Anyone should be able to build an app that can access any data on any state web site. The most effective and accurate way to do this is to agree on a set of standards whereby any future website must be built atop a platform whose data/api is available to all. I wrote about this for the C&C HNL here: http://bit.ly/rzlOjF and it's equally applicable for the state
While it is not perfectly clear from these documents, it appears as though this "state-wide plan" in fact only covers the Executive branch ("The “we” in this case are the CIO, the Department Directors, and the Departmental IT leads.") As this is the largest branch, and has many ties into enterprise, I can certainly see why you would start with this, but I would also like to see a vision that covers the Legislative and Judicial branches.
The Legislative branch is particularly important to enterprise as it enacts the laws, and its electronic version of the statutes is out of date for about 6 months out of the year (that's the approximate time period between the end of session, when many bills become effective, and the uploading of the amended HRS). This delay is caused by the need to compile and proof all of the Acts, which is understandable. However, making the legislative data available to developers via API would allow them to pull in the latest data on statutory amendments from the bills themselves and thus ensure that they are complying with all applicable laws on a timely basis. Therefore, the Legislative branch should be part of this plan and should participate in governance.
The blueprint for change that provides the framework for the design and development of IT systems, applications, business information, and processes to best support the goals and missions of the various departments’ line of business. This also describes the details relative to ongoing and planned investments and projects that will address the transition from the state’s current information technology environment to the future vision and the sequence that projects should be implemented over the next twelve years.
An overview of the business process reengineering and IT/IRM projects that have been completed, are currently being implemented, or planned.
The life-cycle management of processes and policies that guide the management and oversight of the state’s portfolio of business transformation and IT investments, acquisitions, and projects, including system development, business process re-engineering, and infrastructure improvements.
The Business and IT/IRM Transformation Strategic Plan documents the mission, vision, goals, strategies objectives, and performance measures of the transformation effort, as well as specific prioritized projects and initiatives that will be launched over the next 12 years.
I am with DLIR and my line of business is administration of workers' compensation law by an attached agency. The judiciary has alreadly implemented electronic filing of appeals and records (JIMS system) and is progressing next with district court, and thereafter all circuit courts. State attached agencies should be prepared to go electronic as well so that all appeals, pleadings, records, etc. can be electronically filed with the agency. The system should be compatible with the Judiciary's JIMS system. For our office, I would like our customers to be able to log into a secured website so they can check the status of their cases, see what hearings or conferences have been scheduled in their cases, or what orders or other documents have been filed. This information should be accessibe only to the parties and the agency. It would be great if we can provide our customers or clients with electronic text message, voicemail, or email reminders of upcoming hearings and conferences and a vehicle to make online updates of contact information. The technology is already available to do all of this. Also, an idea for IT help desk: sometimes I just need to consult with an IT person and the solution may be quite simple and the problem can be resolved over the phone. Sort of like the Apple Genius Bar or even Oceanic Cable---a person to talk you through the problem. For more complex problems, then require a job help request. If I have to submit a job help request, it could take days or weeks before someone comes.
After reading through the comments and knowing some of the fee structures that we have in the state, I'd like to propose a question and what I think the answer should be.
The question: Should the public be charged a fee for information?
Currently, some services are fee based and that supports the build out of the service in the first place. It's especially common in areas when the contractor built the service at little to no cost to the state with the knowledge that they are building a revenue stream at the same time. But is that a sustainable and desirable model?
I believe we need to be careful in what we charge for and how we assign "value" to a service. If anything, the public should be charged a pass-through for fees the service costs to run and nothing more as the public and public information shouldn't be a profit center.
I understand that we (the collective we) have battered government agencies with the "why can't you think more like a business" line for decades. However, I believe that that comment meant the decision making process and not creating business opportunities for internal and external organizations.
The stumbling block to transformation in Hawaii is culture, not just in government but in the community in general. I'm glad to see that the IT/IRM Strategic Plan recognizes that it is proposing a cultural shift. I'm concerned that the plan is lacking in specfic actions.
