1. IT Budget Guidance for FY 2016 June 11, 2014 9AM-12PM GSA Auditorium 1800 F St, NW, Washington, DC 20405

2. Agenda  Introduction  FY 2016 Budget Process Key Dates  Changes and New Section – Large Structural Changes – Agency IT Portfolio Summary Agency Funding vs. Agency Contributions Examples – Agency Cloud Spending Summary – Agency IT Infrastructure Spending Summary (New Section) – Major IT Business Case – Major IT Business Case Detail  FY 2017 – Things to Come  Questions 26/3/2014

3. Introduction  Full inclusion into the Integrated Data Collection (IDC) – Monthly, quarterly, and annual data submissions  FY 2016 is the first year of a 2-year process that will transform IT Capital Planning to ensure that it meets future IT management and governance needs.  Changes from the FY 2015 guidance are mostly foundational in preparation of the changes for FY 2017. Of particular note: – Eliminates the Exhibit 53D, Agency IT Priority Investment Proposals – Renames the Exhibits – Adds the Agency IT Infrastructure Spending Summary – Introduces Provisioned IT Services 3 6/3/2014

4. Introduction, cont. 4  The IDC consolidates the reporting requirements to OMB E-Gov, the Federal CIO, and the Federal IT management community. By consolidating a large variety of reporting requirements under the IDC, OMB will continue to: 1)Streamline agency reporting requirements to OMB 2)Increase the meaningful use of data in strategic decision-making for OMB and agencies  The IDC submission timing: Monthly – Major IT Business Case details Quarterly – Mobile contracts data, IT Commodity Data, etc. Annually – Agency Strategic Plans, Agency EA Roadmaps, Agency IT Portfolio Summaries, etc. 6/3/2014

5. Introduction, cont. 5 6/3/2014  Currently OMB EGov has 3 primary reoccurring data calls each with its own data gathering requirements:  To ease agency burden of responding to data collections, we will work with the Oversight Team to release an API so that agencies can automate their data submission to OMB. Data CollectionSubmission LocationSubmission Method Annual and Monthly Updates Federal IT DashboardAPI Quarterly IDC dataMAX Collect Manual Input (Will release API for development consideration) Artifact SharingDataPoint Manual Upload / API (No vendor tools have developed functionality to use API)

6. Timeline for Key Activities 6 6/3/2014 TimeframeItemDetails Late June Schemas and Documentation Draft XML Schemas (the Agency IT Portfolio draft XML schema will be released as soon as it is ready, followed by the Major IT Business case draft XML schema) Draft Schema change outline and application validations Developer phone call Mid-July Final XML Schemas and companion documentation July / AugAgency PortfolioStat Sessions Agency PortfolioStat Sessions with OMB Early AugustAgency Testing Testing environment August 25thAgency IT Portfolio Summary Draft Agency IT Portfolio Summary August 31stQuarterly IDC Quarterly Integrated Data Collection (IDC) submission September 8th Agency Budget Requests Agency IT Portfolio Summary, Cloud Spending Summary, and IT Infrastructure Spending Summary September 9th-12th Major IT Business Case and Major IT Business Case details November 30 th Quarterly IDC Quarterly Integrated Data Collection (IDC) submission Early January 2014 Final President’s Budget Exhibits (tentative dates) Agency IT Portfolio Summary, Cloud Spending Summary, and IT Infrastructure Spending Summary Early February 2014 Major IT Business Case and Major IT Business Case details

7. Changes and Additions for FY 2016 7

8. Large Structural Changes  Rename Exhibit 53 and Exhibit 300 for clarity – Replaced terms Ex53 and Ex300 with: Ex53A = Agency IT Portfolio Summary Ex53C = Agency Cloud Spending Summary New = Agency IT Infrastructure Spending Summary Ex300A = Major IT Business Case Ex300B = Major IT Business Case Detail – Foundational change for next year – No longer in section 53 or section 300 of OMB Circular A-11 Moved to section 55 two years ago – The Ex53 and Ex300 labels did not reflect these artifacts’ value as management documents Viewed by many program/project managers as “Budget Documents” rather than “Program Management Documents” Often completed by agency CFO or CIO offices rather than program managers who are closer to the information and able to provide more accurate responses 86/3/2014

9. Agency IT Portfolio Summary: Major Changes  Updated dropdown options for Column 39, Cloud Computing Alternative Evaluation – Added 39b and 39c which ask if an investment is a Cloud Service Provider  Updated text for PY Cloud Computing Spending totals to include agency funding to outside agency cloud providers as well as Inter/Intra-agency costs  Expanded Cloud Computing Spending totals for CY and BY to include Provisioned IT Services by DME and O&M – Allows agencies to more appropriately report cloud and other IT services 9 6/3/2014

