BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | GRP 1|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: GRP 1
Author: Ducheny (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
WITHOUT REFERNCE TO FILE
SUBJECT : Information Technology Reorganization
SOURCE : The Administration
DIGEST : This reorganization plan consolidates state
information technology functions under the Office of the
State Chief Information Officer.
ANALYSIS : Pursuant to the government reorganization
process specified in statute, the Legislature has 60 days
to consider a GRP-50 days for hearing in standing
committee(s), and 10 days for consideration on the Floor.
Before the 61st day, a resolution, by floor motion, may be
made in either or both houses of the Legislature for
dispensing with the proposal "as is" (i.e. without
amendment), or, barring action by either house to deny it,
the plan takes effect the 61st day after the date of
submission to the Legislature.
GRP No. 1 was submitted to the Legislature on March 10,
2009, and would take effect on May 10, 2009 without
objection.
CONTINUED
GRP 1
Page
2
The Senate Budget report on GRP No. 1:
1.Provides historical context regarding the state's
information technology (IT) governance;
2.Summarizes key aspects of the Governor's proposal,
including the organizations and functions to be
consolidated; and
3.Identifies strengths and weaknesses therein.
Among the highlights of the report are the following:
Information Technology Organizations and Functions Proposed
for Consolidation
The Governor proposes a "federated" governance model, in
which the Office of the State Chief Information Officer
(OCIO) would enjoy enhanced authority over various IT
services and functions while leaving some "local control"
at the agency and department levels. The organizations and
functions proposed for consolidation under the existing
OCIO are as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
| Organizations |Position| Funds* |
| | s* | (in |
| | |millions) |
|-----------------------------------+--------+----------|
| | | |
|Office of the Chief Information | 34 | $7.1 |
|Officer (OCIO) | | |
| | | |
|-----------------------------------+--------+----------|
|Department of Technology Services | 801.8 | $278 |
|(DTS) - including the Technology | | |
|Services Board | | |
|-----------------------------------+--------+----------|
|Department of General Services, | 368 | $223 |
|Telecommunications Division | | |
|(DGS-TD) | | |
|-----------------------------------+--------+----------|
|Office of Information Security and | 6 |$1.5 |
CONTINUED
GRP 1
Page
3
|Privacy Protection (OISPP) - | | |
|information security functions | | |
-------------------------------------------------------
*As authorized by the Budget Act of 2008.
-------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| Functions | Currently |
| | Performed By: |
| | |
|--------------------------------------+----------------|
| | |
|Enterprise (Statewide) IT Management | None |
| | |
|--------------------------------------+----------------|
|Enterprise (Statewide) Information | OISPP |
|Security | |
|--------------------------------------+----------------|
|Data Center & Shared Services | DTS |
|--------------------------------------+----------------|
|Unified Communications Services | DTS & DGS |
| (voice/video/data networks and | |
|radio systems) | |
|--------------------------------------+----------------|
|IT Human Capital Management | OCIO & DTS |
|--------------------------------------+----------------|
|IT Procurement Policy | DGS |
|--------------------------------------+----------------|
|Broadband & Advanced Communications | Business |
|Services Policy | Transportation |
| | & Housing |
| |Agency (BT&H) |
| | |
-------------------------------------------------------
GRP No. 1 Strengths and Benefits
The Senate Budget report identifies the following strengths
and benefits of the proposed IT consolidation:
1.Consistent with recommendations from the RAND Corporation
and the Little Hoover Commission, the GRP would move the
CONTINUED
GRP 1
Page
4
state toward a more consolidated IT governance model and
pave the way for more efficient and effective management
of state IT, including enhanced service to the public.
2.By providing the OCIO with additional tools (e.g., the
authority to set procurement policy), the Administration
projects GRP No. 1 would generate at least $1.5 billion
in cost savings and avoidances over the next five years
(a 10 percent reduction).
3.By adopting a "federated" governance model rather than a
completely consolidated ("command-and-control") model,
the OCIO hopes to make "big picture" IT decisions, but
leave enough "local control" with agencies and
departments to encourage creativity and avoid
"one-size-fits-all" inefficiencies.
4.By moving the IT security function from the State and
Consumer Services Agency to the OCIO, the GRP would
likely reduce the state's vulnerabilities and provide a
consistent, integrated security approach across all of
state government.
5.Based on existing statute, the OCIO would sunset
effective January 1, 2013, meaning the Legislature would
have an automatic opportunity in the future to review the
outcomes of the GRP and make changes as needed.
GRP No. 1 Weaknesses and Concerns
The Senate Budget report identifies the following
weaknesses and concerns associated with the proposed IT
consolidation:
1.Although providing the OCIO with IT procurement policy
could help the state better leverage its buying power
through consolidated procurements and clearer
requirements, this increased efficiency could result in
decreased equity in terms of businesses that are able to
successfully compete for and receive state IT contracts.
This does not appear to be a fatal flaw in the proposal
(and would not change existing statutory contracting
protections for specified groups), but bears monitoring
via reporting language.
CONTINUED
GRP 1
Page
5
2.Although GRP No. 1 would not result in any immediate
relocation of existing state staff, the reorganization
plan would likely require extensive cultural change in
state government (both within the entities being
consolidated and in the agencies and departments that
would be subject to the new IT practices promulgated by
the OCIO). While many of these changes may be necessary
and to the ultimate benefit of the state, experience
suggests that instituting the changes envisioned in GRP
No. 1 would generate inevitable conflicts. GRP No. 1
does not include a clear plan for addressing these
challenges, and this may pose a risk to the identified
benefits of the proposal, including savings projections.
Again, close oversight via regular reporting should help
alert the Legislature if, and when, problems arise.
3.Finally, GRP No. 1 includes consolidation of the
Department of General Services (DGS), Telecommunications
Division under the OCIO-one of the few parts of the plan
that does not generate any direct cost savings or
avoidance. This move only makes sense if the OCIO is
ready and able to provide better leadership than the DGS
on telecommunications, particularly with regard to radio
interoperability for emergency communications. In
drafting legislation to memorialize GRP No. 1 in statute,
the Legislature should consider adopting language to
ensure that telecommunications remains a top priority of
the OCIO amid the many and varied pieces of the
reorganization.
The administration indicates this GRP is a first step
toward greater centralization of state IT functions. The
administration believes this first phase of reorganization
would permit the state to avoid $185 million in costs (all
funds) in 2009-10 and $1.5 billion in costs (all funds)
over five years. This would be achieved through such means
as consolidating software contracts, data centers, computer
rooms, servers, storage, and networks.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
CONTINUED
GRP 1
Page
6
DLW:cm 5/6/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: NONE RECEIVED
**** END ****
CONTINUED