Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-28-2002 - 1ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January28, 2002 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Organization Assessment- Phase 2 Information Technology Review Report DEPARTMENT: Manager's Office PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) ATTACHMENTS); INFORMATION CONTACT: Information Technology Review Report John Link, County Manager, Extension 2300 Elaine Holmes, Personnel Director, Extension 2550 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 7324181 Chapel Hill 9684501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive the Organization Assessment- Phase 2 Information Technology Review report from Institute of Government consultant Kevin FitzGereld and discuss the report, as the Board desires. BACKGROUND: At its September 4, 2001 meeting, the Board of Commissioners approved a proposal from the Institute of Government for a Phase 2Information Technology Review to be added to the Organization Assessment- Phase 1 Strategic Communications Review. At the November 26 Board work session, the Board heard a presentation from Kevin FilzGerald on the first part of his work reviewing the County's information technology function. Thatpresentation covered broad contextual issues related to the management of information technology for North Carolina counties. At the January 28 work session, Kevin FitzGerald will be presenting his final report (attached), including findings and recommendations related to Orange County's information technology functions. He also will be available for questions and discussion as the Board desires. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. Future impact is contingent on Board of Commissioners' direction. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board hear the presentation, receive the report, discuss the information as desired and advise staff of any follow up questions. Orange County Information Services Review January 28, 2002 Purpose • ImpmaeNe nttdm4ending of how lnfotnation Mhnology u wed by 0augc cmmty C ,afnme,t • Devtlop a mmpuaHva understanding of how other onltp of govsmmenl Ilea lenhnology to sappoephelr activities. • Make recommendatiuns W improve the operation of Information Techaolugy a Ormge County. INC 9chaol of Government OanSc County Information Sc ccs Review oeange Cowry Wlwmatiun6eMaeaa xriew Methodology • Benchmark tJmWOgr upatlty, organ¢afion and prmtlres of Captain County with CUrian,(:uiBOrd, Forsyth, Catawba and New 11mater teems; Hickey, Salisbury and the Town of Copy. • Conduct inrervlewz.nm Owings County COmoixsionem, selected da, Rent heada and the Inormation spat Hepattmentstaff. • Conduct focus giants; with employee. • Interview Orange County Information Techwlogy Committee. • Renew the coasting County technology abans with the current IT din. • written findings wan recommendations. tRYC school ofCwernmem or..mcoaw tmo.aw:wse,,;®xe..e. Findings: Orange County • The existivg County IT CommiRen is viewed by Commixxiunm and County staff as a aneagN in Coati Of helping to uYicunds a etnmge wchnology direction for the Cowry. • The emphaeu on equipment replaremmt, m attatinn ham the mainframe to thelnsinel, acquisition of off the shclfsohware avshengthx. • d TTPlaa isaleonewed mas¢erymh. ItLaz bren up ated on updated tan an annual basis. severallvmrviynweo3interest in[be developmevt ofe Wateatia Plan lan with ew iC ®t. anmP um m ee is a ore u • lhm iseed to more widclYCOmsvunlcate communicate the the uintenis of the co TTPlaa UNCeel?oolaOOrewmwa Orange County lnfoametion Services Review Findings: Orange County • bmployees appreciate die help dark, bat indicate that often the response to difficult or unique problems miss too long. • Employees view We equipment replacement policy as a Mal streigN. Ther appreciate thatthe equip mempruvided is high gnallly. • Sever e dewerdindicatwlthatwhile Mei fi t dfuth broadrouge of empl esire se d fits ee of u to de ube ehi8her de of to me et grea dsm high-end users. • Employees commended the high level ofavanability of the network. uxesehaol orr ?.Rmment m.w•?matemrm.x?m.se..;rmae.,ew Findings: Orange County • 'the awilabffl omtrmmutg Jnuugh DUrlum'fech uaeen ama strength. • them was concern apresedtharuew employcov need more resistance w tamdamming Nemsebm with commonly need syatmam him email and information on has puppet . Employees o6eo rely on each other tnttechnulogy oriwvtlon. Several departmeah have trimmed applications wipwris ha[ do simple Wublesboobog mid support the lemming pmress. VNC School ofCUVemment Orange County Infomtation Services Review ?mmaa ,?dormm:an ?,? aea:,w Findings: Orange County • I'be OteageG ty lnformeNov 9ysteme llepartment has 6.6 Iwtition • All positions repoR to the Oireamr, who in tom, repmte W the Assistant co cteuger. mp . 