10. Agency IT Portfolio Summary: Minor Changes  Added language to require CFO/Budget Officer to support agency submission prior to submission to OMB  Revised the list of agencies that are required to report via the IT Dashboard (removed Smithsonian)  Updated definition for the primary FEA BRM services code (Column 13); this code should now reflect the investment’s predominate mission/business function  Removed the HSPD-12 cost question  Removed Homeland Security Identifier question  Removed references to previously reported Ex53D data. The Exhibit 53D, “Agency IT Priority Investment Proposals” is no longer required. 106/3/2014

11. Cloud Computing Alternative Evaluation  Cloud Computing Alternative Evaluation – Broke the following selection into 4 questions that details which alternative was chosen - “The agency evaluated a cloud alternative and chose a cloud alternative for some or all of the investment” – Added 39b and 39c to highlight if an investment is a Cloud Service Provider and to identify the sector to which they provide those cloud services – Should continue to align to responses in the Agency Cloud Computing Summary 6/3/2014 11

12. Cloud Computing Alternative Evaluation, cont. Cloud Computing Alternatives Evaluation This specifies whether, as of the date of the submission, a cloud alternative was evaluated for the investment or components/systems within the investment, per the Cloud First policy. All investments should answer this question regardless of the overall lifecycle stage of the investment, as operational investments may consider performing such an evaluation during or as a result of an operational analysis. The evaluation should indicate one of the following answers: 1.The agency evaluated a cloud alternative and chose a cloud alternative with a Public Deployment Model for some or all of the investment. 2.The agency evaluated a cloud alternative and chose a cloud alternative with a Private Deployment Model for some or all of the investment. 3.The agency evaluated a cloud alternative and chose a cloud alternative with a Community Deployment Model for some or all of the investment. 4.The agency evaluated a cloud alternative and chose a cloud alternative with Hybrid/Mixed Deployment Models for some or all of the investment. This option also applies if the investment contains more than one cloud alternative deployment model. 5.The agency evaluated a cloud alternative but did not choose a cloud alternative for any of the investment. 6.The agency did not evaluate a cloud alternative but plans to evaluate a cloud alternative by the end of the BY. 7.The agency did not evaluate a cloud alternative and does not plan to evaluate a cloud alternative by the end of the BY. 39b) Does this Investment provide, as a reimbursable or through a Working Capital Fund, cloud infrastructure or services to Agency Components. (Yes/No) 39c) Does this Investment provide, as a reimbursable or through a Working Capital Fund, cloud infrastructure or services to other Federal or State/Local Entities. (Yes/No) FY 2016 Guidance Cloud Computing Alternatives Evaluation This specifies whether, as of the date of the submission, a cloud alternative was evaluated for the investment or components/systems within the investment, per the Cloud First policy. All investments should answer this question regardless of the overall lifecycle stage of the investment, as operational investments may consider performing such an evaluation during or as a result of an operational analysis. The evaluation should indicate one of the following answers: 1.The agency evaluated a cloud alternative and chose a cloud alternative for some or all of the investment. 2.The agency evaluated a cloud alternative but did not choose a cloud alternative for any of the investment. 3.The agency did not evaluate a cloud alternative but plans to evaluate a cloud alternative by the end of the BY. 4.The agency did not evaluate a cloud. FY 2015 Guidance 6/3/2014 12

13. PY Cloud Computing Spending Totals  Updated text for PY Cloud Computing Spending totals to include agency funding to outside agency cloud providers as well as Inter/Intra-agency costs – Problem: If a sub-agency purchases cloud services from the Agency, the sub-agency may or may not know those services have cloud components and therefore may or may not put cloud dollars in for PY Cloud Computing Spending totals. Previous guidance didn’t require Agencies to report Intra-Agency funding which lead to Cloud spending not being reported there either – Cloud spend must be reported for all Cloud spending regardless at what level of the Agency the spend occurs. Every effort should be taken to reduce double counting 6/3/2014 13