As I was looking at Table 2, I noticed that three of the four outcomes had at least one initiative with a specific schedule. The one outcome that didn't, organizational alignment, is going to be the bigest stumbling block to achieving the other three.
To overcome the stovepiping problem, the culture of non-communication needs to be addressed. OIMT may be doing a good job of communicating with the upper echelons but it's not getting through to the lower ranks. I work in IT. I heard about this plan through AITP. I asked a few of the non-IT program supervisors where I work if they heard of OIMT. Nope.
I think OIMT needs to come out with a monthly email to let people know what's coming. Working for the State in any support capacity is incredibly frustrating. This plan addresses a lot of those frustrations. People should be told about the initiatives now. Give them a chance to adjust to the idea and maybe even get excited that their job will be less frustrating in the future.
If nothing else, OIMT should have an email list of every IT employee in the State, and send them announcements when plans are made available or web sites like this one are launched. I was looking at the users of this site. I couldn't find one that didn't work for OIMT. Maybe OIMT needs to be less stovepiped.
I noticed that there is going to be an attempt at doing a dataset inventory during the month of July. These sorts of things usually turn into a last minute scramble with frazzled nerves, disrupted work, and negative feelings all around. A lot of people will look at this as another useless exercise.
On July 2nd, before asking for something from the troops, give them something. I know purchasing is covered in the long term but we desperately need a uniform policy toward the purchase of computer hardware incidentals now. And it would be good publicity. This item can be included under organizational alignment and could be a quick win for the strategic plan.
My hardware approvals are reviewed by six offices outside of my branch. Those reviews are required for something as mundane as a mouse or a flash drive. This makes no sense. The review process costs more than the item being purchased. It also has a high cost in terms of morale.
I suggest as a more sensible policy, that the purchase of computer hardware incidentals, within the HRS 103D purchase requirements, be at the sole discretion of the branch chief and exempt from the T-205 process. OIMT can define incidentals any way it likes.
One option could be a dollar amount. This will be helpful in eliminating a lot of unnecessary work even if the dollar amount limit is as small as $30 per item.
Another option could be a list of exempt items such as flash drives, usb hubs, memory card readers etc. Personally I would really push it and include digital cameras. These are purchases in which the only two considerations are first, do we need it, and second, do we have the money? If a branch chief can't be trusted to figure that out on his own there's no hope.
A third option would be a list of items that are exempt when purchased as a direct replacement for a broken item. These would be things like hard drives, video cards, and maybe even monitors.
If OIMT should decide to do this, the office needs to know that when a directive comes from the governor, DAGS staples its own version of the directive on top, and then the other departments staple their own version of the directive on the top of that. The troops on the ground never read past the department's directive. I would make some phone calls and make sure that the first sentence in the department's directive goes something like, "As part of the new strategic plan created by OIMT...."
This policy would go a long way toward demonstrating that OIMT is capable of making positive changes at the ground level and instill a bit of hope in the troops while they're busy listing their datasets.
If the four business outcomes can be achieved without OIMT having to take on the role of approver, OIMT would be much better off. Being an approver looks better on paper than in reality. There will always be pressure to take shortcuts and approve projects that don’t make sense in terms of the strategic plan (and sometimes don’t make sense at all). That’s because in the State "what the right things are" are often: 1. Get the money. 2. Spend the money. In state government it is a cardinal sin to turn down or turn back federal dollars. As long as the requirements of the grant are met everything else becomes secondary. As an approver OIMT will be right in the middle of this game and end up using 80% of its resources on 20% of projects that are nothing but a headache that someone is trying to get rid of. There’s a better way.
I suggest that the OIMT begin with a review not to approve a project but to determine whether or not it wants to become involved. A review for all IT purchases that exceed the amount required by HRS 103D for small purchases (don’t hard code the current number) would be a good place to start. This psychologically ties the review to existing processes so it seems like an extension of current rules and not a whole new set. By the time a program has decided to forgo the small purchase procedures and pursue a RFP or RFQ it's braced for the long haul. At worst the OIMT review will be seen as a minor inconvenience and may even be welcomed as helpful.
