Department of the Interior

Office of the Secretary

 

Enterprise Management Systems

Baseline Survey and Results

 

 

 

January 21, 2003

 

Submitted by:

G&B Solutions, Inc.

1501 Farm Credit Drive

Suite 4400

McLean, VA  22102

(703) 883-4045

 

Table of Contents

 

Section 1      Introduction. 1

1.1       Need for an Integrated Management Information System.. 1

Section 2      Summary of Survey Responses. 3

2.1.1        Workload. 3

2.1.2        Number of Customers. 4

2.1.3        Data Sources. 4

2.1.4        System Architecture. 4

2.1.5        System Support 5

2.1.6        Reporting. 5

Section 3      Baseline Capabilities, Comparison, and Cost 6

3.1       Functionality of Financial and Cost Systems. 6

3.2       Functionality of Performance Management Systems. 8

3.3       Cost of Development and Operations and Maintenance. 12

3.4       Conclusion. 13

Appendix 1  Departmental and Bureau Systems. 14

Appendix 2  Survey of Existing Financial and Performance/ Workload Systems in DOI 16

Appendix 3  DOI Baseline of Management Information Systems:  Additional Data Gathering Tool 21

Appendix 4  Interviews. 24

Appendix 5  Survey Results – MIS/Cost Systems. 25

Appendix 6  Survey Results – Performance Systems. 28

Appendix 7  Survey Results – Time and Attendance Systems. 31

 

List of Figures

 

Figure 2‑1:  Estimated Cost of Satisfying Data Requests. 4

Figure 3‑1:  Cost Assignment Framework. 9

Figure 3‑2:  Cost Performance Data Relationship. 10

 

 

List of Tables  

 

Table 1‑1:  Responses by Bureau. 2

Table 2‑1:  Systems by Bureau. 3

Table 3‑1:  MIS – Comparison of capabilities by system. 7

Table 3‑2:  Performance Management System Capabilities Listed by System. 11

Table 3‑3:  Cost of Development and O&M:  MIS and Performance Management 12

 

 

 

 

 

Section 1   Introduction

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) manages Federal lands, water resources, and offshore areas to provide recreation, environmental protection, and access to resources. DOI seeks to fulfill requirements to deliver water and power; preserve America’s cultural heritage; honor the Nation’s responsibility to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and island communities; and generate scientific and other information.

DOI’s mission is achieved through hundreds of programs and activities carried out by its eight Bureaus and one principal office:

DOI employs approximately 68,000 employees who work at more than 2,400 sites across the country. DOI’s annual budget is about $13 billion and receives $9 billion in revenues.

1.1      Need for an Integrated Management Information System

The draft Government Performance and Result Act (GPRA) Performance Plan for DOI defines a mission that includes recreation, resource protection, resource use, and serving communities. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) conducts annual reviews of programs that represent 20% of DOI’s annual budget. The President’s Management Agenda calls for transparency in measuring performance and costs across Government Programs.

The increasing demands for information on strategic goals, measures, cost and program implementation are unmet by existing systems. Appendix 1 lists the existing Departmental and Bureau systems. The current systems do not provide consistent, timely management information to measure cost and performance management of programs. An integrated management information system would provide information to DOI employees to measure progress against program delivery to measure cost and performance in meeting the GPRA plan.

The DOI had decided to establish the capabilities of baseline systems and contracted with G&B Solutions to create a baseline for the current management information systems pertaining to Time and Attendance, Performance and Workload, and Cost Management. DOI had already circulated a survey. The survey is presented in Appendix 2. The survey queried Bureaus on the systems they currently use to track cost, performance, and workload measures. The questions related to the purpose of the system, workload, number of customers, interfaces, architecture cost and system support. The number of responses to the survey is tabulated below:

 

Cost

Performance

Finance

T & A

BLM

X

X

 

 

MMS

X

 

X

 

OSM

 

 

X

 

BOR

X

X

X

 

USGS

 

X

X

X

FWS

 

 

 

 

NPS

 

X

X

 

BIA

X

X

 

 

Table 1‑1:  Responses by Bureau

 In addition to the survey responses, personal and telephone interviews were conducted to augment the survey responses. G&B Solutions used a template for additional questions to establish baseline functionality requirements (Appendix 3). The respondents in some instances were unable to obtain the data or were not able to provide it in a timely fashion. Typically, Bureaus could not provide the number of data requests and the response time to such requests. In some cases, the number of users and cost of development were not available. 

