DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS (DOC)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS (DOC) 26 June 2014

Table of Contents Page 1 Executive Summary... 1 1.1 Overview... 1 1.2 Expenditure... 2 1.3 Summary of Observations... 4 1.3.1 Observations... 4 2 Background... 7 2.1 Department of Communications (DoC)... 7 2.2 Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA)... 17 2.3 Methodology... 17 2.4 Agency Financial comparison... 18 2.5 Service Tower Analysis... 18 3 Comparative Analysis... 20 3.1 Resourcing... 20 3.2 Service Tower Breakdown (Original and Revised)... 20 3.2.1 ICT Management... 21 3.2.2 Applications... 21 3.2.3 Midrange... 22 3.2.4 Storage... 23 3.2.5 WAN... 23 3.2.6 Gateway... 24 3.2.7 LAN and RAS... 24 3.2.8 End User Infrastructure... 24 3.2.9 Voice Services... 25 3.2.10 Help Desk... 25 3.2.11 Facilities... 26 3.2.12 Carriage Cost Element... 26 3.2.13 Services Outsourced to External Providers... 27 3.2.14 Others... 28 4 Shared Service Opportunities... 29 Attachments... 30 Attachment A. Consultations... 31 Attachment B. Departmental Systems... 32 Attachment C. Cross-Agency ICT Benchmarking Definitions... 38 i

1 Executive Summary 1.1 Overview Introduction In late May 2014, Galent Management Consultants (Galent) were commissioned to analyse the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) costs of the Department of Communications (DoC) and Australian Communication Media Authority (ACMA). It is understood that DoC and ACMA are considering the opportunity of implementing a shared services arrangement. Whilst the preliminary analysis undertaken by the two organisations of Cross-Agency ICT Benchmark returns indicated potential financial benefits, this preliminary analysis also indicated inconsistencies in the returns of both organisations. Decisions based on these apparent inconsistencies could potentially result in the financial benefits either being overstated or the incorrect decision being made. Considering the criticality of this, Galent approached both agencies for clarification on the results which are analysed throughout the report. The purpose of the review was to align the cost information to enable DoC and ACMA to make informed decisions on the relative financial benefits which may arise from shared services, whilst allowing identification of services that may be able to be shared more easily than other services. As appropriate, the analysis will also identify the drivers of cost for the respective elements of the ICT services to further inform the decision making of the respective organisations. During the course of the analysis, a number of observations were made for potential improvements which have been included in the report for the information and appropriate consideration of DoC and ACMA Executives. In undertaking this review, Galent interviewed a range of stakeholders comprising both DoC & ACMA CIO s, Deputy CIO s and ICT Directors. A full list of interviewees is listed in Attachment A. DoC runs a hybrid insourced/outsourced model with around 34% of ICT outsourced while ACMA outsources 9% of its ICT budget. With the exception of the Gershon review findings, technology offerings within each agency were not evaluated i.e. A desk phone was considered a phone whether this was a soft phone with inbuilt video conferencing or a conventional desk phone. The Gershon submissions provided to Galent were used to provide the size of agencies, ICT environment demands as well as high level costs for Operating and Capital. Both Gershon documents had discrepancies which required intensive investigation to ensure Galent was able to compare like with like. This review was based on one financial year only and some costs may be higher in one agency than another due to scheduling of capital purchases i.e. a mature asset management programme or a technology refresh. Page 1

1.2 Expenditure Whilst DoC and ACMA ICT environments have differing levels of complexity and they provide different services to end users/clients, the agencies expenditure on ICT ranged between 9-13% of their total agency expenditure. During the course of the review there were several areas that required adjustment of the submitted Cross-Agency ICT Benchmark reports. Details of the adjustments and the associated justification are detailed throughout Section 3. For the purpose of comparison and to facilitate the assessment of opportunities for shared ICT services which could offer overall benefits, adjusted expenditure under ICT Service Towers was analysed. The following table summarises the original and adjusted expenditure, including the details of the adjustment and cross references to the relevant sections of this report. Page 2

