EPA EA Program Results Analysis February 29, 2008

2 Purpose  Convey that EPA’s EA strategy has produced results: –Reuse of services –Cost savings/cost avoidance –Performance improvements  Highlight examples of Cost Savings attributable to the EA program that: –Demonstrate cost savings/avoidance –Convey transition strategy performance measurement milestones and progress  Show impact on Agency budget

3 Overall IT Budget Analysis EPA’s Overall IT Budget for 2007 was less than 7.5% of its overall Discretionary Budget, which demonstrates a solid Level 3 capability in the Cost Savings category.

4 PART Score Analysis  For the PART programs assessed in 2007, the average EPA score was 74.3%, which demonstrates a Level 3 competency.  These results are based on the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) FY 2009 Budget (Fall Update Published on 2/4/2008) Program Funding Level (dollars in millions) PART Program Name Section 1:Program Purpose & Design (20%) Section 2:Planning (10%) Section 3:Management (20%) Section 4:Results (50%) 2007 Actual 2008 Actual 2009 Request Weighted Average EPA Chemical Risk Review and Reduction80%100%86%73% % EPA Ecological Research100%70%88%53% % EPA Great Lakes Program100% 75%47% % EPA Pesticides and Toxics Research100%89%91%47% % EPA Radiation Protection Program100%88%100%67% % EPA Tribal General Assistance Program100%75%89%59% % AVG 2007 EPA SCORE74.37%

5 Cost Savings and Cost Avoidance Analysis  EPA has implemented a suite of Enterprise Services and Tools to reduce IT investment portfolio costs by providing shared services.  Cost savings and avoidance have enabled EPA to reduce its overall FY07 IT budget by 3.2% and achieve significant cost savings in specific investments that successfully adhere to EA program guidance.  In FY07, the Technology Infrastructure Modernization (TIM) investment reduced actual cost by $16.44m - which is 3.5% of the FY07 $474m total EPA IT budget - through applying EA principles to seek consolidation of IT systems and services.

6 Technology Infrastructure Modernization Cost Reduction Analysis Investment/Project Name:Technology Infrastructure Modernization (TIM) Related E-Gov/LOB Initiative:IT Infrastructure LoB Prepared by:Jody Zeugner- IT Architect & David Prompovitch-Enterprise Architect, OEI/OTOP/MISD Date:2/28/2008 * Refers to costs incurred on a fee-for-service basis from a government organization at another agency or within the agency (e.g. shared service centers) 1 - For work performed on a fee-for-service basis, please indicate the service provider and associated agency as well as the methodology and algorithm for determining the service fee (e.g., cost per employee, cost per transaction, etc). 2 - Report all costs rounded to the nearest dollar 3 - Cells in blue are calculated values

Cost Avoidance Success Story EPA Portal EPA Portal Success: Common Portal Security Plan Challenge  Minimize or eliminate the need to re-create similar or identical individual security plans for each new portal community. ApproachResults  Program offices do not need to produce independent security plans, 508 compliance reviews, and other lifecycle artifacts when they use the Portal in its standard configuration. They rely on the overall Portal security plan as their de- facto plan.  Programs and portal communities do not need to develop separate security plans or conduct separate section 508 compliance reviews.  A complete system security plan with all required appendices typically costs a minimum of $35K. Since all portal communities use the EPA Portal security plan instead of developing their own individual plans, this development cost is avoided when new communities are implemented.  Multiplying this cost by fifteen existing and under-development portal communities; this works out to a security plan cost avoidance of $35K X 15 portal communities = $525K approximate minimum cost avoidance.

Cost Saving Success Story EPA Portal EPA Portal Success: Portal Code Reuse Benefits Challenge  Reduce development costs of new portal-based applications. ApproachResults  Re-use common portal service components, development standards and development methodology available as a result of a centrally implemented Agency portal environment and toolset.  EPA estimates a savings of 29% in the number of lines of code that need to be produced in EPA applications due to the use of the Portal as a framework for user interface development.  This code re-use represents a 15% reduction in the development cost across 15 existing and under-development portal communities, assuming 50% of the implementation time is spent in code development.

Cost Savings Success Story Identity and Access Management Re-Use Enterprise Tool Story: IAM User Management Challenge  According to research from external firms, the implementation of a central IAM solution saves systems up to 50% in user support costs.  EPA has avoided the creation of approximately 10,000 system-specific user identities by migrating multiple login ids into one single id. While EPA does not have an accurate average cost of a single identity on a single system, Gartner estimates the average cost for all organizations to be between $80 - $100 per identity per year. ApproachResults  Implement a common Agency solution for Identity and Access Management to reduce the number of unique user accounts that must be managed.  Anticipated annual cost savings with 10,000 users X $80 per user = $800K per year cost savings.