Fifteen of thirty-two surveys were returned by the respondents, a 47% success rate. DOI had specified twenty-nine contacts (Appendix 4) for interviews, twenty-one of these twenty-nine interviews were conducted, a 72% success rate. We have statistically significant responses to draw conclusions.

Section 2 Summary of Survey Responses represents a narrative of the summary of responses. Section 3 Baseline Capabilities, Comparison, and Cost provides baseline capabilities, similarities, differences, and cost of development of current systems where available.

Section 2  Summary of Survey Responses

Appendix 5 presents in a spreadsheet the responses by each Bureau for Cost Systems. Appendix 6 provides the responses for Performance Systems and Appendix 7 presents the details for Time and Attendance Systems.

Table 2‑1 below details the systems that are currently used by the different Bureaus. All but two Bureaus use Federal Financial System (FFS) as their core financial system. MMS and OSM use Advanced Budget/Accounting Control and Information System (ABACIS) as their core financial system to enter the payroll data. USGS is in the process of moving to a web-based QuickTime offered by NBC. MMS and OSM use an intermediate data entry step such as Excel and Microsoft Access before the time keepers input it into the Time and Attendance System (TAAS) system. All other Bureaus use the traditional time sheets and time keepers to enter the data into TAAS.

Bureaus

ABICUS

FFS

FPPS

TAAS

MIS

Cost

Performance

BLM

 

X

X

X

BLM MIS

BLM MIS

BLM MIS

MMS

X

 

X

X

None

OROS

Pilot

OSM

X

 

X

X

MAPS

None

Manual

BOR

 

X

X

X

CDW/FIRS

CDW/FIRS

X

USGS

 

X

X

X

BASIS

None

Manual

FWS

 

X

X

X

ECOS

OROS

OROS Pilot

NPS

 

X

X

X

AFS 3

None

PDMS

BIA

 

X

X

X

None

OROS

OROS Pilot

Table 2‑1:  Systems by Bureau.

All Bureaus use the Federal Personnel/Payroll System (FPPS) for all their payroll transactions and this data is fed into FFS. FPPS comes with a traditional Time and Attendance System. BLM uses an automated Lotus Notes application The Management Information Systems (MIS) systems used by different Bureaus are specific to each Bureau and serve different purposes. BLM is the only MIS system that provides financial, performance, and cost data. All others use a combination of at least two systems to provide financial and performance data. BOR tracks costs by projects, while OSM calculates costs through an excel spreadsheet. All other Bureaus do not have a system to track costs through defined activities.

2.1.1    Workload

The workload in the Bureaus varies with each Bureau. In the survey workload was defined as the number of data requests each year to provide cost and performance data and the response time to satisfy those data requests. Only BLM and OSM provided this information. Based on the available data, it varies from 1,000 data requests per year in BLM to 144 in OSM. With an automated MIS system these requests can be handled in hours as compared to many days without an MIS System. A demonstration of the BLM MIS system confirmed this conclusion.

In the absence of data from all the Bureaus, we simulated cost savings as presented in the chart below. Assuming a range of data requests from 12 per month to 125 per month, with a response rate of 16 hours by one employee at an annual rate of $60K, we arrived at an annual savings of $537,600. The total cost for eight Bureaus would amount to $4.3 million. BLM claims that since installing their MIS, they have saved $3 million annually. We were unable to obtain data to substantiate the claim. However, based on our conservative simulation, by reducing the response time in half, there would be a savings of $2.2 million.

Figure 2‑1:  Estimated Cost of Satisfying Data Requests

2.1.2    Number of Customers

Customers are defined users with access to the system whether it is read only or full access. BLM and OSM provide access to 100% of their employees. The other Bureaus provide access in varying degrees, typically for less than 30% of their employees. The access as defined here is mainly access to Performance and Cost Systems.

