Project Intake, Evaluation and Decision Making Process Summary & Recommendations September 15, 2017

Agenda Scope of Work Objectives and Principles Assumptions Overall Approach Proposed Process Implementation, Communication Plans

Scope of Work Develop “IT Project Proposal” Definition Create Project Proposal Intake Template Develop Scoring/Classification Methodology, Routing Strategy Route Proposals through IT Governance Identify Issues, Types of Proposals that may Need Further Scrutiny by the IT Governance

Objectives and Principles Rationalization Prioritization Minimize duplications and redundancies Assess impact on IT infrastructure/resources capacities Encourage innovation Governance driven, collaborative, transparent, expert-based Agility and flexibility Pace/Speed

Benefits to “End Users” Examples: Using existing software licenses Collaboration, consolidation Better chance getting needed resources Assessing impact on campus infrastructure: Will benefit all Having a central project repository

Assumptions Mandatory Vast majority of projects are expected to have their own funding: This is NOT a “request for funding” process Request for campus funding: A prioritized list will be taken to campus 3 times a year: September, January, May Service Catalog and Project Repository will be used

Definition of “IT Project Proposal” A “Project Proposal” is a… “a request by a campus unit to create or significantly modify an IT service – including expanding the scope, functionality and/or capabilities of existing services - that is owned by the campus unit (department, college, school, administrative unit) and is designed to support the mission and the operational and managerial business needs of the unit with well-defined business outcomes. The service employs information technologies and resources, people, and processes to collect, manipulate, store and disseminate information to achieve its objectives.”

Types of Services Customer Facing Infrastructure Services Projects that aim to develop or re-design services that deliver value to customers by facilitating outcomes customers want to achieve Infrastructure Services Projects that aim to develop or re-design services that deliver core infrastructure functionalities that enable customer-facing services Innovative Projects Proposals that aim to create new, innovative IT services

Who Can Submit a Project; Project Sponsor; Notifications to Divisional Officials Divisional CIOs or directors occupying the highest office in the division/department/center (ex.: Dean, Associate Dean, CFO, Center Director): have the authority to submit proposals. They can delegate that authority. They should receive a copy of the proposal. If a proposal seeks campus funding: The divisional CIO will notify divisional officers so they can weigh in on the proposal. A project proposal should have a sponsor. The sponsor must approve the submission.

Intake Form Intake Form includes: Project name and description; Proposer and sponsor information Reasons for – purpose of - the Project Proposed solution or general approach Alignment with the campus strategic framework Similar existing campus IT services or IT projects

Intake Form (continued) Intake Form includes: Potential to become campus-wide service Privacy, security concerns Estimated cost and effort to complete and implement the project; to operate the solution Scope of impact, including: Users/Customers; Total num. of people that will be impacted Impact on IT resources/infrastructure capacities

Project Classification Scoring Process Scoring/Classification Process 10 questions will be scored Each question will be scored on a scale of 1, 3, 5. Some of the questions are weighted Aggregate weighted score determines Project Classification Aggregate Score Project Classification 34 - 99 Low Impact 100 - 139 Medium Impact 140 - 170 High Impact

Approval Process Review and Approval Low Impact Proposals Approved “automatically” Medium and High Impact Proposals Route to relevant TAGs for review, recommendations to IT Steering Committee (ITSC) Review may require additional information Route to ITSC for decision-making

Review in the CIO Office; “Red flags” Additional information will be collected for Medium and High Impact proposals. The initial review in the CIO Office will focus on proposals that need further scrutiny (proposals that raise “red flags”): Seek campus funding Duplicate existing services and/or projects Have significant impact on the campus IT resources/infrastructure capabilities Have the potential to become shared, campus-wide services; could benefit multiple campus units. Have Federal, State or campus policy compliance implications

Review by Advisory Groups: Review proposals; do additional analysis as they see fit. May interact with proposers and consult with subject matter experts (SMEs). Review will primarily focus on the issues that need scrutiny by IT governance (“red flags”). Make recommendations to the ITSC as necessary.

Decision-Making The ITSC will make decisions about project proposals, based on recommendations by the Advisory Groups Will focus on major issues and considerations (“red flags” issues) Prioritize high impact projects, assemble a prioritized list of requests for campus funding, and take other necessary action(s). IT leadership will go to campus three times a year with a prioritized list of funding requests

Implementation Plan The Intake Process will “go live” on Oct. 1, 2017 Review Team in the CIO Office: Executives/directors in the CIO Office. Chairs of the Advisory Groups: DTAG, TLTAG, RTAG, IAG. Professional staff: Business Analyst(s); Enterprise Architect(s). Subject Matter Experts (as needed) Administrative staff.

Implementation Plan (continued) Reviewing issues that require further scrutiny (“red flags”): Proposals that seem to duplicate an existing service or project: The proposer/sponsor will be required to meet with the IT and/or business sponsors of existing similar services/projects in order to explore opportunities for collaboration and consolidation. Proposals with significant impact on campus IT infrastructure and resources: Review Team will periodically aggregate the impact of proposals on the campus IT infrastructure and resources. Will engage “owners/managers” of IT infrastructure and resources to assess total effect on the campus infrastructure capacities and capabilities.

Implementation Plan (continued) Review by Advisory Groups: Cross-TAGs Standing Review Group, composed of: TAG members. Non-TAG members Subject-Matter Experts (SMEs) (as needed). May also engage proposers/project-sponsors. TAGs authorize the TAGs Review Group to act on behalf of the TAGs. Analysis will primarily focus on “red flag” issues. The Group will present its analysis and recommendations to the Advisory Groups. Review will be done monthly.

Advisory Groups Recommendations to the ITSC: Template Project Name Descrip- tion Red Flags summary analysis reco- mend- ations Prio- rities campus funding duplicate service impact on infra- structure poten. to be shared compli- ance issues  

Communication Plan Interim CIO: To Campus Leadership, Deans CIO Office: Broader message to all TAG members, Associate Deans/Directors, etc. Orientation sessions to explain the Intake Form and submission process “Project Intake Procedures and Guidelines” document

Discussion Questions: Are we missing any relevant questions in the Intake Process? 2. Are we missing important impact filtering questions? 3. Do you recommend other issues, considerations, and types of proposals that will help Advisory Groups in making recommendations to the ITSC and that may need further scrutiny by the ITSC?

Project Intake, Evaluation and Decision Making Process – Questions? Thank you for your time and attention!