When the purpose of the review is to determine whether or not it makes sense for OIMT to apply its limited resources to the project, OIMT can stay more focused. There will be $200,000 COTS projects that are low risk, low priority in terms of the strategic plan, but high priority in terms of a program or a grant. There will also be $80,000 build from scratch projects that are high risk but give OIMT access to resources that push forward some strategic central element. Sometimes OIMT will just have a full plate and can’t take on another project without reducing the overall quality of its work, and yet, a program won’t be able to wait and will need to move forward now to meet grant requirements. OIMT needs to implement a safety valve, the ability to return the project to the program with no further review requirements.
Is OIMT relinquishing the control of IT resources in these cases? A lot of money coming into the State is earmarked. In these cases OIMT will not have the flexibility to divert the money to more worthwhile projects. So in reality OIMT had no control over the money to begin with. It needs to decide whether or not to fight the program in order to take control. In most cases it just won’t be worth it, the energy would be better expended elsewhere. OIMT needs to retain the right to make these types of judgments until it has unlimited resources. Then it can take responsibility for approving everything.
The same could be said for the ELC. Let them do a preliminary review and decide for themselves the projects they want to look at in detail. This is the model the Supreme Court uses. If the Supreme Court had to hear every case it would quickly become overwhelmed.
At the small purchase level OIMT needs to question why it’s getting involved at all. There’s not that much to gain, and in the big picture any apparent efficiency gained on the OIMT side is going to be paid for on the program side. Programs waste a lot of resources getting permissions for inconsequential purchases from people that know nothing about the program. Is it possible to enlighten approvers to the extent that they can make as good a judgment as a branch chief? Is it worth the effort? Not in the case of small purchases. I spend so much time justifying forgone approvals that I often feel like my primary job is creative writing, not IT. The goal is to please my audience.
Instead of approvals, pursue standardization at the small purchase level through the OneNet model. Become the vendor of first choice. In the meantime, control standards by getting DAGS to issue price lists instead of vendor lists. Keep WSCA but use lists of approved items to change WSCA from a superstore to a supply depot. Only require review of exceptions. Exceptions will almost always be part of a larger project that will have been reviewed anyway. Drawing attention to exceptions is also a good way to catch large projects that haven’t been submitted for review.
Make it a priority to get DAGS to come up with a statewide leasing contract for desktops. Actions like these will go a long way toward standardizing purchases of commodity items so that the State can provide central support for them, AND, at the same time eliminate any need for small purchase approvals for technical reasons.
If it can, OIMT should convince DAGS to get rid of the T-205 altogether. If it can’t OIMT should divorce itself from it completely. The T-205 has a bad reputation and a bad image. If a department wants more control over small purchases they always have the ability to implement stricter standards. Let the department be responsible for obsolete procedures, not OIMT.
Acknowledging up front that OIMT cannot be omnipotent in the State’s IT world and letting programs have final say on some decisions will improve OIMT’s image, but not enough. The governance plan reflects the org chart too well. It does not take into consideration the org chart’s limitations. Directors come and go. Branch chiefs are forever. The primary reason the civil service system was created was to provide continuity of government services regardless of changes in administration. In order to do that the civil service system does in fact place limitations on the power of an administration. You can see why this is necessary. A new administration could come in, replace all the managers with friends and relatives, and then proceed to blow most of the budget on pet projects, not leaving enough money to provide adequate essential services.
In spite of what the org chart says, directors and program managers share power. In the case of earmarked funds, program managers have the lion’s share of the say. This is a very big way that government differs from commercial enterprises. This plan seems to forget that. It gives Director’s the same amount of authority they would have in an enterprise, much more authority than they currently have now. OIMT then proceeds to assume much of that power for itself. It is really bad public relations. It makes it look like an attempt at a power grab.
OIMT would do better positioning itself as a service provider and educator, a kind of internal consultant. OIMT would have a lot of influence and avoid the political wars.
Program managers absolutely hate it when they think someone is telling them how to run their program. They best understand the limitations imposed on them by the laws covering their program. They rightly believe that they are in the best position to make business decisions, not some upstart Director or IT group. On the other hand program managers love it when someone really helps. The program managers are happy to pay for that service (except for having to get payments through the approval process). And that brings me to my last suggestion.