2.1.3    Data Sources

The typical data sources are FFS and FPPS for most of the Bureau’s management information systems. Bureaus with programmatic performance databases collect data at the field level with minimum standardization, making these databases unique and creating multiple data sources for tracking and auditing.

The implementation of FFS is also different in each of the Bureaus which results in different levels of detail that are fed into the respective MIS. Each Bureau has a different financial accounting code structure. BOR tracks at the job or task level. BLM tracks sub activity and program elements. All others track at the higher program level. This results in an inability to aggregate meaningful data at the Department level.

2.1.4    System Architecture

FFS and FPPS are IBM mainframe systems with VSAM tables and COBOL programming. The main drawback is that they do not use modern technology such as relational databases and have become outdated for the current data needs of many Bureaus. FFS is 14 years old and the vendor will discontinue support by September 2004. A new web/client/server architecture has been introduced as a new product. FPPS’s Time and Attendance front end requires manual input by time keepers. NBC has introduced QuickTime as the new web based input for FPPS. USGS is currently implementing this tool.

In contrast, all of the different MIS instances have client/server architectures typically, SUN, HP, and Netfinity. They serve up a data warehouse using Informix, Oracle, SQL Server, and Microsoft Access. Brio and COGNOS are the web-based query tools of choice. Crystal Reports are used in some Bureaus to call out reports. The advantage of this architecture is the availability of the data in one place with a flexible query tool and the capability to run standard and custom queries for management reporting.

2.1.5    System Support

Each Bureau provides resources for its own information technology (IT) support through system administrators, database administrators, and system accountants for MIS Cost and Performance systems. For the core systems, NBC provides support. Through the survey we identified 54 support personnel for the systems surveyed. At a cost of $60K (an estimate obtained from BLM) per support staff, the total support cost amounts to $3.2 million per year.  

2.1.6    Reporting

All Bureaus have the capability of reporting financial expenditure on different data dimensions such as, Organization, State and Field Office, trend, and object class. Only BLM has an integrated cost system to report cost by activity. BOR also tracks costs but within each project and the activities cannot be summarized across the projects for management analysis.

Performance data is collected through special databases as listed in the spreadsheets in Appendix 6. The audit trail for the data entry is unclear and consumes significant resources to track and report especially against measures that cannot be quantified through the financial or cost system. The audit trail is important since OMB audits 20% of the programs each year and specifies that the audit trail should exist.

Section 3   Baseline Capabilities, Comparison, and Cost

The baseline capabilities of each system can be described through a series of criteria such as functionality, usability, reliability, performance, supportability, compatibility, ease of installation, portability, and availability. For the scope of this study, the basic capabilities definition focused on functionality from the user perspective>.

3.1      Functionality of Financial and Cost Systems

Since the survey did not include questions to functionality from a user perspective and the main objective in contemplating an integrated management information system was to increase the usability of the data in legacy systems, G&B Solutions designed specific questions as presented in Appendix 3. These related primarily to Data coverage, Data dimension or a rollup structure for drill down, Data sources, Management reporting, and the ease of using query tools. This also helped to gather information on the gap between existing capabilities of the BLM MIS (a system that the DOI would like to proliferate) and the capabilities of the existing MIS in other Bureaus.

Table 3‑1 provides the summary of capabilities for Financial and Cost Accounting Systems:

DOI Baseline of Management Information Systems

Financial and Cost Reporting Systems

 

All

All

BLM

BOR

NPS

BIA/ FWS

OSM

USGS

 

FFS

FPPS

MIS

CDW

AFS3

MMS: OROS

MAPS

BASIS+

1.  Data Coverage – provide visibility to 80% of the entire spending: approx.     $ XX billion per year

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Not Yet Tested

Partial

Partial

2.  Data Accuracy – data reconciles to GL

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

3.  Dimension – by Cost Activity:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-           Program

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

-           Project

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

-           Activity

N

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

4.  Dimension – by Customer Geography defined as

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-           Bureau

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-           State/Region

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

-           Field Office

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

5.  Dimension – Spend Category defined as:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-            Common spend categories (Object Class)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-            Locally defined, intermediate spend categories