3 Positions s support equipment and vehrvrk services and 2.6 positions support applications. epemneum r There multiple where rt ieses w who dpplip have their cash sta pW • Sewalaepe eents aveveeyuipmant ®[ end aapp'vtiooe that am hy st not supported hy IS ls ans. Oyc School &GGveransent Findings: Orange County n e number of IS staff has not kept pace with inmeaaes in the number allocations and users acquiring support. ForexampIn the Southern Heenan Servirea Center was opined and no resources were added to eeppott the technokay in place. Inmesta,as expressed in wauidemng momeact assistance to support nemork end aMlicatlons. there u a said oly held perception among County smffthat IS ecepmyees m spread me mm anm om able to assist with plmwng and supporting application development including mplamment of lepq as mmrns an d the level opment of mremet- based applications. Orange County lhfoxmaGov Services Review O eange COUntlaJ matloa5vrimhw'm F Findings: Orange County • Intetviewa inducted strong Instances where tS had not been omulled as matters rotted to the acquisition of haNware an d wftwarc. 15alafiwasc mWtedduxmgacceptancetestingand had to scramble to mate ueressary adiustm®ts to the network to auvmm W ale the runs applucations. More is confusion about soles add related id who has control once IT. eats has understated wrldisq; I relationships in certaia instm am; IRYC SehoolofGmaomrnt O r'mx Cmntl avfoemstlmSeMnuazWew Findings: Orange County . More is concern expressed aMntthe pmgrom the Cnnnty lose made in mplmaenting, modifications to evsting appWatiosuw well as the replacement ofseverel major aysmos. • Orange Comtydcesno[have ¢coaai methodology to coNoo about mauageterats.Thi leads to ut the tn m an rus no mau liilities o of spectfx f deparmr®es and IS in h 5 accm dwuua ntabtlibforpmjerm. a sum of who has • Orange tumty dory have a tedmnlnfv A cl itectsu in place, It ¢wd by IS in scMttg the technical speciBtatinm of new equipment and applications. LWC School of Oommorsevt Orange County Wotmation Services Review Findings: Benchmark • In every hamstrung unit afgavernment interviewed, theU depMmeat had control and acommaalnlar for all equipment and applications chairman the gover meol's rehwrk • Several Directors milicatrod that they have worked harden develop collaborame wortingreJationshipa with their departments in terms of support and migration to new mmPat s. unam th • In mostuoi$NeTTdirector r directly Meither the Assistant Manager and !a eonoderca part arcnfthe Maaager a e rm g m art smonar anem. an Mostumta have eveea thermal lT pass that isroad into the snit's veNtal Plan. IONIC B W Od of Government u •ex o..eb>°a..aWnor a...:e. Ron. Findings: Benchmark Migration of appleatioa form the mainframe to Client -aver hasbeenapnoY.tyforaboutlWfofthcunits. Buncombe (aunty has just successfully rim ated their core Ingress systems program and th or, are beginning to do the same for their tax fingers rot. • Common hysteria being upgraded include: Beguter of Deeds, Process, GIs, Itax, and Busmece systems. • Net rk enhancements include: Wheless, fiber and new fatuities. • Several units are developing r(mo mneat plans. FUMY& County juar completed ouch a plant V Cechadorcoverammt Ormcge CountyI brmmm Services Review Cnn? aa.enew, a...?.eraw Findings: Benchmark Infendewed onlfs am laranslatautin terms of their adoption and use of a tecMieal architecture. • Only two of Die units have taken into our Fid notion the technical ichitecture maintained by the 51forofNorth Carolina. • Most of the units have adopted a projM management meModolou - GulfeaS Ovautyhas incocparatM good risk identlficetlon and aif igaion strategies m dohs. - Catawba CUmty new Die gasoline Project Management methudulugy and finds file Satenumt of work ducunomination to be particularly TalfAnI ONC SeM1ml nl fovemmeat Findings: Benchmark Inaddition to suppomng the ttadif tonal IS fmdione woe of file units intemewed include offi" fractions N9Ne55 Phones - coo Mhe Radios - Cable Franchise - Ceogroplik Information routines Clause County lnfnfmation Setvioes Review Uvvp 6unb Ivmeeutlw rename xeriew Findings: Benchmark ITe fonowng diarta compare Orange county atafling levels and intormedon technology irmonnant again at Ne benchmark nnka afgo nwrit . Compnirl n wdth Otfier unite indicates Nat oNm units have - To manage mipadou ofmainfiame applications. - To provide support far department were, - To suppcat Web applicadem. __? urvcerAmlotcwemmmt Findings: Benchmark -- 17 1100 es 7 o anq Ga ran N a.?. ,.?,. MI, . eM1 Orenge County Wmmefiou Services