14. Provisioned IT Services  A new category of Provisioned IT Services allows agencies to break out spending for cloud computing, shared services, and other services – Definition: Provisioned IT Service is a new category of funds that must be reported as appropriate. A “Provisioned IT Service” refers to an IT service that is (1) owned, operated, and provided by an outside vendor or external government organization (i.e., not managed, owned, operated, and provided by the procuring organization) and (2) consumed by the agency on an as- needed basis. Provisioned IT services are considered subcategories of DME and O&M. Examples of Provisioned IT Service may include the purchase of E- Gov Line of Business from another Federal Agency, or the purchase of SaaS, PaaS, IaaS from a private service provider, or the purchase of shared services or cloud services. Provisioned IT Service excludes Software Licenses but includes both Intra and Inter Shared Services. – Spending reported in columns 41-48 represent the portion of DME/O&M that comprises IT Provisioned Services that must be reported for the CY and BY. – The total cost of an investment continues to be represented through the DME/O&M categories in columns 20-31 of the Agency IT Portfolio Summary. – Since Provisioned IT services are included in the total cost of the investment, they are not called out separately in the Life Cycle Cost table, and but rather rolled into either Planning/Acquisition or O&M as appropriate. 6/3/2014 14

15. 15 Provisioned IT Services, cont. 15  The use of Provisioned IT Services Spend enables agencies and OMB to: – More accurately understand and reflect the IT spend – Highlight progress of Share First and Cloud First Policies 6/3/2014 * All figures in $millions By subtracting Provisioned IT Services from their DME/O&M totals, Agency CIOs and OMB can see how much of their portfolio is spent on Provisioned IT Services. Notional

16. Agency Funding vs. Agency Contributions Examples  When to use Agency Funding vs. Agency Contributions in conjunction with an Investment Type is a common point of confusion for Agencies 6/3/2014 16

17. Agency Cloud Spending Summary PYCYBY Public Cloud Private Cloud Community Cloud Hybrid Cloud Other Provisioned Services (non-cloud) PYCYBY SaaS PaaS IaaS Other Provisioned Services (non-cloud) 17 Table C.1 Table C.2  Provided data must be consistent with responses to the Cloud Computing Alternative Evaluation 6/3/2014

18. Agency IT Infrastructure Spending Summary: Background  Collecting Data Center or IT Infrastructure Costs at the Federal has been challenging.  Current methods: – FDCCI Focus only on Data Centers, not all of an agency’s total IT Infrastructure Agencies have failed to accurately report Data Center costs through the budget since 2011 – Commodity IT section of the Quarterly IDC Previous reporting instructions have allowed for double counting of IT Infrastructure costs Data gathered has limited actionably – Part 2 of the Agency IT Investment Portfolio Summary Does not include mission related Infrastructure costs in Part 1, or infrastructure that may be in parts 3, 4, or 5 – Federal Benchmarking Metrics Does not look at Data Center or IT Infrastructure Costs in a holistic way 6/3/2014 18

19. Agency IT Infrastructure Spending Summary New Section 19 IT Infrastructure Cost Category Total PY ($M) Data Center Data Center Labor Data Center Software Data Center Hardware Data Center Electricity Data Center Facility Data Center Cloud or Other Services Contracts Telecom Telecom Data Telecom Voice Telecom Other Service Contracts End User Help Desk Desktop and Laptop Systems Mobile Devices End User Other Service Contracts  The Agency IT Infrastructure Spending Summary is the first step in taking a holistic approach to reporting Agency IT Infrastructure – Reported costs should include both Agency funding and Agency Contributions 6/3/201419

20. Agency IT Infrastructure Spending Summary New Section, cont.  OMB understands that much of the data in the Agency IT Infrastructure Spending Summary is duplicative with other data collection activities – OMB is committed to reviewing all the avenues with which it collects IT Infrastructure spending and with reducing or eliminating reporting requirements where appropriate to reduce agency burden 6/3/2014 20

21. Major IT Business Case Minor Changes  Added Intra-Agency Shared Services into the Multi- Agency Collaboration section of the guidance to clarify that Intra-Agency Shared Services should follow the same processes – Intra-Agency shared services and Multi-Agency Collaborations may or may not be a major IT investment – Agencies should follow Governance processes/internal IT Capital Planning processes to decide if these investments should be identified as major IT investments 21 6/3/2014

22. Major IT Business Case Minor Changes, cont.  Added a question regarding an Investment’s primary program in the Federal Program Inventory for alignment of each major IT investment  Will change the presentation of acquisition data on the IT Dashboard. Agency’s contract data will be viewable on the IT Dashboard when provided, but FPDS data will be viewable when agency data is not provided (if a match is found) 6/3/201422