DoC ACMA DoC ACMA Adjustment Details Report Cross Reference Service Towers ICT Management Original Submission Original Submission Revised Submission Revised Submission Operating Capital Total Operating Capital Total Operating Capital Total Operating Capital Total $3,728,627 $44,354 $3,772,981 $790,179 $472,339 $1,262,518 $533,251 1 $44,354 $577,605 $790,179 $472,339 $1,262,518 Reviewing the Service Package with ASG, DoC s operating expenditure was amended to reflect the correct allocation of the service package. This was further confirmed via email from DoC relating to the proportion breakdown of each package. The total revised expenditure for DoC, does not include any costs associated with the CIO or administrative support staff. Observations 1-2 Applications $6,058,397 $2,343,263 $8,401,660 $2,633,976 $11,311,405 $13,945,381 $6,058,397 $2,343,263 $8,401,660 $2,633,976 $2,996,405 2 $5,630,381 To achieve a standardised comparison, the costs associated with ACMA s capital initiatives were reviewed. A large portion of these were deemed to be similar to the NBN rollout undertaken by DoC and were therefore removed. Midrange $392,438 $1,193,359 $1,585,797 $185,813 $63,582 $249,395 $2,071,470 3 $1,193,359 $3,264,829 $185,813 $63,582 $249,395 Reviewing the Service Package with ASG, DoC s operating expenditure was amended to reflect the correct allocation of the service package. This was further confirmed via email from DoC relating to the proportion breakdown of each package. Observations 3-4 Observations 5-6 Storage $57,331 $249,909 $307,240 $0 $0 $0 $57,331 $249,909 $307,240 $0 $0 $0 Not adjusted Observation 7 WAN $381,483 $0 $381,483 $493,780 $0 $493,780 $556,775 4 $0 $556,775 $493,780 $0 $493,780 Reviewing the Service Package with ASG, DoC s operating expenditure was amended to reflect the correct allocation of the service package. This was further confirmed via email from DoC relating to the proportion breakdown of each package. Gateway $1,010,113 $301,278 $1,311,391 $248,708 $0 $248,708 $288,000 5 $301,278 $589,278 $248,708 $0 $248,708 Transition costs for DoC were removed as per CIO request. This equates to $728k for DoC. Observations 8-9 Observation 10 LAN and RAS $82,672 $336,348 $419,019 $0 $0 $0 $82,672 $336,348 $419,019 $0 $0 $0 Not adjusted Observation 11 End User Infrastructure $466,554 $50,191 $516,745 $2,865,016 $0 $2,865,016 $466,554 $50,191 $516,745 $2,865,016 $0 $2,865,016 Not adjusted Observation 12-13 Voice Services $489,752 $389,209 $878,961 $162,938 $0 $162,938 $236,122 6 $389,209 $625,330 $162,938 $0 $162,938 Reviewing the Service Package with ASG, DoC s operating expenditure was amended to reflect the correct allocation of the service package. This was further confirmed via email from DoC relating to the proportion breakdown of each package. Help Desk $124,215 $0 $124,215 $518,225 $0 $518,225 $1,718,898 7 $0 $1,718,898 $518,225 $0 $518,225 Reviewing the Service Package with ASG, DoC s operating expenditure was amended to reflect the correct allocation of the service package. This was further confirmed via email from DoC relating to the proportion breakdown of each package. Observation 14 Observation 15-16 Facilities $199,887 $0 $199,887 $0 $0 $0 $199,887 $0 $199,887 $0 $0 $0 Not adjusted Observation 17-18 TOTALS $12,991,469 $4,907,910 $17,899,379 $7,898,635 $11,847,326 $19,745,961 $12,269,356 $4,907,910 $17,177,268 $7,898,635 $3,532,326 $11,430,961 1 The Operating Expenditure for DoC was altered to reflect the correct proportion of the outsourced Service Package allocation as per email advice 2 The Capital Expenditure for ACMA was altered to allow a like-for-like comparison by removing the NPP and Government initiatives similar to NBN 3 The Operating Expenditure for DoC was altered to reflect the correct proportion of the outsourced Service Package allocation as per email advice 4 The Operating Expenditure for DoC was altered to reflect the correct proportion of the outsourced Service Package allocation as per email advice 5 Transition costs relating to gateway for DoC have been removed. There were no identifiable costs for ACMA for this activity as ACMA s change represented a change in contract only 6 The Operating Expenditure for DoC was altered to reflect the correct proportion of the outsourced Service Package allocation as per email advice 7 The Operating Expenditure for DoC was altered to reflect the correct proportion of the outsourced Service Package allocation as per email advice Page 3

1.3 Summary of Observations Whilst no customer satisfaction survey was undertaken as part of this review, the assumption was that both the outsource provider was meeting service levels and ACMA ICT met user expectations. Analysis determined that the operating costs for the DoC hybrid ICT model do appear to be a more expensive when compared to ACMA costings. Based on the analysis undertaken, there appears to be evidence that DoC and ACMA could achieve an overall reduction in the cost of ICT service delivery (with potentially improved service levels) through either a shared services or centres of excellence delivery model. It is also noted that whilst DoC and ACMA networks do have different security classifications, the enclave based security model already implemented within ACMA would support DoC to utilise the same network. The following observations provide an indication of the potential opportunities and cross reference to the respective service towers in Section 3. 1.3.1 Observations 1.3.1.1 Observation 1 DoC CIO Cost Attribution Service desk costs for the large number of service desk calls within ACMA is relatively cost effective when compared with DoC. Whilst it appears that DoC are less expensive for the overall ICT Management, if the costs associated with the CIO and administrative staff were allocated to this service tower, the costs would be comparative to ACMA. The costs associated with the DoC CIO and administrative support staff has not been included in the revised table. The DoC Enterprise Agreement does not capture the salary range for SES Level staff and Galent were unable to obtain financial information about the actual costs of these staff to allow a revised ICT Management expenditure to be facilitated. 1.3.1.2 Observation 2- Expanded Responsibility If a shared service model was adopted, a review of the organisational structure including responsibilities is likely to enable the better allocation of resources to address key pressures within both organisations. 1.3.1.3 Observation 3 Ability to share Web based services Both organisations have a significant and modern web presence - there appears to be opportunities to realign the technical capability across both organisations including support personnel. DoC appears to offer significant capability within this area. 1.3.1.4 Observation 4- Financial & Human Resource Systems Both organisations utilise enterprise financial and Human Resource systems with specific licences and support personnel. The rationalisation of the systems could contribute to cost savings (noting the investment required for transition). 1.3.1.5 Observation 5 Outsourcing Agreement In consideration of an alternative service delivery model, it would be timely to review the outsourcing agreement between DoC and ASG, taking into consideration both adjusted volumes and scope of service. It is noted that 45.84% of the outsourcing contract relates to Midrange operations, where the analysis indicates ACMA s cost of delivery is lower. (DoC expend $2.07m on Midrange services whilst ACMA expend $0.185m.) Page 4

