1. Deloitte Consulting LLP Commonwealth of Massachusetts IT Consolidation Program IT Finance and Budgeting Sub-committee Discussion Document February 24, 2010 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

2. - 1 - DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Agenda 1.Review status of overdue submissions to Maximus (SWCAP only) (C.Mont-Louis - 10 mins.) 2.Discuss implementation approach (K.Luddy - 15 mins.) 3.Review implementation status of Secretariat operating models (K.Luddy - 20 mins.) 4.Discuss in more detail the new OSD IT procurement policy (K.Luddy – 5 mins.) 5.Share implementation lessons learned (S.Barnard and P.Naves – 10 mins.)

3. - 2 - DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Review status of overdue submissions to Maximus (SWCAP only) Eric Berman provided the below framework for the indirect/direct charge analysis in MSExcel 2 weeks ago. Please update the italicized titles, complete the analysis, and email back to Eric and Chantal by end of this week at the latest. Position Title ADD ROWS AS NEEDED FOR TITLES Direct Charge – Should Be Agency Direct Charges Now? If Yes - Name Current Funding Source Indirect – Should Be Agency includes in Indirect Now? (Yes or No) Position is not charged to a federal program or any other special appropriation now (Yes or No) FILL IN HERE Administration Yes Administrative Assistant Yes Application DeveloperYES – if working on only one project / program / service Yes – if NOT working on one project / program / service Application Systems Analysis YES – if working on only one project / program / service Yes – if NOT working on one project / program / service Business Analyst Yes Business Application Manager YES – if working on only one project / program / service Yes – if NOT working on one project / program / service OutputANFEOEEEAHEDHHSLWDPSSDOT Indirect/Direct Analysis 3 weeks late On-time 3 weeks late 3 weeks late N/A?* On-timeN/A?* Due 2/19 *Footnote: Sub-committee to follow-up with Eric Berman on applicability for Secretariats not involved in SWCAP effort at this point in time.

4. - 3 - DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Discuss implementation approach In an effort to reduce the cumulative workload on the Secretariats and standardize common processes, the Secretariats will be paired to develop guidance on a subset of the implementation activities. Moving forward, each team will: Provide a weekly update on the implementation guidance for its respective activities and distribute written guidance for the benefit of the other Secretariats. The first weekly update will be on 3/3. In an effort to accommodate this process, the subcommittee will meet collectively for 30-45 minutes each week, then provide the remainder of the time for each team to discuss their respective implementation progress and action items. Team-based Implementation Approach Individual Secretariat Progress Reporting In addition to the team-based development of the common activities, the Secretariats will also be responsible for reporting on their weekly progress against the workplans. The goal of the weekly reporting progress is to identify any common issues and escalate accordingly.

5. - 4 - DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Discuss implementation approach (continued) WeekMonTueWedThuFri Team Implementation Approach Week 1 Activity owners to develop draft guidance deliverable Week 2 Activity owner to review with paired Secretariat team Activity owner to present draft guidance Activity owner to incorporate feedback Week 3 Activity owner to distribute final guidance deliverable Weekly Secretariat Implementation Progress Reporting Weekly Chantal to request workplan updates Secretariats to provide workplan updates (dates and comments) Secretariats to discuss progress and outstanding issues Secretariat to meet with their internal implementation team Proposed ‘Cadence’ for Managing Your Implementation 1 2 34 5 12 3

6. - 5 - DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Discuss implementation approach (continued) AreaTeam Activity Owner IDActivity Description Proposed Timeline IT Administrative Services Development EOHHS and EOEEA A1 Estimate the number of administrative staff required to support the Secretariat Draft: 3/3 Final: 3/10 A2 Document formal administrative processes for the “hub and spoke” model in an SLA Draft: 3/10 Final: 3/17 A3Develop IT administrative services report Draft: 3/17 Final: 3/24 IT Procurement MassDOT and EOHED B1 Identify the appropriate owner for all IT assets (Commonwealth, Secretariats, ITD) with leadership support. Draft: 3/3 Final: 3/10 B2Design a Secretariat-wide procurement process Draft: 3/10 Final: 3/17 B3Document the procurement responsibilities of all parties in an SLA Draft: 3/17 Final: 3/24 B4 Implement the procurement process using request fulfillment software and MMARS workflow Draft: 3/24 Final: 3/31 IT Bill Paying ANF and EOLWD C1Develop a process for validating usage on agency bills Draft: 3/3 Final: 3/10 C2 Develop a reporting process between the Secretariat and the agencies to summarize their monthly bills Draft: 3/10 Final: 3/17 C3 Document the bill paying responsibilities for the agencies and the Secretariat in an SLA Draft: 3/17 Final: 3/24 Dynamic Staff Allocation EOPSS and EOE D1 Develop a standard process for aligning the resources with the appropriate skill set to each project Draft: 3/3 Final: 3/10 D2 Develop a time tracking mechanism that connects with payroll and can dynamically allocate funding from multiple accounts Draft: 3/10 Final: 3/17 D3 Update the language in the Grants to measure IT support by the number of hours of support provided rather than the number of FTEs Draft: 3/17 Final: 3/24

