startup costs Completed Network cost deep dive analysis. Develop draft findings. Completed draft for review of Chargeback long-term vision, with gaps and recommendations for improvements Use the Chargeback Maturity tool to score the current maturity of Chargeback with the Chargeback Subcommittee. Continue reviewing Network PO Data and prepare analysis of cost- savings opportunities -Chargeback On Plan -Service Mgmt Established new meeting time for the ISB Chargeback subcommittee Completed a draft for review of the ITIL process assessment and roadmap for improvement. Revise Process Improvement roadmap for ITD priorities Complete suggested Roles & Responsibilities matrix for Process Integration Points. Legend: On Plan At Risk Behind Plan -4-

5 Data Collection and Discovery Status Update -5-

6 Secretariat-by-Secretariat Data Collection Data Center Secretariat t Data Center Services Collection ANF Only Teachers Retirement Board remains open. 9/30 deliverable will include minimal assumptions for TRB. EOHHS Mike Syverson returned more EOHHS data on 9/11 however about 50% of applications fail to identify underlying server and storage infrastructure. 9/30 deliverable will include assumptions/placeholder for EOHHS. EOHED Completed inventory received. EOEEA GIS data still not returned all other agencies had data submitted. However, there are some open clarification questions for DCR. 9/30 deliverable will include some assumptions. EOLWD Completed inventory received. MassDOT EOE EOPSS Tom Cream has stated the data collection has been made a priority internally but no data has been delivered as of 9/11. 9/30 deliverable will include assumptions/placeholder for MassDOT. EOE still has CTF still pending which should be complete by end of September There are some clarification questions for DESE. 9/30 deliverable will include some assumptions. Tracy Varano has provided information from 4 smaller agencies. Tracy and Sean stated that they are working to close information gaps by 9/18. 9/30 deliverable will include assumptions/placeholder for EOPSS. -6-

7 Secretariat-by-Secretariat Data Collection Discovery Secretariat t Discovery ANF PERA discovery complete pending write-up DOR discovery complete pending write-up MTRB TO BE SCHEDULED EOHHS On MassMail EOHED On MassMail EOEEA On MassMail EOLWD DIA and DWD - TO BE SCHEDULED MassDOT Discoveries complete migration planning in progress EOE EOPSS DEEC and CTF on MassMail DHE Discovery complete DESE In progress DOC and MSP completed discovery form internally content currently being evaluated CHSB Complete pending write-up -7-

8 DOT MassMail Update -8-

9 DOT MassMail Requirements Review 5 out of 42 Requirements relating to archiving / ediscovery / mailbox sizes seem to be the only ones that the MassMail service cannot achieve currently User Functionality Requirement #3: MassDOT users must have the ability to store s and to easily search and retrieve s for a period of at least 10 years User Functionality Requirement #10a: MassDOT users must have the capability to search their archived s. User Functionality Requirement #10b: A role-based archiving system with readily available archives should be accessible to MassDOT users. Performance Requirement #1: All MassDOT users must have no less than a 1 GB mailbox size (includes size of attachments, types of attachments, total mailbox size). Conversion Requirement #1: Historical data must be available to MassDOT users via the new system. KEY QUESTIONS Could journaling alone be sufficient to meet legal requirements? Is MassPike (15% of DOT users) driving the requirements for archiving? Can they be handled separately? -9-

10 Common Help Desk Strategy -10-

11 Common Help Desk Tool Selection Process Current State Vision Next Steps ITD s E2E tool needs a version refresh and process enhancements EOHHS CA tool tied to an expiring contract by June 2010 MassDOT uses multiple l tools to provide similar functionality across agencies EOHHS, DOT, EOPSS, EOEEA, and EOE are interested in leveraging ITD standard A common multitenant tool can offer greater efficiencies and consistent service as opposed dto multiple independent tools This could be among the first of the standards that the Technology Governance Board (TGB) will set for the Commonwealth Gather requirements Issue Competitive Bid (RFP) Select Standard Tool and Develop Standard Procure Tool Pilot Tool Implement and execute in Phases -11-

12 Common Help Desk Strategy Proposed Timeline Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2009 Jan 2010 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 May 2010 Jun 2010 Jul 2010 TOOL SELECTION Gather requirements for common tool: ITD, HHS, DOT Develop, Issue & Score RFP Select standard Develop implementation plan Execute plan based upon available funding PROPOSED ITD ROADMAP Establish Central Management of Dispatched Incidents Implement improvements to Incident Management process Train staff on revised process Phase 1 Phase 2 Milestone -12-

13 Network Cost Analysis -13-

14 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Statewide Strategic IT Consolidation (ITC) Initiative Network Services Cost Analysis Deloitte Consulting LLP September 15th, 2009 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