1.3.1.6 Observation 6 Server utilisation Average monthly server utilisation across DoC servers was reported as 55% while ACMA server utilisation was 10% for the same period. There could be cost savings across both organisations if infrastructure was load balanced to increase the average server utilisation and bring down the number of physical servers required. 1.3.1.7 Observation 7 Shared Storage ACMA recently purchased large storage holdings including some designed to host transaction intensive systems. There would appear to be sufficient capacity to accommodate relevant DoC systems. 1.3.1.8 Observation 8 Shared support arrangement of WAN ACMA have an in-house capability of managing WAN services. Professional services costs associated with this capability could be reduced if a shared support arrangement with DoC was established. 1.3.1.9 Observation 9 Non-ICON Link oversubscription It may be possible to reduce costs of DoC s Non-ICON links given the WAN utilisation is significantly low. 1.3.1.10 Observations 10 Shared support arrangement for Gateway Services Comparing the operating financials submitted by both agencies indicates that DoC expends $0.288m whilst ACMA expend $0.248m. Noting the overall costs of gateway services are similar, in preparing the observation, only the annual maintenance costs of the gateways (DoC -$0.288m; ACMA -$0.063m) were used and indicate that there may be financial benefits in DoC leveraging ACMA s capability and capacity. 1.3.1.11 Observations 11 Shared LAN and RAS Infrastructure Through the implementation of a single pool of spares for LAN and RAS infrastructure, it is likely that some reduction in costs could be achieved. 1.3.1.12 Observations 12 Sharing End User Infrastructure Based on the submissions, it would appear that there are a significant amount of spare desktops and laptops within both agencies. Currently DoC have 735 desktops against a total agency FTE of 628 with ACMA reporting 675 desktops with an agency FTE of 540. If a shared arrangement was implemented, the requirement for a large surplus stock could be reduced. This is also likely to result in a reduction in software licences. 1.3.1.13 Observations 13 Shared Service Operation Staff A benefit to implementing a shared service model for the delivery of End User Infrastructure would be the reduction in risk to both agencies. The consolidation of service operation staff would facilitate the backing up of key personnel supporting a particular technology. Sharing a pool of resources across both agencies would also allow for better capacity management. Page 5

1.3.1.14 Observation 14 Difference in Voice Systems It was noted that each agency has different desk-based phone systems and different requirements for mobile devices (blackberry or satellite phones). Accordingly, it would appear that a shared service arrangement is unlikely to deliver reduced costs for voice services. The transition costs associated with converting to a similar environment and/or system may exceed the benefits that could be achieved through a shared arrangement. 1.3.1.15 Observation 15 Help desk and Switchboard efficiencies Both agencies performing similar activities within their ICT help desk and there may be cost efficiencies if a combined help desk was delivered by a single agency (as part of an overall integrated service ICT service delivery model). Similarly, switchboard operations across both agencies may also result in reduced costs from a combined switchboard function. 1.3.1.16 Observation 16 Help desk reporting tools DoC exhibited a capability to accurately report the details associated with the help desk calls. This tool has reached effective maturity and if a joint ICT Help Desk was established consideration should be given to utilising this tool as the support product. 1.3.1.17 Observation 17 Co-location of Primary Data Centre ACMA has purpose built facility, with ample capacity for addition servers and there would appear to be an opportunity for ACMA to host both agencies primary systems in Belconnen. 1.3.1.18 Observation 18 Co-location of Disaster Recovery Site If both agencies are paying commercial contracts for separate Disaster Recovery sites, there would appears to be benefit in consolidation of the capability. Alternatively, it may also be an option for the hosting of the Disaster Recovery site at DoC s office (with appropriate measures implemented). Page 6

2 Background 2.1 Department of Communications (DoC) As the portfolio lead agency the Department of Communication (DoC) reported a total agency FTE of 628 with 41.4 of these FTE allocated to the ICT. Department of Communication has been classified as a medium insource policy agency, who recovers minimal revenue. DoC have recently consolidated office locations within Canberra and now reside at 38 Sydney Avenue, Forrest. DoC have additional premises in New South Wales and Victoria. The primary data centre is also located at 38 Sydney Avenue. This data centre holds most, but not all primary systems. The Disaster Recovery (DR) site is located out of the Canberra CBD at leased facilities. It is noted that some primary systems are also located in the DR facility. Through its managed services to outsource provider ASG, the below service packages are provide to DoC and encompass the following services: 1: End User Support Services (28.69%) 2: Midrange (45.84%) 3: Voice (3.33%) 4: Network Services (4.33%) 5: Cross Platform Services (10.16%) 6: Switchboard Operations (6.97%) Page 7