OIMT should investigate becoming self-supporting along the lines of the special fund model. Besides earmarks, another big reason for the variability in IT maturity is that general funded programs are always maintained at subsistence levels and even those levels are always being tested. Nobody wants to be seen as responsible for the death of a program. By keeping general funding for any given program at an absolute minimum, there’s more money to spread around and the total number of programs in existence can increase. Everyone can take credit for supporting programs without having to take blame for eliminating others. Federally funded programs get just enough State funding to make match. It’s the earmarked federal money, which the program manager controls, that gives them the ability to invest in IT.
Using a fee for service model has several advantages. Instead of asking for big-ticket items, it makes it possible for OIMT to spread out costs by having programs put a barely noticable line item in their budget for information technology services. It also gives OIMT an easy way to draw off earmarked funds. It’s not a perfect solution. I don’t know if it’s ever been done for internal services. It will take a legislative fight and even if OIMT gets special fund status the legislature can always raid the fund, but it beats being in a position of constantly just scraping by.
DAGS uses a fee for service model to charge special and federally funded programs for accounting services. In their case however it doesn’t work. The money ends up in the general fund and is then given to other programs that have more political visibility than an accounting program. DAGS ends up providing lousy service due to a lack of resources. In some cases this happens directly and in other cases it’s indirect but it’s effectively the same result. The money goes to other services and people don’t get what they paid for.
I’ve talked to several people with more than 20 years experience in the State and they all think the OIMT plans are too ambitious and that they will never be implemented. I agree. It’s just too much to digest all at once. I can’t imagine a legislator taking the time to look at these plans in detail. On the surface it looks like an IT proposal. In terms of political visibility, IT falls much closer to the accounting side of the scale than the education side. But all is not lost, a combination of service orientation, support from the programs, and fee for service could give OIMT a chance to bootstrap these plans into existence when the business argument fails.
Hawaii is to be commended for recognizing that cloud based technologies play an important role in our current “Social” and global society. Salesforce.com is thrilled to see the Hawaiian State government put together the Information Technology Transformation Strategy. We believe that every good cloud strategy involves private clouds, public clouds and hybrid clouds. As the leader in the public cloud market Salesforce believes that the business or program functions matched with the available applications and solutions should drive the decision on where the State of Hawaii should get the cloud application and services. Salesforce provides applications for government that we have developed but also provides an “Apps-Exchange” and a “Government Apps-Exchange” so that governments can reuse the work of others. Many states are putting applications that they have built on the Salesforce platform to make them easily deployable to other states. This amazing exchange of ideas and technology allows governments to rapidly deploy applications such as citizen relationship management, case management, contact center automation, enterprise collaboration, social media monitoring and participation, permits, licensing, legislation tracking, economic development, tourism programs, asset tracking, legal management, workforce development, IT help desks, student achievement, emergency preparedness, health programs and hundreds of other applications. The average time to go live with these powerful enterprise applications is just over 50 days. The real power of the cloud is in the availability of applications and solutions that can be easily and quickly deployed to serve the citizens of Hawaii. We strongly encourage you to make the public cloud an equivalent option to your private cloud strategy and allow yourself the choice based on the solutions available to meet your requirements.
We would be delighted to brief your leadership team on what Salesforce is doing for government. Salesforce was recently named “The most innovative company in the world” by Forbes Magazine.
This forum can be helpful or not. Let's make it useful. Show the simplicity and clearly define the objective for all to understand. Before you get too detailed, remember your audience.
Improvements in government services are not always costly or difficult. Pull in resources of those who have experience dealing with multiple agencies (i.e. other states). For example some payroll services have staff who have worked with federal and state agencies and have networked with other states sharing programming ideas and functions that save time and $$. Do you know how to find such help? I do.
To start, make sure that the direction of ideas have value not just sound good. If the state can't explain why a business owner has to go through so much red tape access their own data, then maybe the red tape needs to be removed. Let's talk.