BILL NUMBER: AB 2523 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 23, 2014
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 21, 2014
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Cooley
FEBRUARY 21, 2014
An act to amend the heading of Chapter 5.6 (commencing with
Section 11545) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of, and to add
Section 11547.5 to, the Government Code, relating to state
government.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2523, as amended, Cooley. Department of Technology.
Existing law establishes, until January 1, 2015,
establishes the Department of Technology, within
the Government Operations Agency, headed by the Director of
Technology, who is also known as the State Chief Information Officer.
The department is responsible for the approval and oversight of
information technology projects by, among other things, consulting
with agencies during initial project planning to ensure that project
proposals are based on well-defined programmatic needs and consider
feasible alternatives to address the identified needs and benefits
consistent with statewide strategies, policies, and procedures.
This bill would require the Director of Technology, on or
before July 1, 2016, to report recommendations to the Legislature,
as specified, on how a team of senior consulting information
technology experts could be developed to serve as support for state
agencies and senior project team members in state government on
information technology projects. This bill would require the director
to consider specified factors when making those recommendations.
Technology to review a specified manual and draft a
report based on that manual and other specified factors, to be
transmitted to certain legislative committees on or before July 1,
2016, that recommends how a team of senior consulting information
technology experts could be developed to serve as support for state
agencies and senior project team members in state government. This
bill would require the director, after reviewing the manual and
drafting the report, to establish a unit, within the Department of
Technology, of consulting information technology experts
to serve as support for state a gencies. This bill
would make legislative findings in this regard.
This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
(a) The state has identified the management of large technology
projects as high risk for the last several decades.
(b) Large technology projects may take years to develop and,
similar to issues with a recent technology project for the Department
of Employment Development, the implementation of a project, from
conception through implementation, can span multiple gubernatorial
administrations and include a change in senior managers, retirements,
and career moves that affect the project.
(c) To address these issues, the state has steadily worked to
improve its organizational and institutional capacity to manage large
technology programs. This effort is vital, because at the present
time, there are over 100 identified information technology
projects in progress throughout state government in various phases
of progress and completion.
(d) An important milestone in this ongoing effort was the July
2013 issuance of the California Project Management Methodology
Reference Manual completed by the Director of Technology, also known
as the State Chief Information Officer. The manual breaks large
information technology projects into the phases of initial concept,
initiating, planning, executing, and closing. The manual emphasizes
that the critical role throughout these phases is with the attendant
management duties of monitoring and controlling to ensure the project
is advancing in accordance with budget and outcome expectations. The
manual highlights the critical role of the project management team,
which includes the distinct roles of the executive sponsor, project
steering committees, project director , and project
manager.
(e) The difficulty of maintaining continuity among senior project
leadership is highlighted by the experience of a recent technology
project for the Department of Employment Development, which began
under Governor Davis, continued under Governor Schwarzenegger, and is
now being implemented under Governor Brown. In addition, testimony
before the Assembly Committee on Insurance oversight hearing made
clear the project has lost key personnel during the project course to
retirement and career transfer.
(f) The state would benefit from the development of a senior cadre
of information technology consultative expertise in the Department
of Technology who can serve as technology advisors to executive
sponsors and other senior level persons charged with project
implementation throughout state government.
SEC. 2. The heading of Chapter 5.6 (commencing with Section 11545)
of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code is amended
to read:
CHAPTER 5.6. DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
SEC. 3. Section 11547.5 is added to the Government Code, to read:
11547.5. (a) The Director of Technology shall review
establish a unit, within the Department of Technology,
of consulting information technology experts to serve as support for
state agencies.
(b) Prior to establishing the unit
described in subdivision (a), the Director of Technology shall review
the California Project Management Methodology Reference Manual
and draft a report, based on the manual, recommending how a team of
senior consulting information technology experts could be developed
to serve as support for state agencies and senior project team
members in state government to support their exercise of leadership,
monitoring, control, and direction over information technology
projects to minimize risks of those projects being completed
improperly and over budget. In drafting the recommendations, the
Director of Technology shall also consider how a team of senior
consulting advisors can assist senior executives charged with
oversight of major information technology projects in terms of the
challenges arising from all of the following:
(1) Governance.
(2) Development and management of contracts.
(3) Testing.
(4) Organizational change management.
(5) Data conversion and migration.
(6) Schedule development and management.
(7) Evaluation and possible pitfalls of seeking value for
taxpayers by re-engineering state systems and procedures.
(8) Risk and issue identification and management.
(9) Interface identification and management.
(10) Quality assurance and quality control.
(11) Requirements definition and management.
(12) Architecture.
(13) Roll-out planning and approach.
(b)
(c) On or before July 1, 2016, the Director of
Technology shall transmit the report completed pursuant to
subdivision (a) (b) to all legislative
committees with jurisdiction over state information technology,
including, but not limited to, the Assembly Committee on
Accountability and Administrative Review, in compliance with Section
9795.