The (%) allocated next to each Service Package is reflective of the proportion of total Outsourcing costs that have been attributed to the respective service towers and is based on advice from DoC. Reviewing the service package agreement, ASG indicate that SP5 (Cross Platform Services) is to be attributed across all other Service Packages. Attachment B provides a list of systems that DoC support. 2.2 Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) As a portfolio partner in the Department of Communications portfolio, ACMA reported a total agency FTE of 540 with 57 of these FTE allocated to ICT. ACMA has office locations within Melbourne, Sydney, Parramatta, Brisbane, Hobart and Canberra and is considered as having enforcement activities across broadcasting, telecommunications and internet regulation which include the investigation of suspected breaches. ACMA is a licencing agency and as such collects a substantial amount of revenue annually. ACMA s office location in Canberra was a purpose built facility and has been designed to accommodate both high and low side ICT capabilities within their data centre. ACMA uses an Enclave based security model to manage appropriate controls around its information of different classification across its network. The ICT area does not provide Operating Level agreements for the services they offer to their clients, however some Guarantees of service exist for a number of internal business areas. Attachment B provides a list of systems that ACMA support. 2.3 Methodology The process used to assist in understanding the ICT costs and the viability of either a full or partial shared service approach was through the commissioning of an analysis of each agencies original Cross-Agency ICT Benchmarking report for the 2012 2013 financial period. This analysis identified inconsistencies across each of the reports which required further clarification and/or backing documentation be supplied by each of the agencies. The erroneous data within both agencies submissions mostly related to interpretation of the questions although there were a few that have been described as typographic errors. Upon the discovery of the inconsistencies, Galent performed a deep-dive into the expenditure to not only better understand the items that each agency believed should be included in the overall submission but also the subsequent Service Towers and Cost Elements. This deep-dive allowed Galent to better understand the individual agencies, the general operations as well as the ICT environments and challenges that each ICT divisions is exposed to. To ensure a consistent methodology across all Service Towers, when this data was jointly mapped, any variances (+/- 30%) were investigated further and formed the detailed analysis under Section 3. The investigations consisted of personal interviews, email questions to each agency and regular phone discussions. Documents including the ASG Statement of work (Department of Communications) and both Annual Reports were also reviewed to adopt a more holistic understanding of the departments. Page 17

Comparisons were made against the Department of Finance (AGIMO) Cross-Agency ICT Benchmarks 2012-13: All FMA Act Agencies report. Follow up meetings with the Agency s CIO and their Deputies were conducted to seek clarification to support the analysis. 2.4 Agency Financial comparison Following the amendments to the Cross-Agency ICT Benchmarking submissions, the total ICT expenditure (Operating and Capital) against the overall Agency s expenditure was:- DoC ($17.1m, 12%); and ACMA allocating ($11.4m, 8.8%). Total Agency Expenditure (Opex & Capex) $17,177,266, 12% Total Agency Expenditure (Opex & Capex) $11,430,961, 8.8% Total ICT Expenditure (Opex & Capex) Total ICT Expenditure (Opex & Capex) $120,316,063, 88% $118,972,803, 91.2% Figure 1: DoC - Operating & Capital Expenditure Figure 2: ACMA - Operating & Capial Expenditure As part of the Cross-Agency ICT Benchmarking report, both agencies were categorised as Medium, Insourced / Policy (IP). On average, during the 2012-13 financial year medium insourced/policy agency s spent $20.6million. 2.5 Service Tower Analysis $16 Combined Operating & Capital by Service Towers $14 MILLIONS $12 $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $- ICT Management Applications Midrange Storage WAN Gateway LAN and RAS End user Voice services infrastructure Helpdesk Facilities Non BAU-ICT ACMA $1,262,518 $5,630,381 $249,395 $- $493,780 $248,708 $- $2,865,016 $162,938 $518,225 $- $6,885,691 DoC $577,605 $8,401,660 $3,264,829 $307,240 $556,775 $589,278 $419,019 $516,745 $625,330 $1,718,898 $199,887 $5,220,252 The above graph illustrates the combined operating and capital expenditure across all service towers for both agencies. As represented, there are some key areas demonstrating significant variance which are outlined in Section 3. The analysis conducted in Section 3 will focus on the financial Page 18

comparison of service towers and identify the linkage to the corresponding cost elements. Page 19

3 Comparative Analysis To better understand the viability of implementing a shared service approach, either fully or partially, across DoC and ACMA, Galent analysed the full ICT expenditure at the Service Tower level and where appropriate reviewed and explored components of the cost elements. The information detailed below is the main Service Towers where there was a +/- 30% variant. It should not be viewed that this is the only factor when considering the benefits of a shared service facility. 3.1 Resourcing Whilst both agencies provided ICT support to its clients, the way in which this support is provided was quite different. DoC provided a predominantly outsourced model with an in-house management structure, while all ICT support staff within ACMA are in-house FTE. Both agencies have a Chief Information Officer (noting that DoC have reported this to be only a 0.75FTE) with subordinate EL2 s. It is understood that the additional.25 FTE is allocated to the management of facilities. Both agency have components of ICT outsourced to external providers that encompass both cloud and non-cloud services. These resources are not included in the following table: Agency APS3 APS4 APS5 APS6 EL1 EL2 SES1 Ext. TOTAL DoC 0.10 2.10 2.50 8.30 14.65 7.00 0.75 6.00 41.40 ACMA 0.00 2.00 2.00 15.00 19.00 3.00 1.00 15.00 57.00 TOTALS 0.10 4.10 4.50 23.30 33.65 10.00 1.75 21.00 98.40 Variance 8 0.10 0.10 0.5-6.7-4.35 4.00-0.25-9.00-15.60 3.2 Service Tower Breakdown (Original and Revised) To facilitate a like for like assessment of expenditure and to highlight possible areas that may benefit from a shared service concept, clarification was sought on discrepancies. Based on justification provided, service towers were adjusted accordingly as reflected in the above table. These adjustments related mainly to the distribution of the 6 Service Packages that are outsourced by DoC to ASG and removal of ACMA NPP initiatives. Detailed analysis of the service towers and key observations follow. 8 The above variance highlights the difference in resourcing levels between DoC and ACMA. This does not include the outsourced component. Page 20