7. - 6 - DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Review implementation status of Secretariat operating models OutputANFEOEEEAHEDHHSLWDPSSDOT Op Model On-Time 10-week Delay 8-week Delay 10-week Delay On-Time 8-week Delay 4-week Delay 7-week Delay Workplan On-Time 10-week Delay 8-week Delay 10 -week Delay On-Time 8-week Delay 5-week Delay 6-week Delay MMARS YYYY?YY? Implementation All Secretariats other than EOE and EOHED have completed their respective operating models and workplans. As such, we will now be tracking implementation status against plan. Due 12/16 Due 12/24 Due 4/30 Due 7/1 Implementation Status Legend* <5 ‘At Risk’ Activities <10 ‘At Risk’ Activities>10 ‘At Risk’ Activities To be regularly updated with detail next week * Note: delays with mission critical activities and key dependency activities will automatically render a yellow or red status (regardless of total # of ‘at risk’ activities)

8. - 7 - DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Review implementation status of Secretariat operating models Please see handout of Gantt Charts for each Secretariat (these charts are automatically created in the Implementation Workplan XLS tool).

9. - 8 - DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Discuss in more detail the new OSD IT procurement policy Last Wednesday, we touched on this new procurement policy of which not all sub-committee members were aware. As such, we are providing the requested documentation today to promote awareness and coordination with Secretariat planning. Please see handout of Anne Margulies’ February 9 th email message outlining the new OSD IT procurement process.

10. - 9 - DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY EOHHS IT Operating Model Implementation Major Milestones S1. Centralize Federally Funded IT Staff S2. Centralized IT Administrative Staff S3. Centralize Budgeting S4. Agency Support S5. Centralized Procurement S6. Centralized Bill Paying S7. Dynamic Allocation of IT Staff S8. Cost Allocation Plans S9. Centralized Time Tracking S10. Centralized Chargeback Reporting Transfer staff paid through federal funding to the Secretariat: Transfer administrative costs to the Secretariat IT account Plan to coordinate budgeting between the Secretariat and the agencies Plan to support IT and IT administrative staff ancillary costs Transfer procurement management to the Secretariat Transfer bill paying responsibilities to the Secretariat Develop a process to transfer staff from project to project based on need Update federal funding cost allocation plans Develop time tracking to support dynamic staff allocation Develop reporting mechanism to track chargeback funding 1-23-45-67-89-1011-1213-1415-1617-1819-2021-2223-2425-26 1/3-161/17-301/31-2/132/14-272/28-3/133/14-273/28-4/104/11-244/25-5/85/9-225/23-6/56/6-196/20-7/3 Scenario Description Status/ Comments We Are Here Upcoming Project MilestoneLegend:Completed Project Milestone At Risk Project Milestone

11. - 10 - DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY ANF IT Operating Model Implementation Major Milestones Scenario Description S1. Fully Centralize IT Staff S2. Centralized IT Administrative Staff S3. Agency Support S4. Centralized IT Payroll S5. Centralized Procurement S6. Centralized Bill Paying S7. Centralized HR S8. Dynamic Staff Allocation S9. Cost Allocation Plans (CAPs) S10. Centralized Time Tracking Transition from a delegated model to a centralized model for managing IT resources Develop a hub and spoke model to support all agencies with centralized IT administrative staff Plan to support IT and IT administrative staff ancillary costs Develop a plan to manage the IT payroll centrally Develop a centralized procurement management function Develop a centralized bill paying function Develop a plan to manage the IT HR workload centrally Develop a process to transfer staff from project to project based on need Update federal funding cost allocation plans Develop time tracking to support dynamic staff allocation S11. Centralized Chargeback Reporting Develop reporting mechanism to track chargeback funding S12-13. Centralized Budgeting Plan to coordinate budgeting between the Secretariat and the agencies 1-23-45-67-89-1011-1213-1415-1617-1819-2021-2223-2425-26 1/3-161/17-301/31-2/132/14-272/28-3/133/14-273/28-4/104/11-244/25-5/85/9-225/23-6/56/6-196/20-7/3 Status/ Comments We Are Here Upcoming Project MilestoneLegend:Completed Project Milestone At Risk Project Milestone