United States Administration And EPA 220-8-93-013 Environmental Protection Resources Management April 1993 Agency (PM-211D) &EPA Improving EPA's Information Resources Management Planning Charting A Course For Effective Planning To Meet EPA's Information Resources Need: ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Introduction 1 Goals of the Action Plan 2 The End Products of the Action Plan 2 Key Components of an IRM Plan 2 The Action Plan 5 SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 Background 9 1.2 Purpose 9 1.3 Approach 9 1.4 Goal of this Task 10 SECTION 2 - PROBLEM STATEMENT 11 2.1 Problems, Causes, and Characteristics: The Computer Systems Integrity Report . . 11 2.2 Risk Statement....'. 12 2.3 The Problem Summarized 13 SECTION 3 - GOALS OF THE ACTION PLAN . 15 SECTION 4 - END-PRODUCTS OF THE ACTION PLAN 17 4.1 The Agency-Level IRM Five Year Implementation Plan 17 4.1.1 Framework 17 4.1.2 Content of The Agency IRM Five Year Implementation Plan 18 4.2 The Process to Integrate Mission-Based IRM Planning with the Budget 21 4.2.1 The IRM Planning Process 21 4.2.2 Participant Roles and Responsibilities 24 4.2.3 Resource Requirements 27 4.2.4 Support for Agency-wide Initiatives 28 4.2.5 Benefits of an Integrated Planning Process 28 4.3 Fulfillment of FIRMR Requirements 29 4.4 Institutional Commitment 30 SECTION 5 - ACTION PLAN FOR IMPROVING IRM PLANNING 31 5.1 Phase 1 - Groundwork 31 5.2 Phase 2 - Process Development and First Cycle 31 5.2.1 Baseline Data Call Integration 32 5.2.?. Procedure Development 32 5.2.3 Pilot Planning and Data Integration Cycle 33 ------- 5.2.4 Assessment, Revision, and Submission for Green Border Review 33 5.3 Phase 3 - First Full IRM Planning Cycle . 34 5.4 Action Plan Key Milestones 35 SECTION 6 - ISSUES 37 6.1 The Action Plan 37 6.2 The IRM Architecture Planning Process 37 6.3 Plan Content, Usage and Roles 38 6.4 IRM Planning and Budget Integration 39 SECTION 7 - NEXT STEPS 41 ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Effective planning and management of information resources is crucial to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ability to accomplish its mission. Each year the Agency invests millions of dollars to develop and maintain information systems, and significant amounts of data are accumulated and managed by these management, scientific, decision-making, reporting, and public service systems. EPA's Information Resource Management (IRM) Planning processes are of interest to senior managers within the Agency, and also to oversight officials. A recent Computer Systems Integrity Report, issued on September 28, 1992 by the EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG), points out the importance of linking IRM strategic planning with a five-year implementation plan, and with the budget process of the Agency. Further, in December 1992 the Agency declared IRM Planning to be an area of material weakness and noted three key IRM problems. Key IRM Problems Resulting From Inadequate IRM Planning Data integration is adversely impacted by this and other factors. Resources for IRM are more difficult to attract. It is a technical violation of Federal IRM Regulations (FIRMR). The OIG audit report cites three causes for the lack of adequate IRM planning. "First, OARM has not supplied adequate resources to address long-range planning; second, there is a lack of procedures and guidance for IRM planning; and finally, OARM has not established a mechanism to provide oversight and enforcement of a mission-based planning policy." The problems can be stated in actionable terms as follows: Lack of a discrete, defined process for mission-based IRM planning which is linked to the budget process and an oversight process. Lack of a mission-based Agency-level Five Year IRM Implementation Plan integrated with budget considerations. ------- Action Plan for Improving JRM Planning This Action Plan provides an approach to development and implementation of an Agency five year IRM implementation planning, budgeting, and oversight process that addresses these problems. Goals of the Action Plan The goals of this Action Plan are to: Identify the steps needed to improve IRM planning at the Agency; Define the improvement process to integrate mission-based IRM planning, budgeting, and oversight; and Chart an orderly course towards initial and sustained development of an Agency-level Five Year IRM Implementation Plan. The End Products of the Action Plan The end products, or anticipated results of the Action Plan are as follows: An Agency-level Five Year IRM Implementation Plan, A process to guide the development of the Program/Region and Agency IRM Implementation Plans which integrates mission-based planning with the budget, The fulfillment of FIRMR IRM planning and budgeting requirements, and The institutional commitment to sustain improved IRM planning. Key Components of an IRM Plan The IRM Strategic Plan defines the goals and mission of the Agency IRM program. It is a subset of the. broader Agency Strategic Plan and must be consistent with the mission and goals established for the Agency. The IRM Strategic Plan is the first component of an overall IRM Plan. IRM Strategic Plans should also be established at the Program/Regional Office level to support Program and Regional Office missions and goals. ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning The Five Year IRM Implementation Plans for the Agency and component offices define hou; the strategic IRM mission and goals of the respective organizations will be implemented over the next five years. These plans define specific goals, milestones, needs, and resources to accomplish the IRM work of the Agency. The Agency's Five Year IRM Implementation Plan contains both a summary of the key IRM architectures as well as roll-ups, consolidations and extracts from component office plans. The Program Office Tactical Plans specify, on a current year basis, an Office's projects and associated resources and milestones. They discuss how the efforts undertaken in the current year support their Office's Five Year IRM Implementation Plan, and the Agency's mission and goals. This effort to improve Agency IRM planning will result in a planning process to produce the IRM planning components described. As a starting point for discussion, an outline of the process envisioned is presented below: * The Strategic IRM Plan would be updated annually to reflect minor changes and new issues; and it would be rewritten every four years and/or upon a major change in overall Agency direction. The EPA IRM Steering Committee, based on the IRM Strategic Plan, would develop and recommend to the EPA IRM Designated Senior Official (DSO) the key Agency-wide IRM issues to be addressed in the component Five Year IRM Implementation Plans; the Committee would also review and approve, for submission to the DSO, the OARM staff-developed data call for specific required data. The IRM DSO would issue a data call for the draft component level Five Year IRM Implementation Plans each year based upon the Steering Committees recommendations on key issues, mission and goals. The Program/Regional Offices and architectural planning organizations will develop their Five Year IRM Implementation Plans consistent with the data call requests, and submit a draft for review to the OIRM planning staff. A peer review will be conducted of all component plans. Utilizing the peer review comments and feedback from the budget process, the component plans will be finalized. Final Program/Regional plans will be submitted by joint signature of the ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning Senior IRM Official (SIRMO) and Senior Budget Official (SBO) to the EPA IRM DSO. The final architectural plans will be endorsed by the appropriate Office Director (OD) and submitted to the DSO. The IRM Steering Committee will review the Agency-wide initiative responses in the component plans. Those efforts of particular value and advantage to the Agency will be noted and endorsed specifically by the Committee, for support by the DSO. OIRM's planning staff will compile the Agency plan from the component plans as appropriate. The IRM Steering Committee will review, approve, and forward the component and Agency plans to the DSO for final approval and publication. The Program Offices' Tactical Plans will be developed following feedback from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and EPA's Office of the Comptroller (OC) regarding approved budget figures. Roles and responsibilities of OIRM, the IRM Steering Committee, the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE), the National Data Processing Division (NDPD), Office of Acquisition Support (OAM), OC, and others will be clearly defined within the context of the IRM planning process, and communicated to the IRM community. As the processes, and roles and responsibilities are developed and implemented, the Agency will have an IRM planning process that reflects actual IRM activity within the Agency, and provides Program Offices and senior management the ability to focus on the appropriate planning and budgeting of information resources. Several activities are built-in to the Action Plan to deal with this issue. First, the draft Action Plan was