3.2.1 ICT Management The disparity between both agencies relates mainly to the interpretation of the guidance documentation. Guidance documentation 9 indicates that this Service Tower should include the costs of 100% of the CIO even if the incumbent is only acting in that role or works across shared function e.g. Finance / HR and associated costs of any administrative staff that support the CIO e.g. EA s or PA s. Clarification from ACMA revealed that whilst they did attribute the costs of the CIO to this service tower, it would appear that there were no costs associated with any direct administration staff included in their submission. In contrast, DoC have attributed only 0.75 of the CIO under the FTE component but have not included any expenditure costs towards this service tower. It was further revealed that the original submission from DoC had attributed portions of the outsourcing to the ICT Management which to facilitate a comparison has been adjusted according to the proportion allocation previously mentioned. Observation 1- DoC CIO Cost Attribution Service desk costs for the large number of service desk calls within ACMA is relatively cost effective when compared with DoC. Whilst it appears that DoC are less expensive for the overall ICT Management, if the costs associated with the CIO and administrative staff were allocated to this service tower, the costs would be comparative to ACMA. The costs associated with the DoC CIO and administrative support staff has not been included in the revised table. The DoC Enterprise Agreement does not capture the salary range for SES Level staff and Galent were unable to obtain financial information about the actual costs of these staff to allow a revised ICT Management expenditure to be facilitated. Whilst it appears that DoC are less expensive for the overall ICT Management, if the costs associated with the CIO and administrative staff were allocated to this service tower, the costs would be comparative to ACMA. Observation 2- Expanded Responsibility If a shared service model was adopted, a review of the organisational structure including responsibilities is likely to enable the better allocation of resources to address key pressures within both organisations. 3.2.2 Applications Expenditure under Applications Service Towers should include programs and other software that perform user or business related processing functions. Software does not include the actual tools or utilities used to deliver the service. Software that relates to specific hardware such as Midrange servers should not be attributed to this Service Tower but should be included in the overall Midrange costs. Of the total 41.4 ICT BAU FTE, DoC have confirmed that 29.2 ICT BAU FTE are correctly attributed to this tower as DoC include Web Services, Information Management, Mapping and Systems Development and Procurement and Finance Systems in this category. 9 AGIMO Cross-Agency ICT Benchmarks 2012-13 Page 21

ACMA have 17 ICT BAU FTE (out of 57) allocated to the Applications service tower. ACMA initially had a significantly high capital expenditure ($11.3m) but upon further explanation approximately $8.3m of this related to government specific initiatives or NPP s which have been removed from the capital expenditure. These initiatives included: Australian Internet Security ($0.471m) Spam Intelligence Database ($0.277m) Cybersmart Website ($0.118m) New Licensing System (Project HELM) ($2.7m) New Industry Media Reporting Systems (Project MICE) ($1.08m) Case Management and Information System (DNCR/SPAM) ($1.4m) Online Content Investigation System (PACMAN) ($1.43m) Quarterly System Enhancements ($0.839m) Both DoC and ACMA have specific government initiatives and for the purpose of a comparison, these costs have been removed. Without obtaining an itemised expenditure reports the assumption has been made that the staffing and supplier costs have been correctly attributed. Observation 3 Ability to share Web based services Both organisations have a significant and modern web presence - there appears to be opportunities to realign the technical capability across both organisations including support personnel. DoC appears to offer significant capability within this area. Observation 4- Financial & Human Resource Systems Both organisations utilise enterprise financial and Human Resource systems with specific licences and support personnel. The rationalisation of the systems could contribute to cost savings (noting the investment required for transition). 3.2.3 Midrange Midrange is considered to be the services, hardware, software, functions, personnel and activities involved in running server applications and capacity. The initial submission from DoC indicated that they attributed $0.392m to this service tower. Upon discussions with DoC and further analysis of the service packages it was uncovered that this figure was not correct as a portion of the service packages should have been attributed to Midrange. Galent reviewed the high level agreement with ASG and following advice from DoC relating to the portion to attributed, the operating component for DoC was amended to $2.07m accordingly. Midrange services are currently outsourced by DoC and advise is that approximately 46% of the total outsource expenditure relates to these services against only $0.185m for ACMA. During 2012-13 DoC expended $1.1m in Capital for Midrange which included Cloud Offering for Dev Test. As Capital is an ad hoc arrangement it has not been considered in the overall evaluation of this service tower. Page 22

