1. “OW CPIC Scoring Criteria” 8/05/2010

2. OW – Governance Framework for EA  Information Steering Committee (ISC) Created Providing senior mgt governance construct for IT investments  ISC Strategic Plan – get IT goals/language on EA Prepared 5-year strategic plan to set direction for OW IT portfolio and program process improvement  Information Management Project Management Office (IM PMO) Created Established formal PMO to lead IT portfolio change management and business improvement Serve as a support function to ISC Providing consultation on all IT investments (ISC and program offices) Core team for managing IT projects and EA (development only)

3. OW Information Steering Committee (ISC) Structure  Chair of ISC is the OW Deputy Assistant Administrator (DAA)  Deputy Office Directors from each main program office or business unit Office of Wetlands and Watersheds (OWOW) Office of Waste Water Management (OWM) Office of Science & Technology (OST) Office of Ground Water Drinking Water (OGWDW) Resource Management Office (RMS)  With Appointed Alts.. Typically IT Team Leads

4. ISC Responsibilities  Core Mission Approve all IT investments/budget Invest/disinvest Coordinate with IIS (agency IT governing body) Coordinate with CIO  No vote by PMO

5. ISC Investment Review Policy  Clearly defines roles/responsibilities  Tied to ISC Strategic Plan/goals  Strong alignment to budget process and BAS  References Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 with language about development/maintenance of an OW EA program is required by Federal law A-130 “Management of Federal Information Resources” A-11 “Annual Budget Guidance” Additional Federal/Agency criteria for Security/Quality

6. ISC Investment Review Policy (cont) Scope of Policy  ISC approves/votes Majors business case and objectives  IIS scores all Majors  PMO provides EA assistance through applying FSAM steps 4/5  Alternatives Analysis template and applied process  Reuse identification  Cost, value, risk analysis  Assist in milestone development (EVM) metrics  Etc etc  Applies to CPIC Lites only  Small/other still in control of each Program Office

7. Policy language for review categories “The OW PMO reviews the CPIC Lite submission and provides a recommendation to the ISC” The submission is reviewed for:  Completeness of submission  Strength of business case  Alignment with Segment Architecture (business as well as technical)  Reasonableness of timeline and budget  Overall project management approach

8. 2012 CPIC Scoring Criteria “Development Process”  ISC “Sponsor” over the CPIC process  Project charter is completed and signed by ISC Sponsor each BY  Recommends new scoring criteria (with PMO consultation)  Each ISC member is pre-briefed on the criteria (feedback is addressed)  ISC approves final scoring criteria thru official decisional meeting (April)

9. Scoring Process  PMO OEI Liaison (Wendy S.) works with system owners to complete the CPIC templates  Upon official submission, Segment Architect reviews/scores each investment  Seg Arch works closely with IMO and OEI Liaison to explain scoring results (take notes )  Opportunities for scoring improvements provided to system owners They have a chance to improve the CPIC documentation or face a low score  Seg Arch scores again based on improvements

10. ISC Scoring Review  Final scoring presented to each ISC member via pre-brief process  ALL CPIC Lites and Scoring results for each PO provided (transparency and Enterprise governance)  All PMO investments (including Small/other) reviewed and voted by ISC members!!  Additional data/info provided by PMO This is where we influence future decision points and strategic topics Examples include;  Total costs of entire portfolio and per Program Office  Small/others included ($)  2011 Pres Bud/CPIC vs 2010 Opt Plan/CPIC vs 2012 CPIC  WCF Dollars by Office/Application compared to CPIC budget requests  57% of STORET is WCF  24% of our entire OW portfolio is WCF

11. Criteria Categories 15 Questions (macro-level) (High/Med/Low)  9/15 based on quality of information in CPIC  5/15 based on EA artifacts/ISC Governance  1 question this year for alignment to Open Govt

12. Scoring Results for Lites BY2012 OW CPIC Lite Ranking Summary ProgramTotal HighTotal ModerateTotal LowNot applicable OWOW 843 IO 663 OWOW 753 OGWDW 573 733 2 IO 445 2 645 OGWDW 536 1 OST 456 OGWDW 1410

13. Benefits of CPIC Scoring  Drivers change and you must have a way to measure adaptation to changes (Open Govt)  Fair and equitable way to assist Program Offices (ODs and DODs) during times of budget cuts  ODs/DODs respect a neutral assessment and consultation  Identifies areas for strategic improvement (PM Maturity, Risks, Alternative Analysis, Training, FTE skills, etc)  Segment Architect My involvement in the review process keeps me informed At the close of CPIC scoring; I align my 2011 EA budget needs to gaps Identify areas for EA consultation and strategic assistance EA as driver and elevates importance of Segment Architecture engagement  Forces OW to think of our IT Portfolio holistically and not in program silos What’s in the best interest of OW!! SDWIS NextGen example

14. Vince Allen IM Project Management Office Data Architect Allen.vince@epa.gov 202-564-1675 QUESTIONS ???