Environmental
Protection
Agency
Data
Management
and
Standardization
Program
Management
Information
and Data
Systems
Divisions
Arthur Young
-------
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Data
Management
and
Standardization
Program
Management
Information and
Data Systems
Divisions
Arthur Young
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. BACKGROUND 1
II. BENEFITS OF DATA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3
III. STUDY APPROACH 3
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 4
V. CONCLUSION 10
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
FOLLOWING
PAGE
1. STUDY METHODOLOGY 3
2. SAMPLE SYSTEMS COMPARISON MATRIX 4
3. DISTRIBUTED DATA MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONAL 5
STRUCTURE
4. DISTRIBUTED DATA MANAGEMENT INTERSYSTEM 6
LIFE CYCLE
5. PROGRAM LIFE CYCLE 7
6. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 10
7. COST ESTIMATE MATRIX 10
8. FIVE-YEAR COST AFTER FULL IMPLEMENTATION 10
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. BACKGROUND
The executive who manages
traditional resources such as people,
money, and property, now recognizes the
benefits of also managing data as a
resource. Data resource management
facilitates more effective operational
decision making by enhancing the
sharing of information across
organizational boundaries and among
information systems. Critical
management decisions typically require
the integration of information from
several sources implying the need to
know where relevant information may be
found and the context under which it
should be interpreted. The management
of data as a resource may lead to
reduced data inconsistencies and the
identification of conditions relating
to the currency and accuracy of the
information.
The Data Management and
Standardization Program Feasibility
Study conducted by Arthur Young &
Company for EPA investigates the need
for a coordinated data management
program in EPA. From this study Arthur
Young & Company has developed an
approach that will coordinate the
current extensive, yet diversified,
efforts towards the management of data
as a resource in a relatively smooth,
evolutionary process. The timing of
this evolutionary process is such that
the implementation of the
recommendations should culminate in an
operational data management and
standardization program coinciding with
the 1980's hardware procurement
implementation.
The impetus for this project came
from several diverse factors and
sources within EPA. These factors
included:
Government-wide recognition
that ineffective management of
information resources has
impaired achievement of Agency-
wide missions.
Inability to identify regulated
facilities consistently across
program offices and to
coordinate and effectively
share information about these
facilities among the programs.
Shift in EPA from unplanned and
uncoordinated DP growth to the
introduction of formal DP
controls (Stage III of ADP
evolution)
Lack of a defined vehicle to
coordinate and implement data
sharing requirements for the
Interagency Regulatory Liaison
Group (IRLG).
In the following paragraphs we
describe how these motivational factors
interacted to initiate this project.
1. Management of Information as a
Resource
There are currently bills before
Congress to revise the data processing
and information management
organizations in Federal agencies "To
improve the economy and efficiency of
the Government and the private sector
by improving.Federal information
management..." — In addition, "The
President will soon issue an Executive
Order establishing new management
controls over government information
-------
2 /
collection activities." — These
actions are direct results of the
reports issued by the Commission on
Federal Paperwork. Both the Commission
and CMB consider "Information Resource
Management" to be the centerpiece of
the Commissions efforts.—
A number of individuals in MIDSD
and EPA recognized the need to manage
information as a resource long before
the anticipated actions of Congress and
the President were known. The
initiation of the Data Management and
Standardization Program Study was a
concerted effort to document the need
for such a program and to identify the
efforts already initiated in EPA on
components of a data management program.