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-            Common Activities/Costs

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

-            Common intermediate Costs categories

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

-           Activities Mapped to Outputs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.  Data Sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-        input from standard transaction systems               

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

-        input from standard data bases

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

7.  Reporting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-        for a focused financial community users: ad hoc views, reporting, and export capability

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-        for the casual user: a tool to access reports on-line

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-        limited number of pre-defined reports

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-        ability to report by account number

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-        ability to print full dimension hierarchy for any one

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

-        ability to print report selection with hierarchy

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

N

-        ability to link to  detail

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

N

8.  Web Based Query Tool

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-        ability to select on each dimension

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

Y

-        on drill downs, see next level

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Table 3‑1:  MIS – Comparison of capabilities by system.

The above table represents the functionality by row. The first two columns represent the financial and payroll system where the functionality is the same for all Bureaus. ABACIS, the financial system used by MMS and OSM, also has similar functionality as FFS from the user perspective. MIS systems that different Bureaus have built vary in purpose and functionality from the FFS and ABACIS systems. There is truly no cost detail at the activity level except in BLM. USGS and NPS use their MIS for budget formulation and tracking expenses by object class. BOR uses it for reporting costs by program, project, and job, but not activity. MMS, BIA, and FWS have begun a pilot to implement a cost system. Below is a basic description by functionality. A more detailed analysis is presented with the Performance System functionality which also applies to the MIS, since the ideal solution would be an integrated system that combines cost and performance measures.

A narrative of each of the functionalities for the MIS/Cost System is provided below:

  1. Data Coverage:  Not Uniform. Transactions that are fed into BLM MIS, BOR CDW, and AFS 3 (NPS), and OROS (BIA, MMS, and FWS) plan to take transactions from FFS but have not been tested yet. OSM and USGS feed summary data into a spreadsheet or data base.

2.      Data Dimensions: Activity Based Models typically provide cost along the following dimensions:

a.       Time

b.      Budget vs. Actual

c.       Geography (Region, State, Field) 

d.      Service, Project or Program

e.       Customer

f.        Channel

g.       Activity

h.       Object Class or Resource line item

i.         Department or Division

Except for the core systems, there is no uniform standard for the data dimensions to report cost and performance data. The BLM MIS has attempted to define a workable data model to address this, but it can be improved. All other Bureaus follow the FFS model, which does not address many of the data dimensions for cost, activities, and output.

3.      Data Sources: The data sources for the core systems have been the recording of transactions. The source for any cost warehouse will be the transaction systems. While the system capability to import such data exists, there are no standard financial accounting structures that provide the same detail across Bureaus. This can be achieved only when uniform accounting codes are implemented across Bureaus.

4.      Management Reporting: Except for financial reporting from core systems, the reports across Bureaus are not standardized in terms of their definition and detail. The reports again have to be linked to the data dimensions and the format, frequency, and content have to lend themselves to standards.

5.      Web Based Query Tools:  A focused financial and performance measurement community should have a tool like Brio or Cognos to customize queries. The use of Brio at BLM has improved productivity as shown through the demonstration of their system. On the other hand, the larger user community should use standard reports that have been placed on the web with drill down capabilities. At present, BLM is the only Bureau with such a capability.

3.2      Functionality of Performance Management Systems

The Basic capabilities for the Performance Management System can be defined as:

1.      Data Coverage: Performance measures are created through the Strategic Planning Process or in deference to GPRA. In either case, the ideal framework to map costs or financial data to performance measures is as follows:

Figure 3‑1:  Cost Assignment Framework.

In the above framework, BLM and other planned efforts such as OROS are focused on the horizontal view of Cost Drivers – Activities – Performance measures. Costs may also be assigned to Objects such as Customers, Suppliers of Service and Business Sustaining infrastructure such as facilities, information technology, and other centralized services. The most important observation here is that the relationship of activities and performance measures is much broader for the Bureaus; therefore many Bureaus has implemented a ne a separate ad hoc system to track qualitative measures. Again lack of data standards raises the issues of data integrity and auditability.