23. Federal Program Inventory  Added a question regarding an Investment’s primary program in the Federal Program Inventory for alignment of each major IT investment 5.Identify the foremost program supported by this investment, using the Program Code in the Federal Program Inventory Reference Table (http://archive- goals.performance.gov/federalprograminventory bottom of list on right side of the screen). If this investment does not primarily support a single program (e.g. provides Department-wide infrastructure, or supports multiple programs evenly), enter “No Primary Program.” [XXX-XXX or “000-000” for “No Primary Program”]http://archive- goals.performance.gov/federalprograminventory 6/3/2014 http://archive-goals.performance.gov/federalprograminventory 23

24. Contracts Table and FPDS  Reconfigure IT Dashboard to show Agency acquisition data over FPDS data when Agency data is provided – Last year, when key fields of the Agency's contract data submission to the IT Dashboard matched data in FPDS, the FPDS data was displayed on the IT Dashboard regardless of the accuracy of the remaining data fields provided – This year, when key fields of the Agency's contract data submission to the IT Dashboard match data in FPDS, the Agency data will be displayed if provided. If the remaining data fields are not provided and there is a match, the FPDS data will be displayed on the IT Dashboard – Agencies will continue to be able to see both Agency provided contract data as well as FPDS data (when a match exists) in the data feeds section of the IT Dashboard* *Note: Agency Login to the IT Dashboard is required 6/3/2014 24

25. Major IT Business Case Details Major Changes  Projects Table: – Added two columns to the B.1 Table for SDLC Methodology – Added two columns to the B.1 Table asking if each project had a production release at least every six months, and if not, why  Activities Table: – Revised Column 5 of the B.2 Table to remove key deliverable/useable functionality and add more descriptive types of activities  Performance Metrics: – Realigned Performance Metrics (C.1a table) from the old PRM v2 to the Capital Programming Guide – Added column to the C.1 table to enable Performance Metrics to be “Retired” – Removed “Target Met?” question from C.1b Table  Risks: – Added the ability to retire a risk – Require that every active project have at least 3 project risks – Require every Major Investment with O&M dollars in the CY have at least 3 Operational Risks 6/3/201425

26. Projects Table B.1 26  Added two columns to the B.1 Table for SDLC Methodology  Added two columns to the B.1 Table asking if each project had a production release at least every six months, and if not, why Table B.1 Unique Project ID Project Name Objectives/ Expected Outcomes Project Start Date Project Completion Date Project Life- Cycle Cost SDLC Methodology Other SDLC? PM Name PM Level of Experience PM Phone PM Extension PM E-mail Production Release Every 6 Months Comment [10 digit] [Optional] [Limit: one e- mail only] [Yes/No] If No to the previous column, Why? [1,000 characters] 6/3/2014

27. Projects Table B.1 27 For each active project, select the SDLC Methodology type that is being used from the dropdowns options provided. If your project use a SDLC Methodology not listed you may use option #6 “Other”, but you will be require to provide the name of the alternative SDLC Methodology in column #8.  System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Methodology: Which development methodology does this project use? 1)Waterfall 2)Spiral 3)Iterative (Prototyping/Incremental) 4)Agile 5)Mixed 6)Other 7)Not Primarily a Software Development Project 6/3/2014

28. Projects Table B.1 28 For each active project, indicate if it is scheduled to have a production release at least every 6 months (Yes / No). If you answer no, provide a rationale as to why in column 13.  Production Release every 6 months: Does this Project have a production release at least every 6 months?  Comment: If this Project does not provide a production release at least every 6 months, please provide a rationale as to why. 6/3/2014

29. Activities Table B.2 29 Table B.2 ABCDEFGHIJKLMN Unique Project ID Activity Name Activity Description Structure IDType of Activity Start Date Planned Start Date Projected Start Date Actual Completion Date Planned Completion Date Projected Completion Date Actual Total Costs Planned Total Costs Projected Total Costs Actual Type of Activity: This should only be provided for activities that do not have a child (i.e. lowest level) and that are active/open as of Oct 1, 2014. Not every project will have every type of activity listed below. Completion of this activity primarily provides: 1)Conceptualization/Planning 2)Requirements Gathering 3)Design / User Experience (UX) 4)Prototype 5)Development 6)Security Testing 7)Iterative Testing 8)Iterative Release 9)Regression Testing 10)User Acceptance Testing 11)Development Operations (DevOps) / Configuration Management 12)Quality Assurance 13)Production Release 14)Retirement 15)This is not a software development related activity 16)Other OMB has replaced “key deliverable” and “usable functionality” with a more discrete set of project activities. This added visibility will help to inform Agency CIOs and OMB of the nature of each activity in an active Project. 6/3/2014

30. Activities Table B.2 30 6/3/2014  Some agencies have added milestones as activities with a one day duration and a one dollar cost. Agencies should not report milestones in this manner  Milestones should occur at the end of a listed activity and can be described using the Activity Description field. A reported milestone should be consistent with its related Activity Type selection.