2. Common Facility Identifier
Attempts to share and integrate
data from systems developed by
different programs or regions has been
difficult because of the use of
different facility definitions and
identifiers within EPA. This problem
has been recognized in EPA for quite a
long time but did not receive much top
level interest until the attempt to
isolate the cause of a cancer epidemic
in New Jersey. Attempts to identify
sources of potential carcinogenic
substances via computer was nearly
impossible because of different
facility definitions and identifiers in
use in the program divisions of air and
water. Attempts to standardize facility
definitions and coding schemes had been
independently undertaken by the Office
of Water Program Operations (OWPO),
Office of Enforcement, and several
Regions (Facilities Index System Pilot
Project). For example an intricate part
of OWPO's long-range ADP plan is the
development of a common facility
identifier. Region II has a currently
ongoing project to interface a number
of systems. A major part of this project
is to cross-reference the facility
identifiers and resolve discrepencies
in order to produce a master facility
identification list for Region II. The
proposal of a data management and
standardization program for EPA offers
the opportunity to coordinate these and
other efforts and to expand into other
programs in EPA.
3. Stage III of Data Processing Growth
Several individuals within MIDSD
had recognized that EPA's ADP operations
had entered Stage III of data processing
growthas described by Richard L. Nolan,
Ph.D. —' The transition from Stage II,
Contagion to Stage III, Control is
characterized by a shift from a period
of extremely rapid and uncontrolled DP
growth to a period where formal controls
are introduced and professionalization
of the DP organization takes place. (A
subsequent study performed by Nolan,
Norton, & Company confirmed the
observation that most ADP operations in
EPA had entered Stage III). The data
management and standardization program
study afforded the onportunity to
document the need for Agency-wide
coordination and to establish the
mechanisms and plan for effecting the
coordination.
4. Interagency Regulatory Liaison
Group (IRLG) Support
Douglas M. Costle, Administrator of
EPA, has stated that the Interagency
Regulatory Liaison Group (IRLG)
coordination of chemical substance
regulation has top priority. The IRLG
is currently conducting a project to
identify and implement common coding
schemes vital to the sharing of chemical
information. It was recognized early
in the conceptual stages of the IRLG
study that implementing the coding
requirements in EPA will require a
coordinated, Agency-wide data
management program.
-------
II. BENEFITS OF DATA RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
The full benefits of a data
resource management program may
require several years to be
realized. However, immediate
substantial benefits may be
obtained through phased
implementation of the program
through reduction of redundant data
collection, processing and storage.
Over the long term the total impact
will be realized as new information
systems are developed and older
systems are upgraded or replaced.
The expected benefits of a data
resource management program in EPA
are as follows:
Mechanism to assist in assuring
consistent and accurate
responses from the proper EPA
sources to Congressional, OMB,
GAO, and FOI inquires
Reduced data acquisition costs
to EPA and industry through the
sharing of data across
program/office boundaries
which will reduce multiple
reporting and processing of the
same data
Reduced ADPE procurement
conversion problems and costs
through standardized system
documentation and common data
definitions and codes
Provide coordination points,
standards, and pilot studies
that will lead to consistent
systems which interface across
programs, regions, and states
Improve quality of information
by providing an awareness
mechanism for improving data
accuracy, timeliness and
consistency.
These benefits of data resource
management will have significant impact
on how EPA conducts its business in both
the short and long term.
HI. STUDY APPROACH
The Data Management and
Standardization Program Feasibility
Study was performed in two phases:
Phase I - A requirements
analysis phase to identify and
determine EPA's requirements
for data management and
standardization
Phase II - A program
development phase to explore
alternative strategies for a
Data Management and
Standardization Program in EPA.
Phase Ir the requirements analysis,
was approached from both a quantitative
and qualitative perspective. The
methodology utilized in the performance
of this phase is depicted graphically
in Exhibit 1.
Quantitative Approach - A major
objective was to identify
concrete examples of EPA's need
for data management and
standardization. Fifteen
representative EPA systems were
selected by the EPA Steering
Committee for this feasibility
study on the basis of their
potential for sharing of data
across systems, the systems
visibility in EPA, and as a
representative cross section
from the offices in EPA. The
analysis focused on five data
categories which were selected
based on their potential for
use in interfacing files and
their current relevance to the
major issues facing the Agency.