2.      Data Dimensions: Data architecture with defined standard data dimensions becomes crucial to marry the Activity Based Cost System and the Performance Management System. The following framework visually expresses the practical solution:

Figure 3‑2:  Cost Performance Data Relationship.

Unless the activities and outputs have a unique relationship, the reporting against specific measures will not be practical. Since this relationship has not been defined across the Bureaus, a DOI view of all Bureaus is now not possible. This is a crucial step to achieving economies of scale by implementing an integrated MIS system for the Department.

3.      Data Sources: The data sources for the Performance Measurement system may be numerous based on each Bureau’s needs. However a single system to capture the data and a definition of data elements will ensure that data has integrity and consistency. At the present time, it is difficult to ensure that this happens due to the various ad hoc systems.

4.      Management Reporting: Except for financial reporting from core systems, the reports across Bureaus are non standard in terms of their definition and detail. The reports again have to be linked to the data dimensions and the format, frequency, and content have to lend themselves to standards.

5.      Web Based Query Tools A focused financial and performance measurement community should have a tool like Brio or Cognos to customize queries. The use of Brio at BLM has improved productivity as shown through the demonstration of their system. On the other hand, the larger user community should use standard reports that have been placed on the web with drill down capabilities. At present BLM is the only Bureau with such a capability.

The table below provides the summary of capabilities for the Performance Measurement Systems:

DOI Baseline of Management Information Systems

Performance Management Systems

 

All

All

BLM

BOR

NPS

BIA/ MMS

FWS

OSM

USGS

 

FFS

FPPS

MIS

GPRA

PDMS

OROS

ECOS

MAPS

BASIS+

1.  Data Coverage – provide visibility to 80% of the entire spending: approx.    $ XX billion per year by performance goals


N


N


Y


Some


N


N


N


N


N

2.  Data Accuracy – data reconciles to GL

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

3.  Dimension – by Cost Activity:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     -   Goals

N

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

     -   Outcomes: End and Intermediate

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

     -   Activity/Outputs

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

4.  Dimension – by Customer Geography defined as

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     -  Bureau

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

     -  State/Region

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

     -  Field Office

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

5. Data Sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     -   input from standard transaction systems               

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

     -   input from standard data bases

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

6.  Reporting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     -   for a focused financial community users: ad hoc views, reporting, and export capability

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

     -   for the casual user: a tool to access reports on-line

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

     -   limited number of pre-defined reports

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

     -  ability to report by activities/outputs

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

     -   ability to print full dimension hierarchy for any one

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

     -   ability to print report selection with hierarchy

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

     -   ability to link to  detail

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

7.   Web Based Query Tool

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     -   ability to select on each dimension

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

     -   on drill downs, see next level

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

Table 3‑2:  Performance Management System Capabilities Listed by System.

3.3      Cost of Development and Operations and Maintenance

The table below summarizes the cost of development and maintenance based on available data received from the Bureaus. This cost is understated especially for consultants and contractors which were not specifically called for in the survey. The total cost of MIS is at $12.3 million and the total cost of Performance Systems is $3.5 million.

MIS: Cost of Development

BLM

MMS

OSM

BOR

USGS

FWS

NPS

BIA

TOTAL

 

 

OROS

MAPS

CDW

Basis+

OROS

 

OROS

OROS

 

 

Pilot

 

 

 

Pilot

 

Pilot

Pilot

Development:

 

260,000

 

500,000

 

 

 

 

       260,000

Hardware

1,200,000

 

 

 

500,000

 

500,000

20,000

2,200,000

Software

700,000

 

 

 

4,000,000

 

574,000

162,280

5,274,000

Consulting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Training

100,000

 

 

 

 

 

83,000

0

183,000

Total Development

2,000,000

260,000

0

500,000

4,500,000

0

1,157,000

182,280

8,417,000

Operations & Maintenance

 

100,000

100,000

579,000

 

 

 

 

779,000

Hardware

 

 

 

 

50,000

 

 

16,333

50,000

Software

75,000

 

 

 

1,000,000

 

 

 

1,075,000

Support - Contract

100,000

 

 

 

50,000

 

 

 

150,000

Support - Internal (@60K/FTE)

