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.
------- |