A summary of the specific data
elements reviewed in each
-------
STUDY METHODOLOGY
INITIAL (UVItW
PROJECT PLANNING
DATA COUECTION
OATASVHIIUSIS
IDENTIFY
ISSUES
FINAUZAIUIN
Uevdup
Ililtmev)
StheJvltl
Syiiti
• tit
.„,
n NlcfviiM
COS
ERSS
FMS
CICS
HSIS
NEEDS
MWEh Tiiai
EDS
NEDS
1
- PCS
- PEM5
- fPIS
- STORE!
- 10X1CS
ill Put
- RAPS/HAUS
/
Dili Eltw.M
• ImnitMy
• Okli»«(
Maliku
/
onit imtninn
EPA.MIPSO
Liteiilwi SmtU
• PiwwinAY&CPi*iKl
Wailipip*" & fti|»ru ••
• MBS fublic.li..!
• Buufcs anal AflUt«
Piuiixu Ciiuionnili
Ui»Slu^«iluilu>
Dili Oittiuaiitt
Uili Minigtiuot tn4
Suilakli In tkt EPA
• Lcid •! p[«|iwu
• MumutYi ri>f(
UecbiubiHi
• tmplcmeiitHtian
• Amlyti Pc«|i n«ciimuwiij«il
Dill Ml>U|tu»ul mil Stl
Ptttgriiit FiiiJ lltpafl
• itudv BlckyiUttud & Scu^v
• CuiriHl Stilus »1 Uali Miiiiii|e AtiJyin Htsulh
• tolullwn »l Alltinitnl Apimi
!• Dill MjtHI|C»ICHl
• ImplcineutllllK t\tn & Slult)'«i
Iw I
m
X
I
00
-------
category and the systems in
which they were found is
presented in Exhibit 2. The
review of systems uncovered
such problems as:
Inconsistent and confusing
identification of
facilities exemplified by
10 definitions of what
constitutes a facility and
15 different coding schemes
used for identifying
facilities
Location boundaries that
were not consistently
defined nor used for cross-
referencing across systems
(i.e., locations defined by
county, SMSA, and river
basin).
A minority of the systems
used government-wide
standard codes such as the
PIPS state and location
codes.
These findings confirmed the
problems identified by the
Committee, and effectively
demonstrated the need for
improvement in the management of
agency data
Qualitative Approach - Another
objective of Phase I was to
determine perceived needs and
potential benefits for an EPA
data management and
standardization program. This
was accomplished through
interviews with cognizant
individuals in EPA, interviews
with external organizations
such as the National Bureau of
Standards and the Department of
Defense/ and a literature
review to determine the state-
of-the-art in information
management. The major result
obtained was a determination
that most programs in EPA
support the concept of a data
management program, and many of
the programs have independently
begun to develop one or more of
the components of a data
management program. The
primary need of EPA was to
identify all the efforts that
were taking place, coordinate
the individual efforts to
assure compatibility, and
develop a strategy for
integrating and expanding the
activities throughout EPA.
Phase II focused on the
identification of the components of the
program that are being developed in EPA
and how best to coordinate and integrate
these efforts into an Agency-wide
program. Several alternative
strategies more identified and
presented to EPA Advisory Committee on
October 18, 1978. The committee
concurred with our recommendation that
the ongoing efforts be supported as
pilot projects and that a phased
approach be taken to expanding the
successful pilot projects throught EPA.
A schedule for this controlled
evolution implementation was developed
so that it would coincide with and
complement the 1980s hardware
procurement and installation
activities. The recommendations are
summarized in the remainder of this
summary.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
An effective EPA-wide data
management and standardization program
must consist of three major components:
An organization structure which
supports the programs
implementation and
administration,
-------
Sample Systems Comparison Matrix
EXHIBIT 2
/ $ i
1. FACILITY IDENTIFIERS
COMPANY/AUTHORITY
NAME
COMPANY/AUTHORITY
CODE
FACILITY NAME
rACILITY 10 NUMBER
II. MONITORING SAMPLE
STATION SITE
SITE NAME
SITE COOE
Ml. GEOGRAPHICAL
LOCATION
REGION COOE
STATE COOE
STATE NAME
COUNTY COOE
COUNTY NAME
CITYCOOE
CITY NAMg
ADDRESS
ZIP COOE
OTHEB OEO.