Review wmb s?emetim aervvee aenew Findings: Benchmark "r 10 14% 14% t, noses nor M1.1u7 !ma .sso.e ayel inner new We, Has" _- _ one sebum orcwa.nm.nt cmnb h,rn.m.tlm s.tam e.ma. Recommendations: Staffing . Create aChlmum.metiouOlEm'(©O)pusLronm'P.,oul, n, me tomato Lpamgmammm, nm,aaaeme.emxm.mber. xe:pomlhultivmme 'L p,?aien innLae.. - Pmmdi^G diremouvW warught(m oll ensure a(LJmmatinn felmelogy audsvWms lu th, "d fimistisytheinhgmtm. or Nclwouiu, wild CUUmy LUnwnu fmcaoee - I,eaNUg the shaRgleplmWn; pmmt to nuue teed,, aewlop yeele, end dwAOPeieoifiabnsinaan pl... toecmmp5s6 the four, - Lading the do, elpmem ole vi,ioomW pt,, no eGwemmm[. - Mamging tLCP"n""ali, oPmtionmd mppeR(oc the netwoek and all egnipmem led seen form, -Pmnding P^Immanagmment support Rif all nenirafter or. [shnolo atives. ilia he orysiROrt to its present p ayatws totiefenic - L l o I s l,,ti, avd t mwgtats re from munhmo, in m WI, -eexblral a pplimtiaon, toot S,oktpe, year unit lualls,,al of Oennge County Infotmalion SeMCCs Review mnnb immemannn eetei ses aeview Recommendations: Staffing Md 2 r ii time fearer, Maly e b game, the fduo ixg: 1) Help frame depeebv vtbuaiveae rapilre nab and dmMop buewew ream fmsyrums dmrel consent AM apphmtiana repapon. Including 18,,h aso me avdBSiaeaa ROp Henson 'qe. a)Pmjea manegem mplwrt ongoing and purposed] tecMOlogv profxaetbm,gh dmm e)m i . oa ducing nd a fAB inng Mpyrtinelodingtrmmabla 8bmting w.mm¢and v t o aff [BadN wmwwimt µ3aa5e mgamvmlata tbe IS The cMeftome lF a pown,oatiabkcdgetedenrandu?ay mmnmmmnon bmnm M hepamaem and the fmmry depammema. CMfJanee/bene9b: 9)oRfRC3reaz/pv POalHOu IMC Erhard oFC enment Oemgelbevy IvPmmstlnv 6eMne ¢Mew Recommendations: Staffing . Upgrade 2tempom7helpdeekposihomtopermmentstWs. Provida additional training to these positions to mead Inter capacity to aaewer a broader range of qumdone. Cansaledea/bmefita: SgSk/Per War/Pen PUaitian • Add r Network support person to proride arearanee on reddening; staRw.th spavl empba®s supporting Internet applrcatiom and onerous; that matters a% rdirp the security of (he eetwark are maintained Cast salasyrbeoefiti:$s5k1peryesr ZINC Selland of Goterameat orapye county INormation Services Review 0raoka fuvnt9lydnemarvon Service RCfiev Recommendations: Scope of Responsibilities The County Manageuhoold atta C0an"de polity that epedfies tM1at the LS Deprrlmmthsaovmall responsibilityfor the operation andmainlenanee ofthe County networkand all applications and equipment that mn on it. • 'fhepolicy dould include Memle ofthe CIO and consultation with depvtmmt. Item 80,11 o(Gwernment x..:... Recommendations: Training • Survey emplgees wM1Ohuvenken the DwImm reah Cuumea n= Pay attention to the a t n nmttt of employees who have taken advantage anthem es. Consider a mmgotidienofihe ageemevtwitb Itaxii Ttth to indndo the addition ofwmma geared in a train the trainer oppma,h. • Study the relabounhip Mw¢n ovgowg and, and eRertiveneei nfnalning; consider making ov-4neteehnologytniw?g avaJeble. Coat. T6D(ehould Im minimal if noted from c ling appropriation) uric s011I1fc1..er1 Orange County hlfommoon Sm inns Review CFl,,fty 6emB00? ee Ie$ R4,ar, Recommendations: Department Communication and IT Strategic Planning • The CAlm[yManaga, with aatietmwfromme CIO, should moraine ways In involve County deparhu®ts an the eamnative governance ofTTPOlieia, Planning mdinitiaHves. • TheClo, with mnsultetwn from COmh Dupar[meota and me n Cummitten, should aasume me lead in developing a yew rf strategic Plan mat further aligm and prioritizes a activities ro support the anatepc bmineu direction of the County. • rheplmahouMd subm dtomeB rdofCmnry Commissioners for approval UxC9chaol aff:mrernmmt Recommendations: eGovernment Planning • Conduct a planning prcu to identify potential luminov fauv9om and servicas for mproort by Web- laver applications. • The plan should snmmanze earn Departments analysis of. went burinew; funedoes, rtRengineeziag nureat praetiwe, eurveydcitiuos andidmtifiratiod at available bestpracdcee mature Web-based tools. Bared upean thin information, departments should psapave baroness cases that include appsopride velum ou umeutmenl caculatom and priorities forimpkmentation. • The eGOVermnent planning work should be mduded in the overall IT Strategic Plan. IINC saMOl of Coyernmmt Orarge County infomnitiou services Review 15 mge CODUryloloeuatian or 9vnoee Ner<w Recommendations: Project Management no ©O assems and recommend a project management m oodolou N County sanctioned projects should he required to uti tic approved metlrMolou.. Me new Business Aual ahouhl assume nospoosib tY h`r tanning and support ofthe methodology. U CBebool"G mment Change Countv lnfotnanon Smiccs Review