31. Performance Metrics Table C.1a  Realigned Performance Metrics categories in the C.1a Table from the old PRM v2 to the Capital Programming Guide  Customer Satisfaction (Results);  Strategic and Business Results;  Financial Performance; and  Innovation  Added column to the C.1 Table to enable Performance Metrics to be “Retired”  Removed “Target Met?” from C.1b Table 31 Table C.1A Metric ID Metric Description Unit of Measure Performance Measurement Category Mapping 2014 Target 2015 Target Measurement Condition Reporting Frequency Agency Strategic Goals/Agency Objective Is the Metric Retired? [Limit: XXX char] [Limit: 500 char][Limit: 50 char] [Measurement Category] [numeric] [Over target/ Under target] [Monthly, Quarterly, Semi-Annual, Annual] [PRM Code from PRM v3.0] [Check Box] 6/3/2014

32. Performance Metrics Table C.1a OMB is not requiring projects to develop all new performance measures, rather just map their current measures to the 4 new metric categories. 32 Customer Satisfaction (Results)Strategic and Business Results Customer BenefitDefense and Security Timeliness and ResponsivenessDiplomacy and Trade Service AccessibilityEconomic and Financial Service CoverageEducation and Workforce Service QualityEnergy and Technology ProductivityEnvironment & Natural Resources Cycle Time & TimelinessHealth &Well-Being QualityLaw & Justice Security and PrivacyTransport & Space Quality AssuranceGeneral Government Efficiency Information & DataFinancial Reliability & AvailabilityFinancial Management EffectivenessOverall Costs Savings and Cost Avoidance InnovationTechnology Costs Management and Innovation The old Performance Reference Model (PRM) v2 has historically been used to categorize performance metric information. Below is an illustration to help Project Managers map their existing old PRM v2 metrics categories to the new Capital Planning Guide-based metric categories: 6/3/2014

33. Performance Metrics Tables C.1a and C.1b OMB has removed the “Target Met?” column due to the limited use of provided responses. The IT Dashboard will calculate if a performance measure is met or not met based on the data provided. Agencies can see this determination in the data feeds section of the IT Dashboard when logged in. 33 Performance metrics should not be removed from the IT Dashboard, but rather marked as retired. This will ensure that OMB does not look for updates to a metric no longer in use as well as give OMB and the public visibility into the metrics the investment has previously used.  Removed “Target Met?” from C.1b Table  Added column to the C.1 Table to enable Performance Metrics to be “Retired” 6/3/2014

34. Risks Tables B.3 and C.2  Added the ability to retire a risk  Require that every active project have at least 3 active project risks  Require every Major Investment with O&M dollars in the CY have at least 3 active Operational Risks  Risks should not be removed from the IT Dashboard, but rather marked as retired. This will ensure that OMB does not look for updates to a risk no longer in use as well give OMB and the Public visibility into the risks that an Investment have previously faced. 34 Table B.3 Unique Project IDRisk NameRisk CategoryRisk ProbabilityRisk ImpactMitigation Plan Is this Risk Closed? [Limit: 500 char][19 risk categories][Low, Medium, High] [char 500] [Check Box] Table C.2 Risk NameRisk Category Risk ProbabilityRisk ImpactMitigation Plan Is this Risk Closed? [Limit: 500 char][19 risk categories] [Low, Medium, High] [Limit: 500 char] [Check Box] Project Risk Table B.3 Operational Risk Table C.2 6/3/2014

35. FY 2017 – Things to Come 35  Work with agencies, private sector, academia, and OMB SMEs to answer the ‘Big’ IT Capital Planning questions and start the process of advancing IT Capital Planning to meet future IT Management and Governance needs. Some Big question topics may include: – Best Construct / mechanism for collecting information on IT – Horizontal and vertical reporting of IT cost – Improved link between CFO IT Budget and related IT capability / functionality – Identifying Shadow IT and Shadow IT Infrastructure – Streamline reporting of Commodity IT & IT Infrastructure – Measuring customer value  Be on the look out for more information in the coming months 6/3/2014

36. Questions? Additional questions may be emailed to: egov@omb.eop.gov egov@omb.eop.gov Subject : “Official FY16 IT Budget – CPIC Guidance” Answers will be posted as part of the FAQ at: https://max.omb.gov/community/x/qAzHKg