IV. PARAMETER UNIT
IDENTIFIERS
UNIT
V. QUALITY ASSURANCE
COOES
O.A.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
//
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
//
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/ r
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/ g
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
//
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'*(
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i
X
X
X
X
.X
X
X
X
X
//,
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
-------
Policies and procedures to
govern program operations, and
Data management tools such as
standards, data element
dictionary/directory (DED/D),
feasibility studies, and
quality assurance programs
which produce program products.
A discussion of the recommendations
regarding the DRM program components
and program implementation follows.
1. Recommended Data Resource
Management Program Components
The multi-faceted nature of the
Agency's programs, as well as the line-
staff relationship between
Headquarters, Regions, and Laboratories,
mandates that there be a division of
responsibility that fosters
coordination but not centralized
control of data. Although centralized
control of data is appealing because of
the need to share data across
organizational boundaries, centralized
control will not succeed because of the
Agency structure and the programs' needs
for responding to their specific
missions. EPA requires a balanced
approach that will encourage
cooperation among programs with
appropriate independence of program and
regional operations. The strategy
selected reflects this balance as
follows.
(1) Organizational Structure
In performing the evaluation of
the alternative organizational
structures, we considered the
inherent ability of each
alternative to obtain:
Management commitment,
Programmatic participation, and
Balance of authority and
responsibility.
Our recommendation, a distributed
approach, is a hybrid of the
classical centralized and
decentralized management
approaches. The basic philosophy
is to locate the DRM
responsibilities at the level in
the organization best suited to
perform the specific tasks
consistent with broader EPA
missions. The structure includes
both an EPA ADP Oversight Committee
and oversight committees for each
program. This concept is presented
graphically in Exhibit 3. -'
The ADP Oversight Committee,
reporting at the Administrator
level, would be responsibile for
Data Resource Management program
policy. An oversight committee in
each programmatic area would
monitor adherence to programmatic
level data management concepts and
support the EPA-wide ADP Oversight
Committee. A prototype
programmatic oversight committee is
being formed by OWPO to support the
Wastewater Treatment (WWT) Facility
Program. The chairperson of the
programmatic committee would be a
member of the Agency committee. A
Data Administrator (DA) and staff
would support the Committee by
reviewing feasibility studies,
system designs and implementations;
updating the EPA-wide data resource
directory with selected input from
programmatic areas; auditing
systems to assure standards
compliance; and evaluating systems
to assure that EPA-wide
requirements were being met. The
programmatic staffs would retain
their current responsibilities for
doing feasibility studies, system
design, implementation, and
operations. In addition, they would
maintain a program specific data
-------
Distributed Data Management
Organizational Structure
Program ADP \
Oversight j
Committee /
m
X
55
CO
-------
element dictionary/directory and
provide the Data Administrator with
the subset of metadata (data about
data) for an Agency-wide directory.
Programmatic areas should also
audit data quality and perform
system evaluations. Exhibit 4
presents an overview of the
responsibilities in this approach.
(2) Policies and Procedures
A number of policies must be
established by the Data
Administrator and his staff in
conjunction with the committees.
These would include specific
assignment of program
responsibilities, tools to be
utilized, and quality assurance
criteria. A key concept of data
resource management is the
development of a consistent set of
policies with regard to the
management of data or information.
This set of policies is the
cornerstone upon which the program
is built and which defines the
authority and limitations of
activities related. The procedures
which should be written include the
areas of:
Setting and promulgating data
standards,
Evaluating and approving
requests,
Auditing systems, and
Updating data management tools.