300,000

 

480000

 

840000

 

 

 

1,620,000

Total O&M

     475,000

  100,000

  580,000

     579,000

  1,940,000

           -  

              -  

   16,333

3,674,000

Grand Total - MIS

2,475,000

360,000

580,000

1,079,000

6,440,000

0

1,157,000

198,613

12,289,613

 

 

Cost: Performance Management

BLM

MMS

OSM

BOR

USGS

FWS

NPS

BIA

BIA

 

 

 

 

PABS

 

ECOS

PDMS

 

 

Development:

 

 

 

1,800,000

 

600,000

 

 

    2,400,000

Hardware

 

 

 

 

 

 

50,000

 

50,000

Software

 

 

 

 

 

 

20,000

 

20,000

Consulting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Training

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Total Development

 

 

 

1,800,000

 

600,000

70000

 

2,470,000

Operations & Maintenance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Hardware

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Software

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Support - Contract

 

 

 

 

 

 

480,000

 

480,000

Support - Internal (@60K/FTE)

 

 

 

1,000,000

 

 

360,000

 

1,360,000

Total O&M

 

 

 

 

 

200,000

840,000

 

1,040,000

Grand Total - Performance

0

0

0

1,800,000

0

800,000

910,000

0

3,510,000

Total - MIS & Performance

2,475,000

360,000

580,000

2,879,000

6,440,000

800,000

2,067,000

198,613

15,799,613

Table 3‑3:  Cost of Development and O&M:  MIS and Performance Management

If the cost of BLM MIS is chosen as a bell weather for the cost of constructing an integrated MIS by each Bureau as opposed to the centralized solution, the incremental cost will be an additional $13 million. We arrived at this number by computing a per seat cost of $266 per FTE (full time equivalent) for the BLM MIS. BLM has nearly 10,000 employees, but provided access to 7,500. Of the 65,000 DOI employees, 75% amount to 48,750 employees. At $266 per employee, the incremental cost will amount to $13 million. A centralized solution will be able to deliver that solution at a significantly lower cost due to the implementation of standards Department wide. This is elaborated in the next report.

3.4      Conclusion

The responses to the survey of baseline systems indicate a lack of standards for mining the data in existing transaction systems. While DOI moves towards replacing the core financial system, many ad hoc systems are sprouting in different Bureaus to satisfy the data and information needs of various constituencies. This has resulted in an inability to aggregate data at the appropriate levels and details. Cost data is not accumulated on activities and cost objects. BLM has a functioning system that tracks costs by activity. BOR has a system to track costs by Projects in addition to the Project Cost Accounting (PCAS) Module in FFS. There are three pilots that use a COTS software OROS. The challenge at the department level is to identify a common solution, implement standard data definitions, dimensions and provide a tool to capture cost and performance data with appropriate detail accuracy and frequency. The alternatives will be discussed in a separate report to be submitted to the Department.

 

Appendix 1  Departmental and Bureau Systems

 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE SYSTEMS

Core Financial System (FFS)

  • Federal Financial System (8 Bureaus/Offices)

Core Financial System

  • Advanced Budget/Accounting Control and Information System (2 Bureaus)
  • Accounting and Aircraft System (OAS)

Payroll Personnel System

  • Federal Personnel/Payroll System (FPPS)

Interior Department Electronic Acquisition System (IDEAS)

 

BUREAU SPECIFIC SYSTEMS

Bureau Level Executive Information Systems

  • Management Information System (BLM)
  • Administrative Financial System II (NPS)
  • Federal Aid Information Management  System (FWS)
  • Financial Reporting and Reconciliation System (NPS)
  • Budget and Science Information System (GS)
  • TSC Management Information System (BOR)

Budget Formulation Systems

  • Budget Allocation System (FWS)
  • Program and Budget System (BOR)
  • Budget Formulation System (NPS)

Loan Management Accounting System (BIA)

National Irrigation Management Information System (BIA)

Trust Funds (BIA,OST)

  • Trust Funds Accounting System
  • Integrated Resources Management System

Facility Construction, Operation, and Maintenance System (BIA)

Land Management System (BLM)