Observation 5 Outsourcing Agreement In consideration of an alternative service delivery model, it would be timely to review the outsourcing agreement between DoC and ASG, taking into consideration both adjusted volumes and scope of service. It is noted that 45.84% of the outsourcing contract relates to Midrange operations, where the analysis indicates ACMA s cost of delivery is lower. (DoC expend $2.07m on Midrange services whilst ACMA expend $0.185m.) Observation 6 Server utilisation Average monthly server utilisation across DoC servers was reported as 55% while ACMA server utilisation was 10% for the same period. There could be cost savings across both organisations if infrastructure was load balanced to increase the average server utilisation and bring down the number of physical servers required. 3.2.4 Storage ACMA have confirmed that they did not incur any costs associated with Storage during the 2013-14 FY. ACMA have further indicated that they have available storage and would be willing to allow DoC access to this. Observation 7 Shared Storage ACMA have recently purchased large storage holdings including some designed to host transaction intensive systems. There would appear to be sufficient capacity to accommodate relevant DoC systems. 3.2.5 WAN Based on the breakdown provided by DoC, this tower was adjusted to cover the proportion of the Service Package that is outsourced. Along with the operating finances being adjusted, DoC further revised their Total WAN Capacity from 440 Mbps to 49,672Mbps. This figures appears to be magnitudes larger than ACMA (3,282 Mbps) but the expenditure for both agencies is similar with only an 11% variance. ACMA have advised that due to the accounting convenience, they include all the LAN costs within this service tower. Despite this, they still appear to be able to provide both a WAN and LAN service for less costs then DoC have reported for WAN and LAN. Non-ICON Link average utilisation 1% compared to ACMA s 75%. An explanation of this low utilisation may relate to over capacity links. This would also increase the operating costs of such links. Observation 8 Shared support arrangement of WAN ACMA have an in-house capability of managing WAN services. Professional services costs associated with this capability could be reduced if a shared support arrangement with DoC was established. Observation 9 Non-ICON Link oversubscription It may be possible to reduce costs of DoC s Non-ICON links given the WAN utilisation is significantly low. Page 23

3.2.6 Gateway It is understood that DoC outsourced the consolidation of their gateways to Verizon as per the AGIMO panel through ASG during 2012-13. Advice received indicates that this costs was approximately $0.722m which has been removed for comparison purposes, as ACMA gateway transition costs were nil during the period being reviewed. ACMA have confirmed that the annual cost of their Gateway is $0.063m and that during 2012-13 the balance of their operating costs were to cover the Secure Gateway component. Observations 10 Shared support arrangement for Gateway Services Comparing the operating financials submitted by both agencies indicates that DoC expends $0.288m whilst ACMA expend $0.248m. Noting the overall costs of gateway services are similar, in preparing the observation, only the annual maintenance costs of the gateways (DoC -$0.288m; ACMA -$0.063m) were used and indicate that there may be financial benefits in DoC leveraging ACMA s capability and capacity. 3.2.7 LAN and RAS ACMA s submission indicated no costs were allocated to this service tower. Following discussions with ACMA it was confirmed that as the costs are minimal, they do not distinguish between LAN and WAN and therefore costs associated with LAN have been captured in the WAN service tower. Observations 11 Shared LAN and RAS Infrastructure Through the implementation of a single pool of spares for LAN and RAS infrastructure, it is likely that some reduction in costs could be achieved. 3.2.8 End User Infrastructure Given the environment that DoC operate in, the expenditure attributed to EUI appears significantly low. It is appreciated that the expenditure under this service tower can be dependent on many elements including whether the agency has completed a technology upgrade during the previous financial years. The review determined that both DoC and ACMA s expenditure are outside the average for medium agencies (13%). DoC currently spends 3% and ACMA 31% against this service tower. Advice from ACMA is that the expenditure during 2012-13 financial year was mainly associated with Peripherals and others ($1.05m), Handover and PIR ($0.5m), Desktops ($0.38m), Printers ($0.17m) and Analysis ($0.16m). Contributing to the significant variance, is 1 FTE for DoC compared to ACMA having 18 FTE (16 internal and 2 external) allocated. DoC have advised that most of their staff are attributed to Applications service tower which may explain some of the variance in this service tower. Observations 12 Sharing End User Infrastructure Based on the submissions, it would appear that there are a significant amount of spare desktops and laptops within both agencies. Currently DoC have 735 desktops against a total agency FTE of 628 with ACMA reporting 675 desktops with an agency FTE of 540. If a shared arrangement was implemented, the requirement for a large surplus stock could be reduced. This is also likely to result in a reduction in software licences. Page 24

Observations 13 Shared Service Operation Staff A benefit to implementing a shared service model for the delivery of End User Infrastructure would be the reduction in risk to both agencies. The consolidation of service operation staff would facilitate the backing up of key personnel supporting a particular technology. Sharing a pool of resources across both agencies would also allow for better capacity management. 3.2.9 Voice Services DoC outsource this component under Service Package 3. The proportion that is attributed to this tower was revised based on their advice. The Operating costs across both agencies are comparable but benefits may be forthcoming from sharing services and equipment. Both agencies have indicated that there are surplus desk phones and mobile devices which, depending on the specific requirements of each agency may be able to be shared as a pool. Whilst surplus mobile phones are identified, it is noted that both agencies appear to use different types for examples, DoC use Blackberries whilst ACMA utilise a majority of iphones with some Satellite phones for some field staff. Observation 14 Difference in Voice Systems It was noted that each agency has different desk-based phone systems and different requirements for mobile devices (blackberry or satellite phones). Accordingly, it would appear that a shared service arrangement is unlikely to deliver reduced costs for voice services. The transition costs associated with converting to a similar environment and/or system may exceed the benefits that could be achieved through a shared arrangement. 3.2.10 Help Desk Both DoC and ACMA do not appear to have the traditional ICT Helpdesk with both agencies utilising this capability as a first point of contact for enquiries. ACMA receive calls relating to field staff needing assistances (i.e. flat tyre) with DoC covering business aspects including calls relating to Facilities (i.e. toilet needs cleaning). ACMA operate a fully in-housed Help Desk whilst DoC operate a fully outsourced first point of contact although there appears to be management oversight of the contract. A review of an agency s Helpdesk calls often indicates the technical ICT health of the agency. DoC reportedly had 38 calls logged for every FTE (updated figures) while ACMA reported 25 support calls for each FTE. Interestingly, ACMA indicated that the high volume logged was due to the significant helpdesk scope that ACMA provides to its client base. i.e., some staff would log a service call through the helpdesk to purchase tyres for ACMA transit vans. Closer analysis of DoC helpdesk reveals a similar service delivered to clients but this is definitely a more thorough service as DoC s service provider also logs calls for Facility maintenance (i.e. toilet cleaning, blocked toilets, air conditioner issues). Given the out of the norm scope of both agencies helpdesk activities, it would appear viable for a single help desk to be formed with the primary triage undertaken by the level 1 and with the use of a matrix, calls would be forwarded to resolver groups for each agency. This would however require the use of one service desk tool across both agencies or configuration of a connector to allow support calls to traverse the separate systems. Page 25