(3) Data Management Tools
We recommend that the following
data management tools be employed
to effectively manage data as a
resource. The use of these tools
is prescribed, implemented, and
maintained by the organizational
component of the data management
program through the use of program
policies and procedures.
Standards - Three major types
of standards should be
developed and applied to
facilitate data management:
Data
element
standardization - involves
the use of common data
definitions, data use,
coding schemes, and naming
conventions.
System Design and
Documentation Standards -
i nvo1ve s the use o f
standardized methods for
system design and
documentation throughout
the system development life
cycle, acceptance criteria
to determine the adequacy
of the system, and a system
change approval process.
Data Acquisition
Techniques - involve the
use of data collection
approval procedures, form
design and instruction
guidelines, document
tracking procedures to
provide an audit trail for
locating lost source data,
and verification
techniques to control the
accuracy of data entry.
p_ a t a E _l_e_2!_i_n t_
Dictionary/Directory (PEP76") -
A data e 1 e m e n t
dictionary/directory is a
software tool used to control
and manage metadata. It is a
central repository of
information about each data
element in related systems, and
facilitates access to and
control of the data bases. This
tool does not manage the actual
-------
Distributed Data Management Intersystem Life Cycle
Policies
Feasibility
Studies
Design &
Implementation
Dictionary/
Directory
System
Operations
Audit
Systems
Evaluation
Oversight
Committee
Data
Administrator
Programmatic
Staff
Set*
Promulgate
Monitor
Feedback
Feedback
X
03
-------
content of the data, but manages
the descriptive
characteristics of that data.
The identification of the
individuals responsible for the
quality and dissemination of
data in the specific systems is
also important. When a request
is received for specific
information from other EPA
Offices, Congress, GAO, or the
public, access to the
dictionary can help determine
if the information is
available, and whom to contact.
Feasibility Studies - Planned
systemdevelopments should be
reviewed in a data management
program so that redundant and
inconsistent data can be
identified before the designs
are implemented.
Quality Assurance Program - A
common problem is a general
lack of confidence in the
quality of the data contained
in an organization's systems.
Quality Assurance is essential
to information management, for
without reliable data and the
confidence of its users, the
most efficient and powerful
system is ineffective.
2. Recommended Approach To Data
Resource Management Program
Implementation
Arthur Young & Company recommends
the phased implementation approach
graphically depicted in Exhibit 5. Use
of a phased program implementation
will:
Distribute the resource
requirements for
implementation over a
reasonable period of time,
Permit appropriate lead time
for programmatic areas to
prepare for program
implementation, respond to
educational process, and
Allow the proposed ADP
Oversight Committee and
supporting Data Administrator
and staff to concentrate on
interfacing programmatic areas
as program participants.
Implementation activities include those
phases shown in Exhibit 5 and follow
the program plan to effect a full
program implementation. The first phase
of this Exhibit, Data Management and
Standarization Program Plan, is shaded
to indicate that it has been completed
with the presentation of this report.
The objectives and activities of the
remaining phases are discussed below:
(1) Establish Data Management Task
Force
The first step is to establish
a Data Management Task Force. The
task force should:
Identify members for the ADP
Oversight Committee and
supporting program oversight
committees throughout EPA,
Prepare draft policies and
procedures, and
Recommend the specific levels
of administrative authority and
the method for delegation.
(2) Establish
Structure
0 rgani zation
ToSupport the
Program
This activity involves
determination of the working
procedures for both the ADP
Oversight Committee and
programmatic oversight committees.