presented to a meeting of senior management from the IRM and budget communities. This meeting was held on March 29 and 30, 1993. The meeting gave participants an opportunity to express their views and concerns with the process, and come to an agreement about the Action Plan approach. The draft Action Plan received general support from the participants of the meeting. Suggestions and recommendations for improvement to the Action Plan are included in the final Action Plan. Second, high-level endorsement of the Action Plan will be sought. Third, a pilot approach to implementation means that each process will be tested and improved before it becomes official. This gives management yet another opportunity to test and change the process, and ensure that the end result will be something they can work with and that has value to them. ------- Action Plan for Improving IBM Planning The Action Plan The Action Plan for improving the Agency's five year IRM implementation planning and budgeting process adopts a phased approach, using a pilot project technique to effect incremental controlled improvement. It is a series of tasks divided into three major Phases. Phase 1, Groundwork prepared the groundwork for the Action Plan, and provided definitions for later phases. In Phase 1, internal and external IRM planning and reporting requirements contained in the laws, regulations, and Federal and EPA policies were identified, and initial integration strategies were recommended. Methodologies for implementing mission-based planning were researched, evaluated, and documented. Also in Phase I, the new methodology's likely impact on current IRM policies and procedures was evaluated. Phase 2, Process Development, has a four step approach to development of the procedures. The steps are: 1) baseline data gathering, 2) procedure development, 3) pilot of procedures, and 4) assessment, revision, and issuance of the procedures through Green Border Review. The intent of the pilot approach is to demonstrate the feasibility of the draft procedures and to allow adjustment before finalization of the procedures. The baseline data collection cycle will integrate the 43A & B and PC Plan data calls. It will add basic narrative requirements for offices to describe; how the funds are to be used, how they support key Agency IRM and Program Mission Goals, and their architectural requirements and plans. This will provide the IRM community with baseline data for future planning efforts. There are five procedures to be developed in Phase 2. The first addresses the Program Office submission process. This will address how the planning calls are developed, their contents, and the contents of, and submission procedures for, the implementation plans of the responding Program/Regional Offices. The second procedure is for architectural plan contents and submission procedures. Third, a central review procedure will be developed to provide for a broad based review of the component plans submitted. The fourth procedure required is for consolidation of the component plans into an Agency-level Five Year IRM Implementation Plan. The fifth and final effort involves development of oversight procedures for the planning process. After the procedures are developed, they will be issued as temporary directives. This is to occur by March 30, 1994. Based upon these procedures the pilot ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning planning cycle will begin. The pilot planning cycle will introduce the Agency to the full procedures for multi- year IRM planning. It will also continue the data call integration Agency-wide with focus on the major Agency systems. Integration of the various data calls includes 43A and 43B, Five Year IRM implementation plan. Architectural planning, PC planning, and key IRM initiatives. The planning cycle will document the intended use of the funds defined in 43A budget materials with a focus on the FY96 IRM funding for major Agency systems and FY96 budget constraints. The pilot within Phase 2 will use the FY95 funding information collected in the baseline data gathering effort. After completion of the pilot planning cycle an assessment of the procedures will be undertaken. Given that it is a pilot effort for a new process, there will be a learning curve involved. Thus, the focus of the assessment will be on the procedural issues, not the content of the plans. After the assessment is completed, final adjustments will be made to the planning procedures. The amended procedures will be submitted for Green Border Review. In Phase 3, First Full IRM Planning Cycle, the IRM planning procedures are formalized within the Agency's policies and executed. First, Green Border issues are resolved and the procedures issued as final. Then, the first full multi-year implementation planning process is implemented within the Agency. Following the first full cycle, the process is evaluated to validate the success of the corrective actions. Critical success measurements are taken, and the process is continually monitored over time. ------- Action Plan for Improving IBM Planning a DATES 9/30/93 12/31/93 3/30/94 5/01/94 10/30/94 12/30/94 5/30/95 10/30/95 12/30/95 tfrieAfc MitE^TONEi^ DATES '' ' ' ' ' -.'"-.':' ' TvjFTT''1 T?^f^^y^m FT^^: ' '' '' ..::''" Iwl i ^:yf M^f^m £ l^J l-ii P^^y':'.-.'.' Establish integrated process for program offices' IRM mission-based planning. Establish central review capability for program offices' plans. Formalize milestones 1 & 2. Issue as temporary directives. Initiate pilot integrated planning cycle across Agency. Publish pilot IRM Five Year Implementation Plan. Finalize procedures and submit to Green Border Review. Initiate first Agency-wide integrated IRM plan process. Publish first EPA IRM Five Year Implementation Plan. Validate success of corrective actions. This Action Plan was prepared in draft form for discussion by senior IRM and budget officials at the IRM Planning and Budgeting Meeting on March 29 and 30, 1993. This meeting, sponsored by OIRM, focused on the Action Plan and related IRM planning and budgeting Issues which must be addressed in order to effect sustained improvement in IRM planning. The meeting featured presentations on IRM planning and budgeting requirements, and small group discussions of key parts of the process, obstacles, and Action Plan implementation. During the small group discussions, the plan received general support by the participants. This plan reflects improvements suggested by participants in the meeting and in follow-on discussions. Meeting notes are available in the Meeting Summary Report dated April 15, 1993. April, 1993 ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning As part of the Planning Meeting, four small group sessions focused on key parts of the IRM planning process, including: the Action Plan and pilot; IRM planning and budget integration; architectural planning; and the content, usage, and role of the five year IRM implementation plan, The following bullets summarize the issues and themes common to all groups and meeting consensus as a whole: To be successful, the process must obtain significant senior management buy-in and endorsement. Education is required for the Action Plan and for IRM planning in general. Education should include Office Directors, DAAs, and DRAs. The IRM planning effort should be linked/coordinated with other management improvement initiatives related to planning and budgeting. The implementation of the Action Plan requires an Agency culture change. The roles and responsibilities for planning must be dearly defined. The acquisition community must be part of the planning process. Resources are needed to implement the Action Plan. Implementation of an integrated planning process clearly requires senior management endorsement as the next step. The Action Plan was revised and Improved as a result of the meeting. The modifications included the following: the problem statement was expanded; the timeline was modified; a data call integration cycle was added, and the pilot concept was revised and clarified. The next steps are to; proceed with the data call Integration, develop procedures and begin senior management education. In order to meet obligations in the FMFIA Corrective Action Plan in a timely fashion, and since that plan represents endorsement by Senior Management, it is recommended that the initial stages of the data call integration project and procedures development begin immediately while Agency-wide senior management endorsement is sought. ------- Action Plan for Improving JRM Planning SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Effective planning and management of information resources is crucial to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ability to accomplish its mission. Each year the Agency invests millions of dollars to develop and maintain information systems, and significant amounts of data are accumulated and managed by these management, scientific, decision-making, reporting, and public service systems. EPA's Information Resource Management (IRM) Planning processes are of interest to senior managers within the Agency, and also to oversight officials. A recent Computer Systems Integrity Report, issued on September 28, 1992 by the EPA Office of the Inspector General, points out the importance of linking IRM strategic planning with a five year implementation plan, and with the budget process of the Agency. The OIG audit report cites three causes for the lack of adequate IRM planning. "First, OARM has not supplied adequate resources to address long- range planning; second, there is a lack of procedures and guidance for IRM planning; and finally, OARM has not established a mechanism to provide oversight and enforcement of a mission-based planning policy." 