On reviewing the breakdown of DoC support calls, it was noted that there was an inconsistent approach to the classification placed on calls. i.e. this has flow on effects when a major incident occurs or when problem management activities are being performed. It would appear that ACMA are able to operate a fully in-housed one-stop shop for approximately 30% of what it appears to cost DoC for the equivalent out-sourced concept. Observation 15 Help desk and Switchboard efficiencies Both agencies performing similar activities within their ICT help desk and there may be cost efficiencies if a combined help desk was delivered by a single agency (as part of an overall integrated service ICT service delivery model). Similarly, switchboard operations across both agencies may also result in reduced costs from a combined switchboard function. Observation 16 Help desk reporting tools DoC exhibited a capability to accurately report the details associated with the help desk calls. This tool has reached effective maturity and if a joint ICT Help Desk was established consideration should be given to utilising this tool as the support product. 3.2.11 Facilities It was reported that DoC operate a primary data centre from within its head office in Forrest. ACMA also run its primary data centre from its head office which is based in Belconnen. A personal visit to the site revealed a purpose built facility that holds systems of various classifications. There appeared to be ample capacity to host additional hardware within this secure environment. Both DoC and ACMA utilise separate commercial facilities to host their Disaster Recovery site. Observation 17 Co-location of Primary Data Centre ACMA has purpose built facility, with ample capacity for addition servers and there would appear to be an opportunity for ACMA to host both agencies primary systems in Belconnen. Observation 18 Co-location of Disaster Recovery Site If both agencies are paying commercial contracts for separate Disaster Recovery sites, there would appears to be benefit in consolidation of the capability. Alternatively, it may also be an option for the hosting of the Disaster Recovery site at DoC s office (with appropriate measures implemented). 3.2.12 Carriage Cost Element AGIMO define carriage as a service for carrying communications by means of guided and/or unguided electromagnetic energy. Carriage services are attributed to two main Cost Elements being:- WAN costs relating to data services and volume; and Voice Services costs relating to voice, video services and volume. The information summarised in the below table highlights the difference between both agencies and has been based on the revised details provided by DoC. Page 26

Key points relating to the Carriage information are: Despite both agencies having costs attributed to the service tower and cost elements, neither agency indicated any dedicated FTE (either whole or in part) that is assigned to ensuring these functions are completed. In the case of DoC, Schedule 3 Statement of Work indicate that Voice, LAN and WAN costs are outsourced to ASG. Along with the costs indicated below, DoC also have reported Capital expenditure for Voice Services totalling $389,208 Service Towers DoC ACMA Total Costs $68,830 $895,288 WAN Voice Costs $381,483 $493,780 Capacity (Mbps) 49,672 10 3,282 Links 18 11 21 Fixed Users 735 625 Fixed Devices 735 680 Mobile Users 88 10 Mobile Devices 88 (Blackberry) 10 (Satellite Phones) SmartPhone Users 105 12 215 SmartPhone Devices 165 215 (iphones) Costs $489,752 $162,938 3.2.13 Services Outsourced to External Providers For the purpose of the ICT Benchmarking Comparisons, agencies are required to report on the Services Outsourced according to four categories:- Services Outsourced to external providers (cloud) Services Outsourced to external providers (non-cloud) Services Outsourced to FMA Act agencies (cloud) Services Outsourced to FMA Act agencies (non-cloud) Neither agency identified costs (either Operating or Capital) for Services Outsourced to FMA Act agencies (cloud) with ACMA only reporting Operating expenditure against Services outsourced to external provider (non-cloud) as identified in the table below. 10 Revised figure from DoC. Original figure was 440Mbps. 11 Revised figure from DoC. Original figure was 6 Links. 12 DoC report that some SmartPhone users have multiple devices but this appears to be a reporting discrepancy. Page 27

Cost Elements DoC ACMA Operating Capital Operating Capital Services outsourced to external provider (cloud) Services outsourced to external provider (non-cloud) Services outsourced to FMA Act Agencies (non-cloud) Total Outsourced $187,560 $0 $0 $0 $5,464,244 $90,000 $1,789,946 $0 $379,821 $0 $0 $0 $6,031,624 $90,000 $1,789,946 $0 3.2.14 Others ACMA have reported $0.763m against this cost element which is significantly higher than DoC who only reported $0.004m. ACMA have confirmed that they included services relating to Postage, Recall & Document Storage, Stationary, Subscription Services (including VUM and Research), Ink, Couriers and Library within this expenditure. Some of these services relate more to Information Management and appear that they would be better placed against other specific elements. Further advice from ACMA is that they expend a large amount annually on postage. Whilst this is not identified by the Gershon review definitions as ICT, ACMA included this in its costs as Information Management is part of ICT in its agency. Page 28