-------
EPA Data Management and Standardization Program Life Cycle
Data Management
and Standardization
Program Plan
Evaluate Program
After Full
Implementation
PHASE 2
Establish Data
Management Task
Implement Full
Program
Operations
PHASE 3
Establish Organization
Structure to Support
Program
Phased Development
and Implementation
of Tools
PHASE 7
User Training
Set and Promulgate
Policies and
Procedures
Implement Use
of Tools
• ADP Oversight
Committee
• DA and Support
Staff
• Programmatic
Level Oversight
Committees
X
I
CD
Ul
-------
It provides identification of the
authority and delegation of
responsibility to the committee
support staffs. It results in a
schedule for phased program
implementation.
(3) Set Policies and Procedures
In this phase, the ADP Oversight
Committee would formalize the data
management and standardization
policies and procedures. These
policies and procedures will be
passed to the programmatic level
oversight committees to serve as a
basis for planning pilot programs,
actual implementation of the
programs, and ongoing program
operations.
Policies must include
assignment of program
responsibility approval flows,
utilization of general tools, and
issuance of quality assurance
criteria. Procedures must describe
the processes through which data
management policies can be
executed.
(4) Develop and Implement Tools
Once the programmatic level
oversight committee staff is
assembled, work can begin on
installation of the tools for data
management and standardization, and
appropriate user training. The
plans for pilot program
implementation should be formally
documented for review by the ADP
oversight committee. The phased
approach would develop by providing
other programmatic areas with the
particular tool in a sequential
implementation effort. The
specific actions that should be
taken are discussed in the
following paragraphs:
Standards
Data element standardization
efforts need to be coordinated
to assure that the codes and
definitions established in one
project are compatible with
other projects and program
areas. Cross-reference indices
or conversion tables for
measurement units should be
used as a method of relating
data.
System design and documentation
standards efforts should be
focused on the establishment
and promulgation of
standardized methods for system
design and documentation
throughout the system
development life cycle.
Acceptance criteria and change
approvals should be defined and
developed to determine system
efficiency. A major effort for
establishing these standards
for documentation is underway
for the 1980's procurement, and
this impetus would provide a
particular opportunity to
ensure incorporation of these
standards. EPA has a unique
opportunity to accelerate this
process when the 1980's
hardware procurement will
necessitate the conversion
and/or replacement of
applications software. During
this transaction, the
incremental cost of including
and following data management
standards for a selected set of
critical systems should be
relatively small.
Standards for data acquisition
techniques should address
design of forms, data
collection methodologies,
document tracking procedures
and verification techniques for
-------
data entry. A coordinated
effort is needed to address
data acquisition in a
systematic manner.
E> _c3_t_a E 1 e m e n t
Dictionary/Directory (DED/D)
Our recommendation is to
implement a passive data
element dictionary/directory
on a hierarchical basis. This
allows for the retention of the
current EPA dictionaries with
their various formats,
contents, and media; and
overlays an Agency-wide
directory. The Agency
directory would be organized by
data category and contain only
key identification data, or
metadata, on data elements in
the programmatic data bases.
The current MIDSD effort to
build a DED/D for selected
systems is the vehicle for not
only setting standards but for
eventually providing DED/D
capabilities to the other
programmatic areas. An example
is the WWT Data Dictionary
which is currently being
developed for the Office of
Water Program Operations
(OWPO).
Finally, we recommend the
evaluation of an active DED/D
in conjunction with the 1980's
ADPE procurement. The
specification for supporting an
active DED/D could be included
in the RFP for the procurement.
Feasibility Studies and Reviews
Coordinated feasibility
studies in a data management
program reduce redundancy and
data inconsistency.
Feasibility studies should be
utilized to determine and
justify appropriate levels of
data standardization, required
data element
dictionary/directory (DED/D)
contents and level of detail,
and program policy and
procedural requirements and
impacts. The proposed mini-
computer Review Group comprised
of the Regional and Laboratory
site ADP managers can also
provide effective control on
standards for the Regions
provided sufficient
interaction with national level
personel is maintained. Our
recommendation is that the
Agency ADP Oversight Committee
endorse the MIDSD review
process, and that the Committee
members from each programmatic
area ensure that the procedures
are followed for their
programmatic systems.