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this plan is to guide improvement of Agency-wide, mission-based IRM planning. As part of the Agency's effort to address OIG audit report concerns, this project focuses on the processes and procedures necessary to develop and implement five year IRM implementation plans with direct ties to the Agency's mission and the budget. 1.3 Approach The DynCorp»Viar Team was tasked in Phase I of this overall effort to assist OIRM and NDPD in researching the procedures for developing five year IRM implementation plans that comply with Federal and EPA requirements. The new procedures address the issues raised in the OIG Audit Report. The effort included developing an Action Plan to implement improved mission-based IRM planning. This plan reflects their recommendations and research, as modified by EPA employee decisions. The following page outlines the approach taken: ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning Summarize the internal and external IRM planning and reporting requirements contained in the laws, regulations, and Federal and EPA policies; recommend integration strategies. Research and document potential methodologies for implementing mission-based planning. Develop an overall action plan for improving EPA's IRM planning, which reflects the following processes: initial and ongoing annual development of Agency and Program Office mission-based Five Year IRM Implementation Plans; periodic revision of the Agency Strategic IRM Plan; and develop and promulgate guidance, standards, and procedures to support the mission-based, budget-linked planning requirements of EPA Directive 2100. Facilitate a meeting of senior IRM and Budget Officials, joining EPA's financial and IRM communities to address issues related to implementation of the Action Plan. Earlier activities have addressed each of these tasks. Anyone interested in any of these reports may obtain them from the Information Management and Services Division of the Office of Information Resources Management. 1.4 Goal of this Task The goal of this effort is to present a high level Action Plan for improving IRM planning within the Agency. This document provides the suggested Action Plan. and adopts a phased approach. Phase 1 prepares the groundwork for the Action Plan, and provides definitions for later phases. Phase 2 involves the actual development of an improved IRM planning process. Phase 3 focuses on implementing the first full IRM planning cycle. Section 2 of this document provides the problem statement, and is closely linked to the OIG Audit Report. Section 3 defines the goals of the Action Plan. Section 4 defines the end products, or anticipated results of the Action Plan, including the planning framework and content. Section 5 contains the actual Action Plan for improving IRM planning. Other.issues related to the Action Plan are discussed in Section 6, with the next steps defined in Section 7. ------- Action Plan/or Improving IRM Planning SECTION 2 - PROBLEM STATEMENT 2.1 Problems, Causes, and Characteristics: The Computer Systems Integrity Report On September 28, 1992, the EPA Office of the Inspector General issued a final report entitled "COMPUTER SYSTEMS INTEGRITY: EPA Must Fully Address Longstanding Information Resources Management Problems." The audit documented five key problems in IRM which the OIG attributed to inadequate planning. These include: The inability to manage Agency information resources; Funding shortages on Agency projects due to the Agency components' lack of a sufficient mechanism to make informed funding decisions; The independent and incremental design and development of information systems; The development of duplicative systems; and Inaccurate and untimely reporting to OMB on major information system development efforts. A principal finding of the report is that "An Agencywide IRM planning process which ties into the budget has not been established." The report attributes these problems to the following weaknesses in existing IRM planning processes: Lack of bottom-up input into the planning process; Lack of an integrated, long-range planning process to help acquire. manage and use information resources; Failure to meet Federal requirements for an integrated, five year Agency-wide IRM plan; and Failure to ensure that mission-based plans prepared by Agency ------- Action Plan for Improving ISM Planning components comply with Federal requirements and are consistent with Agency-wide plans. At a more detailed level, the problems with inadequate IRM planning and budget integration processes were documented in the IRM Planning/Reporting Requirements Report, dated March 22, 1993. This report detailed the process problems resulting from the existing approach to IRM planning by the Agency. Chief among these are: The budget process for IRM activities is inconsistent throughout the Agency; OIRM and NDPD are not always aware of new system development activities within the Program Offices; IRM budgets are not clearly broken out; The Agency cannot link system expenditures to accomplishments; There is no mechanism to ensure that plans are followed; End-of-year money tends to be spent with little or no regard to plans or architecture; Acquisition and planning activities in the Program Offices are often carried out independently, and are not included in the centralized architectural strategy; Links to Agency mission or goals are not clearly defined; and Lines of responsibility in the planning and budgeting process are not clearly defined. These findings are generally consistent with the OIG findings while breaking the problem into more discrete problems. 2.2 Risk Statement The inherent risks of the IRM planning problem can be stated in terms of its impact in the following areas: Agency's Reduced Ability to Perform its Mission As noted by numerous authorities, including the Science Advisory Board, the OIG, and others, the Agency's ability to perform its mission depends on access to quality data and information. The quality of EPA's data is related to the quality of IRM planning. Lack of an IRM planning process as required by FIRMR Part 201 -18 ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning will result in decreased support by OMB/Congress for the IRM resources that the Agency needs to perform its mission. Accountability for Compliance with FERMR Requirements The FIRMR requires IRM acquisitions to be in accordance with the Agency's five year IRM implementation plan. As such, senior managers are accountable for IRM expenditures being in accordance with the plan and IRM expenditures are potential audit targets. 2.3 The Problem Summarized The problem can be stated in actionable terms as follows. THE PROBLEM Lack of a discrete, defined process for Program and Agency-level mission- based IRM planning which is linked to the budget process and an enforcement process. Lack of a mission-based Agency-level Five Year IRM Implementation Plan integrated with budget considerations. This Action Plan provides an approach to development and implementation of an Agency five year IRM implementation planning and budgeting process that addresses these problems. April, 1993 ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning [This page left Intentionally blank.] ------- Action Plan/or Improving IRM Planning SECTION 3 - GOALS OF THE ACTION PLAN The goals of this Action Plan are to correct the problems outlined in Section 2. Specifically, the goals are defined in the following figure. GOALS OF THE ACTION PLAN Identify the steps needed to improve IRM planning at the Agency, Define the improvement process to integrate mission-based IRM planning, budgeting, and oversight, and Chart an orderly course towards initial and sustained development of an Agency-level Five Year IRM Implementation Plan. In broader terms, the goals of the Action Plan are to: Include bottom-up implementation input and top-down mission-based guidance in the planning process; Develop an integrated, long-range planning process to help acquire, manage and use information resources; Meet Federal requirements for an integrated, comprehensive, five year Agency-wide IRM implementation plan; and Ensure that mission-based plans prepared by Agency components comply with Federal requirements and are consistent with Agency-wide plans. April, 1993 ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning i i Satisfaction of these goals will: Allow the Agency to more effectively manage information resources; Provide the Agency's components with a mechanism to make informed funding decisions, thereby reducing funding shortages; Foster coordinated and informed design and development of information systems; Eliminate the development of duplicative systems; and Support accurate and timely reporting to OMB on major information system development efforts. ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning SECTION 4 - END-PRODUCTS OF THE ACTION PLAN The Agency-level IRM Five Year Implementation Plan defines how the Agency will meet its technology needs for the next five years. Implementation of the Action Plan will establish a process that clearly links mission-based IRM planning to the budget. The end products, or anticipated results of the Action Plan are as follows: An Agency IRM Five Year Implementation Plan, A process to guide the development of the Program, Regional and Agency IRM Implementation Plans which integrates mission-based planning with the budget, The fulfillment of FIRMR IRM planning and budgeting requirements. and The institutional commitment to sustain improved IRM planning. This section discusses these end products. Section 4.1 discusses how the IRM Five Year Implementation Plan relates to other IRM planning by the Agency, and outlines the envisioned contents of the Program and Agency-level IRM Five Year Implementation Plan. Section 4.2 discusses the broad characteristics of the five year IRM implementation planning process. Section 4.3 reviews the usage of the plan to fulfill FIRMR requirements for IRM planning and budgeting. Section 4.4 highlights the products that will institutionalize the improved process. 4.1 The Agency-Level IRM Five Year Implementation Plan This section defines a framework and structure for the Agency-level IRM Five Year Implementation Plan. It brings into perspective the relationship of the IRM Five Year Implementation Plan to other existing and required planning efforts, and suggests a format for the Plan. 4.1.1 Framework A number of planning efforts for the management of information resources exist within the Agency. The following discussion sets the framework for the Agency- level IRM Five Year Implementation Plan by defining its relationship to other planning activities. ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning The IRM planning activities conducted by the Agency, Program Offices and Regions should include the following: The IRM Strategic Plan Strategic IRM planning is the means by which the Agency defines the goals and mission of its IRM program. The IRM Strategic Plan is a subset of the broader Strategic Plan for the Agency, and must be consistent with the mission and goals established for the Agency in that Plan. IRM Strategic Plans should also be established at the Program/Regional Office level, and support the Program/Regional-level IRM mission and goals. IRM Five Year Implementation Plan The IRM Five Year Implementation Plans for the Agency and component offices, (Program, Regional, and Architectural Planning Offices), define how the Strategic IRM mission and goals of the respective organizations will be implemented over the next five years. These plans define specific goals, milestones, needs, and resources to accomplish the IRM work of the Program and Agency. The Agency's IRM Five Year Implementation Plan contains both a summary of the key IRM architectures as well as roll-ups, consolidations and extracts from Program/Regional level plans. i Tactical Plans The Program Office Tactical Plans specify, on a current year basis, an Office's projects and associated resources and milestones. The plans discuss how these efforts support their IRM Five Year Implementation Plan, and the Agency's mission and goals. Through these planning processes and documents, the shape of the agency's IRM program is defined. The following section discusses the content of the IRM Five Year Implementation Plans. 4.1.2 Content ofThe Agency IRM Five Year Implementation Plan The IRM Strategic Plan drives the content and scope of the IRM Implementation Plan. While the Strategic IRM Plan focuses on IRM support strategies for the mission and goals of the Agency, the IRM Five-Year Implementation Plan defines the implementation strategy for the IRM goals. The IRM Five-Year Implementation Plan should include a summary of strategy, current and ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning architectures, Agency initiatives, major system initiatives, and discussions of Program/Regional Office level IRM efforts. Again, this level of planning should be done at both the Program/Regional Office and Agency levels. FIRMR part 201.18 specifies the basic information that must be contained in the Agency's IRM Five Year Implementation Plan. The following outline suggests the basic components for the Agency's IRM Five Year Implementation Plan, and discusses the content of each component. Agency IRM Five Year Implementation Plan Section Content Executive Summary Synopsis of the Plan. Links to Agency Strategy. 1. IRM Vision Statement Summarizes the IRM Vision of the Agency; i.e., the current and future IRM mission and goals of the Agency. Provides the Program Offices with key Agency goals to which they link their initiatives. Guides the transition from the current to target architectures. 2. Architectures Outlines the current and target data and technology architectures. Provides framework for acquisition and planning of systems and provides criteria to ensure that acquisition is consistent with the overall Agency architecture. 3. Agency-wide Initiatives States the key Agency-wide core requirements and initiatives. Summarizes what the Program and Agency-wide IRM effort will look like in the coming five years for key areas of Agency-wide concern. Links to Agency Strategy, with input from key IRM officials. April, 1993 ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning Section 4. Major System Initiatives Content Defines the major system initiatives within the Agency, and how these initiatives support Agency and Program requirements. Provides key information, such as capacity requirements, security considerations, new architectural considerations, etc. Provides the criteria to ensure that acquisitions are consistent with the plan. 5. Office Automation Plans for Non-Major Systems Summarizes the Program Offices' non-major system IRM efforts. Key information areas include system inventory, security, PC acquisition plans, new initiatives, and other overall summary information. Ensures bottom-up input into the planning process; ensures that Program Office requirements are addressed. 6. Consolidated Timeline Consolidates timelines for the major activities, with milestones, time frames, and dependencies. Provides a consolidated view of plans provided in Plan sections 2-5. 7. Budget Defines the resources that support Agency-wide initiatives, major system initiatives, and the Agency's architectures. Links Agency budget to IRM initiatives and specific program objectives; forms the basis for the Agency's IRM budget requests to OMB. Appendices Documents additional issues, such as the national security, electronic access guidelines, and other IRM areas emphasized by Federal oversight agencies. The Agency IRM Five Year Implementation Plan should clearly define the major steps necessary and being undertaken to implement the Agency's IRM mission and goals through Agency and Program Office initiatives. It should identify the activities to be accomplished, timeframes, and the resources required. It should identify the critical-path items and interdependencies among the various steps and components, particularly Program Office and Regional efforts. It should also Page 2O ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning recognize which efforts are contingent on the availability of resources, and new products and services. During Phase 2 of the Action Plan, the specific format and content of the Agency IRM Five Year Implementation Plan will be refined and finalized. For the component plans, the required plan contents and format of specific items will be defined. The contents, of course, will be consistent with the specific requirements of the Agency-level IRM Five Year Implementation Plan. However, hou; the information is developed within an office will be left to the discretion of the component reporting offices. As the component plans are finalized and approved, the information required for the Agency plan will be extracted and consolidated into an Agency-level plan. 4.2 The Process to Integrate Mission-Based IRM Planning with the Budget Mission-based IRM planning occurs on an annual cycle, and addresses a five-year vision of the Agency's IRM architecture and system work. The IRM planning process will be developed by implementing the overall Action Plan. This section presents a high-level conceptualization of the components of the process. A proposed annual integrated planning process is described in Section 4.2.1. for discussion purposes. Subsequent sections discuss the participants and their roles during the planning process, resource requirements, support for Agency-wide initiatives, and the benefits of an integrated process. 