Positioning Washington for the Future
J u n e 1 0 , 2 0 1 5
Technology Services Board J u n e 1 0 , 2 0 1 5 Technology - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Positioning Washington for the Future Technology Services Board J u n e 1 0 , 2 0 1 5 Technology Services Board Welcome / Opening Remarks Michael Cockrill Senator Mark Miloscia New Member Enterprise Content Management
J u n e 1 0 , 2 0 1 5
Technology Services Board
Agenda
Technology Services Board
Agenda
T he E nte rprise Co nte nt Ma na g e me nt (E CM) I nitia tive
Ba c k to the F uture
E CM I nitia tive
Ho w do e s this e na b le o ur missio n/ g o a ls? Ho w do e s this I
mpa c t:
Co st Re puta tio n Risk
Re c e nt Co st o f Go v’ t Ob lig a tio ns
Age nc y or Or ganization PDRs Pe r Yr F T E ’s Payouts
Bo a rd o f Ac c o unta nc y (2009) *10 e mplo ye e s a t time 49 Up to 10 $500,000 City o f Ba inb rid g e Isla nd (2014) *Re sig na tio n o f c ity
c o unc il me mb e r
$487,000 City o f Sho re line (2013) $538,555 City o f Spo ka ne (2014) *fo r ONE
misplac e d re c o rd
$26,325 De pt o f E c o lo g y (E CY) 4,500 9 $443,246 De pt o f F ina nc ia l Institutio ns (DF I) 595 4 $0 De pt o f F ish a nd Wild life (DF W) (2013-2014) 715 1 $693,000 De pt. o f L a b o r a nd Ind ustrie s (L NI) *unde r a ppe a l 5,853 8 $502,827 De pt o f So c ia l He a lth Se rvic e s (DSHS) (2009) 22,000 56 $525,001 L iq uo r Co ntro l Bo a rd (L CB) (2015) PDR b y Arthur We st $192,000 Po rt o f Olympia (2014) PDR b y Arthur We st $187,300 Sno ho mish Co unty (2014) $575,000 Unive rsity o f Wa shing to n (UW) *Appe a le d a nd Re ve rse d,
$102,958 in le g a l fe e s
$826,248 Curre nt sa mpling thro ug h a g e nc y po lling a nd pub lic re c o rd s
T he Ob lig a tio ns o f Go v’ t
Busine ss pro c e sse s a re simila r to priva te
se c to r
Doc ume nt handling r e quir e me nts ofte n diffe r
Ag e nc ie s o fte n re fe r b a c k to pa st
do c ume nts to c o nduc t b usine ss (Oso mud slide )
Must pro vide do c ume nts to the pub lic o n
re q ue st (DSHS 22,000 pub lic disc lo sure re q ue sts pe r ye a r)
L
T he Pro b le m to So lve
No c o nsiste nt filing sc he me E
mplo ye e s c a n’ t find do c ume nts - wa ste d time a nd frustra tio n
Mo b ile : Ca n’ t g e t da ta to re mo te use rs –
Mo re duplic a tio n
T he Pro b le m to So lve
Gro wing Bo w Wa ve o f
Re dunda nt, Ob so le te , T ra nsie nt da ta (ROT )
Pub lic disc lo sure Pro b le ms E
nsue
Duplic a te re c o rds pro life ra te Multiple sto ra g e lo c a tio ns E
xpire d re c o rds a re n’ t dispo sitio ne d
E CM I nitia tive
A Be tte r Wa y to Ma na g e o ur Unstruc ture d I nfo rma tio n
Administra to rs I T Se c urity Pub lic Disc lo sure L e g a l Re c o rds Ma na g e rs Mg mt. Use rs De fe nsib le Dispo sitio n E a sy to Disc lo se Pro c e ss I mpro ve me nt E a sy to Co lla b o ra te Se c ure / Re lia b le E a sy to F ind E a sy to Sto re E CM Bre a kthro ug h Princ iple s
Single Instanc e of Doc ume nt Stor e Up F r
(Cre a te , T a g it & Ba g it)
Ac c e ss Anytime , Anywhe r e
(Autho rize d Use rs)
De str
ime
Challe nge Past Cur r e nt F utur e
Po we rful Se a rc h T
a sy to find d o c ume nts Y F ind misfile d d o c ume nts ~ Y Ac c e ss d o c ume nts fro m o utsid e the o ffic e ~ Y Ve rsio n d o c ume nts ~ Y Do c ume nt se c urity ~ Y Do c ume nt a uthe ntic ity Y De stro y d o c s o n time Y Y Apply le g a l ho ld s Y ~ Y Re d a c tio n to o ls ~ Y Co nsiste nt filing sc he me Y Y Pa rt o f the b usine ss pro c e ss Y Y Sing le insta nc e o f d o c ume nt ~ Y
Pa st Curre nt F uture
Wha t’ s in it fo r me ?