Quality Assurance Program
A common problem is a general
lack of confidence in the
quality of the data contained
in EPA's systems. We recommend
a coordinated effort supported
by management to encourage
systems groups to initiate such
system audit activities, and
secondly, to assure that- the
programs do not focus just on
11 clean ing-up" the current files
but also address and correct
the causes. The steps that can
be taken to improve the quality
of the data include:
- Provision for effective
edit procedures,
Standardization of data
definitions,
Revision of forms and
procedures for simplicity
and clarity, and
-------
Adherence to periodic audit
procedures.
(5) Implement
Operations
Full P rog ram
At the conclusion of the final
phase of program implementation,
all EPA organizational components
should be participating in an
active, organization-wide Data
Management and Standardization
Program. Due to the large scale
nature of this activity the ADP
Oversight Committee may be required
to reassess original working
procedures, delegated authority and
responsibility. In addition, this
committee should begin to plan for
additional information management
activities to be projected over a
subsequent five-year time period.
At the completion of each phase,
a document relating the activities
performed should be produced. This
document should be submitted to EPA
management for review of
activities, adherence to schedules,
and progression to the next phase
of the implementation. Exhibit 6
presents an approximate schedule
for the implementation plan.
(6) Evaluate Program After Full
Implementat ion
A Post-Implementation
Evaluation report should be
developed to include an evaluation
of program performance, operational
costs, and areas for improvement and
future enhancement.
3. Program Cost Estimates
The cost estimates for the
implementation and annual operations of
an EPA Data Management and
Standardization Program are presented
in Exhibit 7. Since the recommended
implementation plan for this program
includes a phased approach over a five-
year period, details for each year of
the five-year implementation plan are
shown in the detailed final report.
Exhibit 8 presents the estimated total
annual operations costs for the program
after full implementation, for an
additional five-year period. A 7% cost
escalation factor was added to the cost
estimates for each successive year
beyond fiscal years 78-79 to account
for anticipated inflation. The cost
estimate matrices cross-tabulate the
cost elements of the program
implementation and operations life
cycles. The specific assumptions and
costing details for the recommended
program are discussed in the final
report.
V. CONCLUSION
The management of information and
data as a scarce resource is a concept
that will shortly be introduced and
implemented throughout all Federal
agencies. EPA recognized the value of
this approach to information management
and ADP management before the current
initiative was being planned by
Congress and the President. Individual
components of data resource management
program have been in development and
operation in specific programs of EPA
for several years. The objective of the
Data Management and Standardization
Program outlined in this report is to
coordinate the individual efforts into
a unified, Agency-wide program that,
along with the 1980s hardware
procurement effort, will put EPA in the
vanguard of modern Federal ADP
operations.