15 Cost Analysis Goals Goals and Associated Activities Clarification of the specific elements driving network costs - Drill-down on each line-item in cost pool budgets - Breakout elements generating costs into specific network groups - Present network costs in a understandable way to network managers Comparison against common industry costs - Identify most common cost elements (e.g. T1 line tariffs) and compare ITD costs to costs observed in industry - Prepare report of any major discrepancies Refinement of current costs pools - Identify any major budget line items that are incorrectly categorized in either network cost pools or the overall network services bucket - Present the re-categorized budget items in the identified cost framework Refinement of current chargeback cost breakdown for ITD services - Identify method to apply detailed cost breakdown to ITD chargeback rates - Identify appropriate process to maintain cost breakdown accuracy - Identify appropriate process to update rates based on detailed costs -15-

16 Cost Analysis Process The Deloitte team worked with ITD finance stakeholders to outline an approach for detailed cost analysis: We Are Here Map Cost Pools to Analyze Detailed Map Costs Back to Relevant Documents Procurement Data Pools Review and Refine with ITD Teams Analyze current cost pool Review scanned PO Map cost breakdown into Add more detail to each data and determine lineitems documents, maintenance functional buckets: identified cost item for research agreements, network o Circuits/Bandwidth Charges diagrams, etc o Hardware/Software Identify major cost savings Maintenance Align identified line-items opportunities by o Hardware/Software with encumbrance Determine high-level h l comparing costs with Depreciation numbers from time of purpose of each cost industry benchmarks o Labor purchase/acquisition item: o Overhead o Type of circuit, equipment Identify line-items that of software Download relevant Matrix functional buckets have been incorrectly o Customer(s) served or documents for each systems supported with ITD pools: placed in the network pool purchase from MMARS o Location o WAN system o Serial numbers and assets o Firewall Begin proactive tracking information o management of cost pools Document costs that o Admin based on detailed cannot be analyzed (lack o SNA breakdown of data) o SONET o Voice/PBX -16-

17 Cost Analysis: Why Is ITD s Chargeback So Expensive? Why do agencies claim they can get a T1 line for $1000 dollars less per month than the standard ITD rate? Title Here Costs By Type ($MM) 18% ($1.8MM) of total network costs are ITD Typical costs overhead expenses for Commonhelp, OSB, Operations, Commbridge, etc associated with a T1 line 12% ($1.1MM) of total network costs are depreciation expenses. Almost all depreciation stems from purchases in 2005/2006 that will be off the books within the next two years (not withstanding major capital investment in network infrastructure) and Other Firewall WAN Value added services $200-$400K of duplicate/overlapping investments in network circuit solutions exist. Convergence onto standards is delayed by lack of architecture plan and consolidation uncertainty Source: Deloitte Consulting Analysis Direct labor costs are not the main driver for highcosts, ITD s direct labor cost is close to the Gartner benchmark of 21% of total network spend Source: Deloitte Consulting Analysis Approximately 30% ($3 MM) of costs s are for value- ITD Pool Categories added services such as firewall and that customers may not consider in their evaluation of ITD costs. Many of these costs may not be directly related to network services provided to customers -17-

18 Cost Analysis: Lessons Learned - Process The team s experiences and lessons-learned learned during the cost analysis exercise will help ITD be successful in analyzing other costs for remaining IT Services: 1 Key Lessons Learned from the Analysis Process Current accounting entry formats lack detail It is very difficult to tell what services or equipment is driving network cost by looking at the normal entry format Equipment is often procured through resellers that bundle hardware and software in the same purchase Deep-dive analysis is required for almost every line-item 2 Data availability is hit and miss Purchase orders vary in detail and quality depending on vendor and ITD staff person involved The backup detail for some costs (depreciation), necessary to understand what the items are, is not available, either in electronic or paper format -18-

19 Cost Analysis: Observations and Concerns Although the team has had only a few days to review detailed results, there are several areas of concern: 1 Major Areas of Concern Weak or non-existent ties to asset tracking Serial numbers are provided for a small number of assets, but there is otherwise no way of relating maintenance and other costs with particular configuration items Lack of integration between finance and asset tracking systems makes it impossible to keep accurate depreciation costs (no way to tell when assets have been received or disposed) updates are only estimates 2 Potential issues with fixed asset/depreciation accounting process Services and maintenance costs appear to sometimes be entered into the depreciation schedule in addition to capital assets (equipment and software) Extent of problem is unknown since data is only available for less than 10% of fdepreciation costs This practice can artificially inflate depreciation expenses significantly -19-

20 Next Steps Application of the Cost Framework for proof-of-concept Detailed review of costs for each area so network managers fully understand each cost Identification of incorrectly categorized costs Identification of costs that should be passed through to specific customers Identification of major cost reduction opportunities -20-