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.

-------