10
-------
EPA Data Management and Standardization Program Implementation Schedule
Establish Data
Management Task Force
Establish Organization
Structure to Support
Program
Set and Promulgate
Policies and Procedures
Phased Development and
Implementation of Tools
• Implement Use of
Tools
• User Training
Implement Full
Program Operations
Evaluate Program
After Full Implementation
FY 79-80
o
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
1
A
S
FY 80-81
0
N
•
D
,
J
i
F
I
M
A
M
I
J
A
S
0
N
FY 81-82
D
]
F
M
A
f
M
J
I
A
S
FY 82-83
0
N
\
D
I
J
F
i
M
A
M
I
J
A
S
FY 83-84
o
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
I
J
A
-
S
X
X
DO
-------
EPA Data Management and Standardization Program
COST ESTIMATE MATRIX
COST SUMMARY - FIVE-YEAR PLAN
LIFE CYCLE
PHASE
DATA
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
COSTS
COST
ELEMENTS
ESTABLISH
DATA MANAGEMENT
TASK FORCE
ESTABLISH
ORGANIZATION
STRUCTURE
SET AND PROMUL-
GATE POLICIES
AND PROCEDURES
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS
PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
COSTS
IMPLEMENT USE
OF TOOLS
USER
TRAINING
TOTAL PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
TOTAL PROGRAM DEVELOPMEHT
AND IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
ANNUAL PROGRAM
OPERATIONS COSTS
PERSONNEL RESOURCES
EPA
CLERICAL
$ 1.400
$ 4,000
$ 4,400
$ 9,800
$120,800
$ 2,200
$123,000
§132,800
$1,382,500
EPA
PROFESSIONAL
$ 49,000
$ 32,200
$ 63,100
$ 144,300
$ 300,500
$ 24,400
$ 324,900
$ 469,200
$1,938,700
EPA
SYSTEMS
$ 9,200
$ 127,000
$ 269,800
$ 406,000
$ 854,900
$ 51,500
$ 906,400
$1,312,400
$2,595,100
DOCUMENTATION
$ 2,000
$ 1,400
? 4,000
$ 7,400
$ 27,500
$ 18,600
$ 46,100
$ S3, 500
$ 179,900
OUT-OF
POCKET
EXPENSES
$ 2,000
$ 1.400
$ 4,000
$ 7,400
$ 27,500
$ 18,600
$ 46,100
$ 53,500
$ 179,900
TOTALS
OPPOR-
TUNITY
COST
f 59,600
! 163,200
? 337,300
J 560,100
51, 276, 200
$ 78,100
$1,354,300
$1,914,400
$5,916,300
OVERALL
TOTAL
$ 61,600
$ 164,600
$ 341,300
$ 567,500
$1,303,700
$ 96,700
$1,400.400
$1,967,900
$6,096,200
m
X
I
CO
H
vl
-------
EPA Data Management and Standardization Program
FIVE-YEAR COST AFTER FULL IMPLEMENTATION
FISCAL YEAR
33-81
81-85
85-86
86-87
87-88
TOTAL
PERSONNEL RESOURCES
EPA
CLERICAL
$ 765,300
$ 818,900
$ 876,200
$ 937,500
$ 1,003,100
$ 4,401,000
EPA
PROFESSIONAL
$ 1,006,300
$ 1.076,800
5 1,152,100
$ 1,232,800
$ 1,319,100
$ 5,787,100
EPA
SYSTEMS
$ 1,392,400
$ 1,489,900
$ 1,594,200
$ 1,705,800
1,825,200
8,007,500
DOCUMENTATION
$ 102,300
$ 109,500
$ 117,100
$ 125,300
$ 134,100
$ 588,300
OUT-OF
POCKET
EXPENSES
$ 102,300
$ 109,500
$ 117,100
$ 125,300
$ 134,100
$ 568,300
TOTALS
OPPOR-
TUNITY
COST
S3, 164, 000
53,385,600
!3, 622, 500
H, 876,100
4,147,400
18,195,600
OVERALL
TOTAL
$3,266,300
$3,495,100
$3,739,600
$4,001,400
4,281,500
18,783,90
m
X
X
CD
H
00
-------
FOOTNOTES
— H.R. 3570, "The Proposed Paperwork and Redtape Reduction
Act of 1979", April 10, 1979, p.l.
2/
—'"Paperwork and Red Tape - New Perspectives - New Directions,"
A report to the President and the Congress from the Office
of Management and Budget, September 1979, p.6.
-/Ibid., p.19.
4/
—'Richard L. Nolan, Ph.D., "Computer Managers to Data Resource
Managers," Nolan, Norton & Company, Lexington, Mass., 1978.
—EPA is now establishing a standing DAA Committee on
Monitoring and Information Management which reports to
the Administrator, Data Resource management issues will
be among the issues to be addressed by this committee.
(Refer to MIM#79-1, memorandum from the EPA Administrator,
subject 1 "Monitoring and Information Management in EPA",
date September 18, 1979).
------- |