4.2.1 The BRM Planning Process Strategic Planning The IRM Strategic Plan should be updated on two schedules. First, the IRM Strategic Plan should be updated annually to reflect minor improvements, new issues, and changes in specific issues. Second, it should be rewritten every tour years, or upon a major change in overall direction of the Agency. The annual update should occur at the start of the budget cycle. Based on the activities scheduled to occur in the revised budget cycle, the strategic IRM ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning planning process should begin in concert with the initial budget planning meetings. These meetings are scheduled for November to discuss budget planning for FY + 2. The Agency mission and goals, as defined during the budget planning process and other Agency planning efforts, should feed into the IRM strategic planning process. IRM Five Year Implementation Planning The EPA IRM Steering Committee should develop and recommend to the EPA IRM Designated Senior Official (DSO) a list of key Agency-wide IRM issues to be addressed in the Program and Regional Office plans, and in the architectural plans. The list should clearly indicate the review criteria to be used in the IRM Steering Committee's review of these component plans. The IRM Steering Committee will also review and approve, for submission to the DSO, the OARM staff-developed data call for specific required data. The IRM DSO will issue a data call to the Agency AAs and RAs for the draft component level IRM Five Year Implementation Plans each year. ("Component level" plans include the Architecture Plans and the Program/Regional Office Plans.) The data call will contain guidance as to the core Agency-wide IRM issues to be addressed, definitions of major system information requirements, and other information requirements. The Program/Regional Offices will develop their IRM Five Year Implementation Plans consistent with the data call requests. They may utilize the prior approved architecture plans as input to their planning process, and as a basis for disclosure of new/changed architecture needs. They will consult with appropriate consultants, internally and externally, to document their needs. The SIRMO will submit the draft plan for review. Also, Program and Regional Offices, acting as lead offices, may submit cross-Agency initiative plans for Agency goals, such as Agency-wide efforts on data Integration. The offices responsible for architectural planning will also begin their planning process. They should use Program/Regional Office prior approved plans as input. They should also consult as appropriate with the various internal and external customers to define new and changed needs. They will submit a draft for review to the OIRM planning staff. Under the authority of the IRM Steering Committee, a short-term peer review will ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning be conducted of all draft plans. The purpose is to provide an Agency-wide review of issues which have inter-organizational impact and need broad input. A peer group of Programs, Regions, OIRM, NDPD, OPPE, OC, OAM and appropriate external parties will conduct the review. As necessary, the IRM Steering Committee will sponsor meetings to resolve significant issues of Agency-wide importance. Program Offices will complete their plans, utilizing the comments of the peer review, and feedback from the budget process, as appropriate. Plans will be submitted either by signature of the AA/RA or by joint signature of the SIRMO and Senior Budget Official (SBO) to the EPA IRM DSO. Architectural planning organizations will complete their plans also utilizing the peer review and budget feedback, as appropriate. Submission will be to the DSO by signature of the appropriate Office Director (OD). Both sets of final plans will contain an appendix specifically explaining how they dealt with peer review comments. The IRM Steering Committee will review and approve the Agency-wide initiative responses, architectural directions, and major system portions of the component plans. Those found to be of particular advantage and value to the Agency will be noted and endorsed specifically by the Committee, for support by the DSO. OIRM's planning staff will compile the Agency IRM Five Year Implementation Plan from the component plans. The IRM Steering Committee will forward the component and Agency plans to the DSO for approval and publication. The DSO will review and approve the plans for publication, with such changes as the DSO shall deem required. Tactical Planning The Program Offices' Tactical Plans are developed following feedback from OMB and OC regarding approved budget figures. The tactical plans define how the offices' allocated resources will be used, .to support their IRM Five Year Implementation Plans in the current year. As these processes are developed and implemented, the Agency will have an IRM planning process that reflects actual IRM activity within the Agency, and provides ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning Program Offices and senior management the ability to focus on the appropriate planning and budgeting of information resources. 4.2.2 Participant Roles and Responsibilities Roles and responsibilities of OIRM, the IRM Steering Committee, OPPE, NDPD, OC, and others should be clearly defined within the context of the IRM planning process, and communicated to the IRM community. Some conceptual assignments are provided here. The IRM Steering Committee The IRM Steering Committee should have explicit planning responsibilities in a clearly defined charter which conveys distinct authorities in their review and recommendation role. The Committee should assume final oversight for Agency Strategic and Multi-Year Implementation IRM planning activities and ultimately be the owner of the IRM Strategic Plan and the Agency's IRM Five Year Implementation Plan. The IRM Steering Committee should review IRM budget requests prior to OC submission. The IRM Steering Committee should endorse budgets for those Program Offices whose strategic IRM goals, budgets, and implementation plans are consistent with Agency's IRM strategy, goals, and initiatives. "Peer Review Team(s)" will function under the authority of the IRM Steering Committee. The peer review team(s) will review component office draft IRM Five- Year Implementation Plans and the architectural plan drafts. The peer review teams responsibility will be to provide constructive input into the planning of the various offices, representing secondary users of systems and users of the architecture. For example, the technology architecture plans will be reviewed by a team of program/regional staff and the data architecture planning staff. The review team will provide feedback on how well the architectural plan correctly defined the needs of the offices and the impacts of the plan on their own planning efforts. The team will also represent support offices such as ORD, OPPE, and OARM to ensure budget, acquisition, strategic direction, and other considerations are understood and communicated to the various planning groups. Senior IRM Officials (SIRMOs) Senior IRM Officials, or SIRMOs, direct and manage office-wide IRM activities. ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning They should ensure that Program/Regional Office plans are compliant with the Agency's and their Program/Regions mission and goals; ensure that all planning and reporting requirements of their office are met; and, together with the Senior Budget Official (SBO), ensure that budget expenditures are consistent with plans. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) The Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) should work with the OIRM planning staff in the peer review process and with the IRM Steering Committee in development of the IRM Strategic Plan and multi-year Agency-wide issues. Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM) OIRM planning staff will provide standards for the "content" of program office plans and establish the overall procedures for Agency IRM planning and IRM budgeting within the overall Agency planning and budget procedures established by OC and OPPE. They will conduct reviews of Program Office IRM Five Year Implementation Plans for completeness, advise the EPA IRM Steering Committee on planning issues, and coordinate consolidation of the Program Office plans into the Agency IRM Five Year Implementation Plan. OIRM planning staff will provide staff services to the IRM Steering Committee for the planning related work. OIRM will review major acquisitions for consistency with approved plans. Program/Regional Offices Program and Regional Offices annually will prepare IRM Five Year Implementation Plans and should prepare tactical plans. These plans should document Program/Regional Office level requirements and mission, define how the plan supports the Agency's and Program/Region's mission and IRM vision, and show budget support for all major system initiatives and other IRM activities. National Data Processing Division (NDPD) The National Data Processing Division (NDPD) is responsible for developing the Agency's Technology Architecture Plan. They review and translate the component office's IRM Five Year Implementation Plans and other information into specific IRM resource requirements. NDPD also reviews other component office plans to assess architectural implications. ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning ' Information Management/Data Administration (IM/DA) Group The Information Management/Data Administration (IM/DA) is responsible for developing the Agency's Data Architecture Plan by translating the Agency/Program/Regional Office's IRM Five Year Implementation Plans and other information into specific requirements. IM/DA also reviews the other component office plans to assess architectural implications. State and Local Offices State and local environmental agencies should review the component plans, and provide input to the IRM Steering Committee as necessary. Office of the Comptroller (OC) OC defines the format of the budget submission to OMB and schedules the dates for the Program Offices to submit their budgets to OC. OC then consolidates the Program Office budgets, publishes them, and submits the Agency's budget to OMB. After submission, OC plays a key role in the OMB hearings, appeals and negotiations process, and distributes the OMB pass-back results to the Program Offices. OC should require IRM Five Year Implementation Plans be approved before expenditure of IRM related funds. OC should participate in the peer review at a high level and require consistency of submissions between the budgets and the IRM Five Year Implementation Plan. Office of Acquisition Management (OAM) OAM should assist in defining and implementing the process for ensuring that acquisitions are made in accordance with approved IRM Implementation Plans. Designated Senior Official (DSO) The EPA IRM Designated Senior Official (DSO) should approve and sign the planning data calls and the final EPA IRM Five Year Implementation Plan. The IRM DSO also serves as the chair of the IRM Steering Committee. ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning 4.2.3 Resource Requirements OIRM Planning Staff OIRM staff must be available to staff the Strategic and Multi-Year IRM Implementation Planning processes, and coordinate OARM IRM tactical planning. OIRM must also commit resources to education. This education effort includes educating senior management in order to obtain endorsement of the Action plan and educating the IRM community for the pilot project. The education effort for the pilot project is a critical effort and will require significant resources. In addition to resources for education, OIRM planning staff must be available to develop the data calls, review plans, coordinate peer review, and consolidate the Program Office plans annually into an Agency IRM Five Year Implementation Plan for publication. NDPD and IM/DA Staff NDPD and the IM/DA Group must have the staff available to focus on architectural planning for the Agency. The architectural planning process must be completed in time to provide direction the Program Office IRM planning and budgeting activities. OC Staff OC staff must commit resources to the integration of the budget cycle and the IRM planning process within the Program Offices. OPPE Staff OPPE should have staff available to work with OIRM in the peer review process and with the IRM Steering Committee in the development of the IRM Strategic Plan and multi-year Agency-wide issues. OAM Staff OAM staff should engage in the pilot process. In particular, OAM should commit resources to defining the usage of IRM plans within the acquisition community and to assist with the data call in the area of tying acquisition with planning. ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning Peer Review Teams Peer review teams, and other working groups, should be established to assist the IRM Steering Committee in addressing Agency-wide initiatives. These work groups will assist OIRM in defining criteria for review, and developing or changing IRM planning policies and guidance. These work groups will be formed on an as- needed basis. 4.2.4 Support for Agency-wide Initiatives The IRM Steering Committee should review, and endorse as appropriate, all Agency-wide IRM initiatives. 4.2.5 Benefits of an Integrated Planning Process Information is one of EPA's most critical assets. EPA is highly dependent upon the availability, reliability and use of information resources to carry out its functions and meet its missions and objectives. Effective planning for the management and development of these resources is essential to EPA's success in satisfying its mission. The benefits of an effective integrated planning process include the following: Development of a cohesive vision to drive investments in a rational and cost effective way; Improved support of ecological and pollution prevention initiatives through integrated long-range IRM planning; Improved coordination of systems development and design of databases to facilitate data integration and secondary use; More cooperative and collaborative IRM planning to ensure the key architectures are in place to best serve the needs of the organization; Accurate identification of resources needed to maintain appropriate levels of service; Potential for process improvements that cut costs, improve service. ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning and allow for more efficient use of resources; Increased support by OMB/Congress for EPA IRM resource needs; Improved understanding of IRM goals and plans by senior management; Increased support by Agency senior management for IRM resource needs; The ability to target differential budget increases for specific Program Offices; and Support for initiation of acquisitions for requisite products and services, and simplified generation of RFPs; and Institutionalization of good planning practices, so that it becomes easy, routine, and reduces the burden of reporting by the program offices. If Program Offices are required to defend funding increases on a differential basis, detailed IRM Implementation Plans will assist OC in allocating resources. Program Offices which can best demonstrate effective and efficient use of their resources will gain. As the planning cycles evolve. Program Offices may develop a reputation for planning/spending which aids them in obtaining resources. To improve IRM planning, the IRM Steering Committee may wish to highlight to OC aspects of Program plans which are mission-based and have clear budget links. The Committee may choose to endorse specific Program Office plans that best promote Agency goals, thereby influencing budgetary priorities. 4.3 Fulfillment of FIRMR Requirements An integrated planning process is mandated by law. The lack of Agency compliance and clear communication of its IRM goals may result in decreased support from OMB and Congress for IRM resources required to support the Agency's mission. Successful implementation of an integrated IRM planning and budgeting process will increase compliance with IRM planning and budgeting requirements set forth in FIRMR Part 201-18 and ensure that IRM resources are ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning effectively planned for and managed. The Agency IRM Five Year Implementation Plan will be used to form the basis of the Agency's budget requests to OMB as required within this part of the FIRMR, In addition, the plan will be used to ensure that program office acquisitions are consistent with the plan by providing the criteria by which to approve or disapprove procurement requests. 4.4 Institutional Commitment Unless senior management are committed to the process of IRM Five Year Implementation Planning with direct ties to the budget, the process will die and plans may be generated that are not useful. The IRM Five Year Implementation Plan should be a living document that serves as a management tool and should not be viewed as a burden. Several activities are built-in to the Action Plan to deal with this issue. First, the draft Action Plan was presented to a meeting of senior managers from the IRM and budget communities. This meeting, held on March 29 and 30, 1993, gave participants an opportunity to express their views and concerns with the process, and come to an agreement about the Action Plan approach. The draft Action Plan received general support from the participants of the meeting. Suggestions and recommendations for improvement to the Action Plan are included in the final Action Plan. Second, high-level endorsement of the Action Plan will be sought. Third, phase 2 of this action plan uses a pilot approach of issuing the procedures as temporary directives, testing and improving them, and then issuing them through Green Border Review. This gives management another opportunity to test and change the procedures to ensure that the end result will support Agency needs. ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning SECTION 5 - ACTION PLAN FOR IMPROVING IRM PLANNING The Action Plan for improving the Agency's IRM five year IRM implementation planning and budgeting process is presented in this section. The plan adopts a phased approach, using a pilot project technique common to an information engineering methodology, to effect incremental controlled improvement. The Action Plan is presented as a series of tasks divided into three major Phases. 