  • Payment in Lieu of Taxes
  • Collection and Billing System

Property Management Systems

  • FFS Fixed Assets Subsystem (BIA,BLM,GS,NPS)
  • Moveable Property System (BOR)
  • Property Management System (MMS)
  • Property Management Web (New System Being Developed by MMS)
  • Personal Property Management Information System (FWS)
  • Real Property Inventory (FWS)
  • Federal Real Property Management (GS)
  • Property Accountability Ledger System (OSM)

Inventory Systems

  • FEDSTRIP System (BOR)
  • DORRAN (GS)
  • Peachtree 2000 Inventory System (GS)

Travel Management Systems

  • Travel Manager Plus

Minerals Revenue Management (MMS)

Surface Mining Grant/Revenue System (OSM)

  • Grant Information Financial Tracking System
  • Fee Billing and Collection System
  • Audit Fee Billing and Collection System
  • Civil Penalty Accounting Control System

Maintenance Management Systems (Various)

Source:  Financial Management Status Report and Strategic Plan, FY 2003 - FY 2007

 

Appendix 2  Survey of Existing Financial and Performance/ Workload Systems in DOI

 

 

Instructions for Completing the Survey of Existing Financial and

Performance Systems

 

The Department is moving forward to implement an Enterprise Management System to integrate financial and performance reporting. One of the first steps for this initiative is to document the capabilities of our existing financial and management information systems that capture cost, cost management, time and attendance, and performance data. We have developed this survey to start the documentation process. The survey captures financial reporting and performance/ workload information.

This survey should be completed as a joint effort between your IT and business staffs. A separate survey should be completed for each of your financial and performance systems. A representative from the ABC Systems Subcommittee will be contacting you to assist you in completing this survey and to fully document your system(s) capabilities over the next few weeks. Please contact Mr. Peter Ertman at (202) 452-7706, X 3706, or e-mail peter_ertman@blm.com for questions concerning this survey. 

Please do not change the order or wording of the questions. In your responses, bullets or phrases are acceptable; there is no need for complete sentences.

 

Specific Instructions:

Question 3. This should be a person knowledgeable about the system that could provide in-depth answers to follow-up questions in a timely manner.

Question 4. This is an extremely important input for use in subsequent cost-benefit analyses and should reflect data requests from all levels of your organization.

Question 5. A target audience is defined (for the purposes of this survey) as the users of the outputs of the system.

Question 8. Under part a, please describe the kind of data that is supplied, such as number of park visits, number of leases issued, etc. This does not have to be a detailed accounting of the complete data in the system, just illustrative of the major data.

Survey of Existing Financial and Performance/Workload Systems in DOI

 

Bureau/Office Name:

 

Date Prepared:

 

1.  Name of System:

 

2.  Purpose of System/Business Requirements Addressed (brief narrative and indicate whether the system is for financial reporting or performance/workload):

 

 

3.  System Point of Contact for Further Information:

     a.  Name:

     b.  E-mail address:

     c.  Telephone Number:

4.  Do you use this system in formulating responses to financial or performance/workload data requests from either external or internal parties?

 

  1. If yes, estimate the number of requests and total work hours involved in these responses. Estimate the calendar time (in workdays) required to respond to an ‘average’ request from the time you receive it to the time you complete the response.

 

  1. If no, estimate the number of requests and total work hours involved in your manual process. Estimate the calendar time (in workdays) it takes to respond to an ‘average’ request from the time you receive it to the time you complete the response.

 

  1. Also, if no, do you think automated system(s) would facilitate your request response in either reducing the staff workload or quicken the response time? Please explain why or why not.

 

5.  System Target Audience.  Estimate the size of your target audience (e.g. number of users):

  1. Financial Community
  2. GPRA (Performance Measurement) Community
  3. Field Management
  4. State/Regional/Washington Office Management
  5. All Employees

 

6.  System accessibility:  Estimate number of offices accessing your system(s)

     a.  Bureau Offices.

     b.  WO

     c.  Regional/State

     d.  Field Offices.