E CM I nitia tive
Ste e ring Co mmitte e L e a de rship T e a m
Da ve K irk, Ro Ma rc us, L e slie K
Princ iple s & Go ve rna nc e E CM Se le c tio n Pro o f o f Co nc e pts Co nsulta nt Se le c tio n Co mmunic a tio ns L e slie K
Mike Birming ha m Se a n K rie r We ndy Wa lke r Phil Bra dy Sc o tt Smith Da ve K irk Ro Ma rc us L e slie K
17
Ste e ring Co mmitte e Me mb e rs
Mic ha e l Co c krill, Sta te CI O Nic k Bro wn, Ge ne ra l Co unse l to the Go ve rno r Na nc y K rie r, Pub lic Re c o rd Omb udsma n, AT G Jo e Sho rin, E
G Ro Ma rc us, L e g a l Co unse l, OF M Chuc k Pfe il, De puty Sta te Audito r, SAO K im Wyma n, Se c re ta ry o f Sta te Ste ve E xc e ll, Sta te Arc hivist, SOS L uc y I sa ki, Sta te Risk Ma na g e r, DE S Jo e Sto hr, De puty Dire c to r, DF W Je ssic a T udo ro vic h, De puty Dire c to r, DOH L ynne Mc Guire , De puty Dire c to r, DE S Christy Rido ut, De puty Dire c to r, CT S
E CM I nitia tive
Cro ss Ag e nc y, Multi-Disc iplina ry Pro c ure me nt Multiple Awa rd, Ma ste r Ag re e me nts F
ive F ina list Ve ndo rs
RF P
L OCAL
DE S L NI E CY DOH AT G DOL CT S SOS OCIO DF W DSHS DF I
Curre nt Sta tus – E CM Pro c ure me nt
E CM Se le c tio n
I
T Se c urity De sig n Re vie ws Unde rwa y
Ne g o tia te Co ntra c ts Ve ndo r F
a irs / Ac q uire E CM Syste ms
Technology Services Board
Agenda
Policy/Standard Action Requests
Policy 101 – Tech Policies & Standards
Executive Agencies Education Separately elected
POLICY DEVELOPMENT GOVERNANCE
Portfolio Subcommittee Technology Services Board Adopt pending Board approval Review strategic alignment & business case Recommend Validate alignment Approve/reject
which agencies are required to follow them
Policy 103 – Waivers
permanent or time limited basis
Balancing Risk Security Architecture Legal Financial Operations Potential Loss
Policy 184 – Data Center
data center
TBM Policy & Standards
Std 171.11 – Internet Markup Language
Technology Services Board
Agenda
Technology Services Board
Agenda
TSB
Alex Alben June 10, 2015
Alex Alben
University of Washington 2012-14
Scope of CPO Position
issues and best practices
framework for new products and services
personally identifiable information:
Initiatives to date
academia, government and non-profits
J u n e 1 0 , 2 0 1 5
Business Problem
Governor’s budget office and Legislature need better insight to inform
decisions on IT budget requests.
36
Decision Lens – the tool
A tool for balancing multiple asks against limited dollars Sorting out between apples and pears
37
Decision Criteria link to IT Strategies
Business Alignment Security Modernization Mobility Open Data Transparency Agile Value Cultural Readiness Interoperability
38
Schedule
Instructions Available @ OCIO and OFM – JUNE 2015 Concept Reviews with OCIO: JULY – AUGUST BOARD TO WEIGHT CRITERIA: JULY – AUGUST Budget Requests Submitted: SEPTEMBER Scoring Process – OCIO/OFM Partnership: OCTOBER - NOVEMBER
39
Technology Services Board
Agenda