5.1 Phase 1 - Groundwork Phase 1, Groundwork may be roughly equated to a business area analysis. This phase prepared the groundwork for the Action Plan, and provided definitions for later phases. In Phase 1, internal and external IRM planning and reporting requirements contained in the laws, regulations, and Federal and EPA policies were identified, and integration strategies were recommended. Methodologies for implementing mission-based planning were researched, evaluated, and documented. Also in Phase I, the new methodology's likely impact on current IRM policies and procedures was evaluated. The results of Phase 1 analyses were discussed with planning process participants, and liaisons established. An informal Strategic Planning Information Network committee was formed, and activities surrounding marketing and buy-in to the integrated planning process began. An IRM planning and budgeting meeting of senior IRM and budget officials occurred to review the comprehensive Action Plan and address issues germane to the implementation of the plan. 5.2 Phase 2 - Process Development and First Cycle Phase 2, Process Development and First Cycle, has a four step approach to development of the procedures. The steps are: 1) baseline data gathering. 2) procedure development, 3) pilot of procedures, and 4) assessment, revision, and issuance of the procedures through Green Border Review. In this context, pilot means a test effort with significant organizational involvement and full data call integration. The intent of the pilot approach is to demonstrate the feasibility of the draft processes and to allow adjustment before the procedures are finalized ------- Action Plan for Improving IBM Planning 5.2.1 Baseline Data Call Integration The baseline data collection cycle will integrate the 43A & B and PC Plan data calls. It will add basic narrative requirements for offices to describe; how the funds are to be used, how they support key Agency IRM and Program Mission Goals, and their architectural requirements and plans. Limited additional information on the major Agency systems (as defined by OMB) will be collected. This will provide the IRM community with baseline data for future planning. The baseline data collection cycle will not resolve the many planning issues which exist in the Agency. Rather, it is designed to allow all parties to put forth their best understanding of their needs and how they are meeting Agency and Program/Regional goals through their IRM efforts. This will provide the IRM community with baseline information from which the planning effort can begin. 5.2.2 Procedure Development There are five procedures to be developed In Phase 2. These procedures provide the framework for development of component plans, review, consolidation, and enforcement. They are explained in more detail in the following discussion. The first procedure addresses the Program Office submission process. This will address how the planning calls are developed, and the contents and format of the planning data calls. It will also define the basic contents, format, and submission procedures for the plans of the responding Program/Regional Offices. It will not define how the component plans are to be developed by the offices. The second procedure deals with the contents and submission of the architectural plans. The primary focus will be on the data and technology architectures. Again the procedure will not define how architecture plans are developed by the responsible offices, but rather will focus on the types of information needed and the format to be used. Third, a central review procedure will be developed to provide for a broad based review of the component plans submitted. The object of this procedure will be to ensure that secondary users of data, users of shared systems, architectural planners and users, support function staff such as in OC and OAM, and others all have an opportunity to express concerns and to assist in the development of plans. ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning The fourth procedure will outline the process for consolidation of the component plans into an Agency-level Five Year IRM Implementation Plan. This will focus on the criteria for selecting material from the component plans, the type of information consolidation, (i.e., summarization, aggregation, transfer, etc.), the process, and participants. The fifth and final effort involves development of oversight procedures for the planning process. This will focus on how the plans are to be used in the acquisition process and the roles and responsibilities of the various organizations. It will also focus on the thresholds and criteria to be used in the process. It may also define the procedure for amending plans intra-year. After the procedures are developed, they will be issued as temporary directives. The temporary directive approach is to be used to allow for a pilot of the procedures and then a review and revision of the procedures before Green Border Review begins. The target date for submission to MOD for temporary directive status is March 30, 1994. Based upon these procedures, the pilot planning cycle will begin. 5.2.3 Pilot Planning and Data Integration Cycle The pilot planning cycle will again focus on the major Agency systems, integration of the various data calls, (e.g. 43A and 43B, Five Year IRM implementation plan, Architectural planning, and PC planning), and key IRM initiatives. In addition, the pilot will test the procedures for central review, Agency consolidation, and oversight. The pilot cycle may also go into greater depth and detail with one or more organizations. This will be determined as the pilot is defined in greater detail. The planning cycle will document the intended use of the funds defined in 43A budget materials with a focus on the FY96 IRM funding for major Agency systems and FY96 budget constraints. The pilot will build upon the FY95 funding information collected in the baseline data gathering effort. 5.2.4 Assessment, Revision, and Submission for Green Border Review After completion of the pilot planning cycle an assessment of the procedures will be undertaken. Given that it is a pilot effort for a new process, there will be a learning curve involved for the various participants. Thus, the focus of the ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning assessment will be on the procedural issues, not the content of the plans. After the assessment is completed, final adjustments will be made to the planning procedures and they will be submitted for Green Border Review. 5.3 Phase 3 - First Full IRM Planning Cycle In Phase 3, First Full IRM Planning Cycle, the IRM planning procedures are formalized within the Agency's policies. Phase 3 equates to the implementation phase of an information engineering life cycle. In this phase, the implementation planning process is institutionalized within the Agency. The first Agency-wide planning cycle is conducted, with all Program Offices participating. The target date for first cycle initiation is May 30, 1995. The first formal mission-based, budget-linked IRM Five Year Implementation Plan will be published in Phase 3, with a target date of Oct 30, 1995. Following the first full cycle, the process is evaluated to validate the success of the corrective actions. Critical success factors are indicators that the improved planning process is effective. Critical success assessments will be made and the procedures revised and improved over time. The critical success factors of an improved IRM planning process are: Improved IRM support for the Agency's mission and goals, and of the end user, Program and Regional Offices: Improved quality and usefulness of data and systems, particularly for secondary users and integrated environmental analysis; Improved quality and usefulness of IRM plans; Increased linkage between IRM, budget, and mission planning; Improved compliance with Federal IRM planning requirements and EPA IRM directives; Increased ability to respond to ad-hoc data calls without having to issue an internal data call; These success factors must be assessed, and the procedures modified as needed. ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning 5.4 Action Plan Key Milestones The following table outlines the phases and tasks of the Action Plan. Performance dates for each activity are included. The following page shows the Action Plan in greater detail including; milestones, dates, and subtasks. CRITICAL MILESTONES & DATES DATES 9/30/93 12/31/93 3/30/94 5/01/94 10/30/94 12/30/94 5/30/95 10/30/95 12/30/95 MILESTONES Establish integrated process for program offices' IRM mission-based planning. Establish central review capability for program offices' plans. Formalize milestones 1 & 2. Issue as temporary directives. Initiate pilot integrated planning cycle across Agency. Publish pilot IRM Five Year Implementation Plan. Finalize procedures and submit to Green Border Review. Initiate first Agency-wide integrated IRM plan process. Publish first EPA IRM Five Year Implementation Plan. Validate success of corrective actions. These are consistent with milestones in the detailed outline of the Action Plan. April, 1993 ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning Phase 1: Research and Planning Nov. '92-April '93 Phase 2: Process Development A. Data Call Integration May - Sept. '93 - Expanded Data Call - 43A/B & Narrative -PC Plan - Major Systems / Agency Initiatives - Key Agency Goals B. OIRM/Committee Develops Procedures May '93 - Mar. '94 - Program Content and Submission (September 93) - Architectural Contents and Submission - Central Review (December 93) - Compilation for Agency Plan - Oversight / Enforcement C. Formalize Procedures Mar. - May '94 - Temporary Directives D. Procedures Pilot & Data Call Integr. May - Oct. '94 - All Organizations - Issue Pilot IRM 5 Year Imp. Plan (October '94) E. Formalize Final Procedures Oct. - Dec. '94 - Assessment Pilot & Amend Procedures - Submit to Green Border Review Phase 3: First Planning Cycle A. Complete Review & Issue Procedures Jan. - April '95 B. First Full Plan Cycle May - Oct. '95 - Data Call Developed - Review - Final Submissions - Agency Plan Published (October '95) C. Assess Corrective Action Oct. - Dec. '95 ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning SECTION 6 - ISSUES Development of this Action Plan, and analyses conducted in Phase 1 of the Plan, have raised a number of issues related to plan implementation. They are questions which must be addressed in the course of implementing the Action Plan. They are presented here for consideration and further discussion during Phase 2.2 "Procedure Development" of the effort to improve IRM planning. The issues are divided into four major categories: Overall effort to improve IRM planning; the IRM Architecture planning process; Plan content, usage, and roles; and IRM planning and budget integration. 