 

7.  System Data source:

  1. FFS
  2. Other Data Systems (please name).

 

8.   Do other automated systems supply data to this system for further processing? If yes, please list the systems and describe the kind of data supplied

 

9.  System Lifecycle Status (Pick the appropriate life cycle stage):

  1. Initial Concept
  2. Planning
  3. Approved For Development
  4. In Development/Date to be implemented:
  5. Operational (i.e., in production)/Date Implemented:
  6. Other (please describe).
  7. Are any enhancements planned in the next year? If yes, please describe the enhancements:

 

 

10.  System Architecture:

  1. Non web-based client-server?
  2. Web-based?
  3. Other (please specify)?
  4. What server hardware does the system run on (please describe)?
  5. What operating system does the system run on (name, version)?
  6. How much disk space (in GB) for both the software and data is required?
  7. Does this system run on an “average” office desktop PC configuration or does it need an “enhanced” desktop PC? 

 

 

11.  FTE Required for System Operation:

  1. Number of IT FTE in:
  1. Are these on board FTE or contract support (please specify above)
  2. Number of Non-IT FTE:

 

12.  System Cost

  1. Total Development Cost:
  1. Yearly O&M Cost

1)      Your Direct System Operation costs:

·        Hardware:

·        Software:

·        FTE/contract (based on previous question responses):

·        Costs billed by others (such as DOI NBC):

 

13.      Do you have other automated systems that rely upon the operation of this system (either the outputs from or data contained in the system)? If yes, please list the systems (you will be contacted for further discussion about these).

 

 

14.      Are you currently using a web-based database query tool?

  1. If yes, provide the name, number of seats, and acquisition cost.
  2. If no, do you have a need for such a tool? If yes, briefly describe the need and number of seats required.

                                                                                                                               


Appendix 3  DOI Baseline of Management Information Systems:  Additional Data Gathering Tool

 

Time and Attendance, Performance and Workload Tracking and Reporting, Cost Management and Financial Data Reporting

 

Functionality, capabilities: Description or list of basic features to be developed as part of this project and criteria for measuring them.

                                                    

Description

Comments

1. Data Coverage – provide visibility to 80% of the entire spending:    approx. $ XX billion per year.

 

2. Data Accuracy – data reconciles to GL

 

4. Dimension – by Customer Geography defined as

  • Region
  • Entity, sub-entity
  • Locally defined customer  tree
  • Place id first in description

 

 

5. Dimension – by Spend Source defined as:

  • Cumulative – all Service Providers together
  • Major providers
  • Organizations within major providers
  • Location Code (credit location)
  • Sub-organization that ties into major provider as defined by service provider

 

 

6. Dimension -  Spend Category defined as:

  • Common spend categories
  • Local billing components
  • Locally defined, intermediate spend categories
  • Common billing components (CC-Codes)
  • Common intermediate spend categories, i.e. email under messaging
  • Common applications

 

 

7. Data Availability

  • quarterly
  • monthly
  • data is available for the current and entire previous fiscal year (beginning with FYXX data)
  • include FYXX data

 

8. Data Sources

 

 

 9. Reporting 

  • for a focused group of financial community users: ad hoc views, reporting, and export capability
  • for the casual user: a tool to access reports on-line
  • limited number of pre-defined reports
  • ability to schedule download of reports
  • ability to schedule download of data
  • ability to report by account number
  • ability to print full dimension hierarchy for any dimension
  • ability to print report selection with hierarchy
  • ability to sort/order the dimension members
  • ability to link to  detail

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.  Web Based Query Tool

  • need ability to select, on each dimension, the display of Id or Description
  • on drill downs, want to see next level indented
  • want ability to choose “current month” and “year-to-date” without doing selections

 

 

 

Usability:  List of criteria concerning ease of use, ease of learning, and ease of maintenance.  This also includes user interface, help features, documentation, and training materials.  Usability has become a key market differentiator.

 

Description

Comments

1. Data Availability

  • data must be available in electronic form
  • schedule of data availability
  • visibility of what data has been loaded

 

2. Security

  • a rudimentary security framework to allow either full read access or no access to the data
  • use ITRM guidelines for closed user group

 

3. User interface

  • interface should fit the skills of the user group