4 Shared Service Opportunities Traditionally there are two arguments for sharing services across agencies being less of a common resource and efficiency through industrialization with most agency undertaking this as a less of a common resource perceptive which simply means that through amalgamation you will require less managers, less resources and thereby reduce costs. Service delivery to clients generally can be implemented easier as this usually involves Back-of-House services such as HR, finance, payroll and ICT. DoC and ACMA, while both operating in a complex environment and having vastly different responsibilities to the Australian Public and Australian Government, have some services and system where operating a joint shared service model may prove beneficial to all parties. Galent have reviewed all documentation provided by DoC and ACMA and based on the environmental awareness that has been able to be drawn from these have identified some areas where a shared arrangement may prove valuable to both parties. Both agencies utilise similar infrastructure to support their respective business domains. Whilst this isn t unusual in a Federal Government context, there are technology platforms that could be supported by one agency on behalf of the other, to reduce the overall cost of ownership to each agency. To deliver a shared services arrangement, a full costing model would need to be developed to ensure all parties are in agreement to the scope, costs, impacts, benefits, duration and service level obligations. A shared services arrangement should also be used to mature existing processes and reduce risk to agencies through greater ICT functional resilience. As indicated in the Summary of Observations, Galent has identified 18 key areas where either a fully or partially shared arrangement could prove beneficial to finding efficiencies, reducing risk and enhancing ICT functional capability. Page 29

Attachments Page 30

Attachment A. Consultations Department of Communications (DoC) Lee Di Berardino, CIO Tonina Staunton, ICT Manager, Web Services Russell Wentworth, Manager, Infrastructure & IT Security Henry Tabisz, Manager, Information Management Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) Carsten Larsen, CIO Karl Maftoum, Deputy CIO Page 31

Attachment B. Departmental Systems DoC ACMA System Function System Function TM1 Finance Reporting tool that supports SAP Technology One Used Technology One mainly for Financial Reporting Promaster Financial management itm1 Budgeting and reporting application used in conjunction with Technology One finance system Corporate Directory Front end application that provides identity management to corporate systems Insync/SharePoint/Lync In house web application that acts as a corporate directory Entry/Exit system Manages onboarding and offboarding of staff and contractors Insync In house web application that includes staff onboarding movement and exit workflows MS FAST (Search) Enterprise search capability across multiple data stores, network drives, IMS, SharePoint, Intranet and TRIM SharePoint Enterprise 2013 Search The ACMA is currently trialling this platform Information Management System Electronic documents and records management system TRIM, SharePoint COTS Document / records management system Legal Point Management of legal matters and legal precedents RecordPoint Document Compliance solution for SharePoint 2010 add-on solution enabling Archives Actcompliant records management of documents and items stored in SharePoint MS FIM (Forefront Identity Manager) Workflow for Identity Management MS FIM (Forefront Identity Manager) The ACMA is developing its FIM environment and process, currently used for SSO for Aurion (ESS) Cab Tracker System to manage documents above PROTECTED classification erecruitment Hosted cloud base service from NGA. Users have single signon access to erecruitment ExecCorro Parliamentary liaison system Aurion HR system used to record personnel details for staff E-Recruit ArcGIS, Google Earth, Spectra, ChirPlus Graphical Information System (GIS) tools include ARCSDE Server and desktop client, and ARCGIS server Page 32

DoC ACMA System Function System Function Aurion HR system used to record personnel details for staff Microsoft System Centre Service Manager (SCSM), SharePoint & Intranet SCSM is used as knowledge management system for ICT related material. SharePoint and Intranet is used to host other knowledge related material. Mapping Enterprise mapping capability Aruba/Cisco/HP Wireless access to the Internet; Network connectivity back into ACMA from ACMA monitoring sites Known Information Management System (KIMS) Red Hat, Solaris Midrange mixture of Sun/Oracle and Intel hardware Exchange Email, Voice mail, U/C, Link, Outlook web access EMC/HTC/Synology/HP Tape Library EMC storage to be replaced/augmented by HTC hybrid storage solution starting next FY PACMAN (Protected ACMA network) Protected Network Internal: Transport of all data across enterprise, inter-floor, inter-site, Phones, Voice Ext: Email, data transfers, remote access, Communication between agencies through Secure Internet Gateway or Fedlink. Inbound access for the public to Department websites. Covers infrastructure at 2 data centres. Gateway services outsourced to VzB. (Verizon) FedLink used in the Finance area. Internal Network is not protected. HP hardware for LAN connectivity. Mixture of HP and Cisco hardware for WAN connectivity. DR data centre is a Layer 2 connected site so is treated as an extension of the primary data centre. ACMA operate a separate network for its Protected applications and data. UNCLASSIFIED Network Ext: wireless internet access for mobile devices. No Gateway or Fedlink access. Available across interstate sites. Commvault Provides a partial backup of corporate data. Private Cloud Development and Test environments with full automation and selfprovisioning AirWatch Enterprise-grade mobile device management, mobile application management and mobile content management Page 33