6.1 The Action Plan 1. What will be the exact scope of the pilot project? Who should participate? 2. What are the current perceived values and uses of an integrated IRM Implementation Plan to management and how can we improve? 3. Does the IRM community understand why planning is important and if not, how can we improve this? 4. What is the perceived value of planning and reporting budgets and objectives at the system level? What incentives could be given to encourage participation? 5. How can the Agency achieve an IRM focus that is strategic rather than tactical? 6. Should the data call integration or pilot cycle attempt to integrate the Information Systems Inventory (ISI) or Security plans? 7. How will the success of the pilot be measured? 6.2 The IRM Architecture Planning Process 1. OIRM and NDPD are not always aware of new system development activities within the Program Offices; how can we ensure these areas ------- Action Plan/or Improving IRM Planning are covered in the program office plans? How can EPA identify and take advantage of these program office initiatives at an Agency-wide level? 2. End-of-year money tends to be spent with little or no regard to plans or architecture. What can be done in the procedures to change or accommodate an equitable, yet mission-oriented approach to year- end spending? 3. Who should fund, manage, and control agency-wide initiatives; OIRM, IRM Steering Committee, NDPD, or Program/Regional offices selected as lead offices? 4. How do regulations drive the architecture? 5. At what level of detail should the architecture be defined? 6. What will be the format of the Plans? 7. How will Agency priorities be established and how will Program Offices provide required support to Regions? 8. Should the Information Collection Budget (ICB) be considered a "data architecture" issue? Should it be contained in the component office Five Year IRM Plans? 6.3 Plan Content, Usage and Roles 1. How can IRM be made a component in EPA's regulatory review and development processes and in major Agency initiatives? 2. What are the goals and objectives of the plan? Do they include: Identifying all IRM resources. Educating managers. Supporting annual comprehensive planning. Setting boundaries for Agency IRM activities. Minimizing duplication of effort, and Providing timely and accurate information (quality data) ? 3. What is a realistic timeframe within the ADP world for the plan to cover? Should a more complete lifecyle approach be taken than the ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning five year horizon in the FIRMR requirements? 4. Should the plan include aU IRM-related functions? What is the threshold for inclusion within the plan? 5. To what degree should the Agency plan include program-specific IRM work? 6. How can the plan help to standardize and "integrate" the IRM, contract/grant, and budget processes? 7. How far down should the Agency drive the plan? Is OMB's definition of a major vs. minor system adequate for EPA's management needs? 8. What should be the role of the IRM Steering Committee in relation to component level plans? 9. SIRMOs have not been heavily involved in the planning process in the past. How can we obtain buy-in? What roles should SIRMOs and SBO have in the planning process? 10. How can we obtain OPPE and OC involvement in the IRM planning and budgeting process? 11. What are the implications of "bottom-up implementation input" and "top-down guidance?" 12. When IRM approval is granted by on a Program Office or Regional Office Five Year IRM Plan, what authorities are conveyed in that approval, e.g. purchase authority? 6.4 IRM Planning and Budget Integration 1. What are the obstacles to IRM planning and budgeting? 2. The Agency cannot clearly track expenditures at the system level. How and should this be resolved? 3. Since IRM costs are buried with program element costs what methods can be used to identify IRM costs, especially at system levels? Should system costs be identified in the budget? ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning 4. How should the Agency deal with the fact that system costs span program element and allowance holder categories and thus most system costs cannot be aggregated in the budget process? 5. The budget process for IRM activities is inconsistent throughout the Agency; what actions would improve this situation? 6. How can OARM foster a relationship and cooperation between SIRMOs and SBOs to ensure IRM planning and budget integration? 7. Who should plan/budget for IRM central service commitments? 8. How should budget reductions track back to planning? 9. Should the planning process include contingency planning? 10. How can the plan be made meaningful? ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning SECTION 7 - NEXT STEPS This Action Plan was prepared in Draft form for discussion by senior IRM and budget officials at the IRM Planning and Budgeting Meeting on March 29 and 30, 1993. This meeting, sponsored by OIRM, focused on the Action Plan and related IRM planning and budgeting issues which must be addressed in order to effect sustained improvement in IRM planning. The meeting featured presentations on IRM planning and budgeting requirements, and small group discussions of key parts of the process, obstacles, and Action Plan implementation. The Action Plan received general support by the participants during the small group discussions. Meeting notes, key issues, and concerns that surfaced in the small group discussions are addressed in a separate Meeting Summary Report dated April 15, 1993. As part of the Planning Meeting, four small group sessions focused on key parts of the IRM planning process, including: the Action Plan and pilot; IRM planning and budget integration; architectural planning; and the content, usage, and role of the five year IRM implementation plan. The following bullets summarize the issues and themes common to all groups and meeting consensus as a whole: To be successful, the process must obtain significant senior management buy-in and endorsement. Education is required for the Action Plan and for IRM planning in general. Education should include Office Directors, DAAs, and DRAs. The IRM planning effort should be linked/coordinated with other management improvement initiatives related to planning and budgeting. Implementation of the Action Plan requires an Agency culture change. The roles and responsibilities for planning must be clearly defined. The acquisition community must be part of the planning process. Resources are needed to implement the Action Plan. Implementation of an integrated planning process clearly requires senior management endorsement as the next step. ------- Action Plan for Improving IRM Planning The following bullets summarize specific issues raised during the small group discussion on Action Plan implementation: What is to be included in the plans must be clearly defined. The timing of the pilot in the draft plan was overly ambitious. The planning cycle must clearly link to the budget cycle. The role of the IRM Steering Committee in the IRM planning process must be defined. Work must be done on the IRM network/SIRMO network to improve the planning process. The Action Plan was revised and improved as a result of the meeting. For example, the problem statement was expanded, the timeline was modified slightly, and the pilot concept was revised and clarified. Each of the specific comments noted above was reviewed and the Action Plan was modified to make the improvements suggested. The next steps are to; proceed with the data call integration, develop procedures and begin senior management education. In order to meet obligations in the FMFIA Corrective Action Plan in a timely fashion, and since that plan represents endorsement by Senior Management, it is recommended that the initial stages of the data call integration project begin immediately while Agency-wide senior management endorsement is sought. ------- |