Chapter 4 – Information Technology

It is the policy of the Department to evaluate its EDPElectronic Data Processing (see IT) projects as required by the SAMState Administrative Manual 4940, and as otherwise required by State oversight agencies. Additional requirements may be specified by the Office of Information Technology (OITOffice of Information Technology) in response to the Department’s Information Management Annual Plan (IMAPInformation Management Annual Plan) or in response to other needs reported by the Department.

The purpose of this policy is to ensure the implementation of all project evaluation requirements specified by laws and regulations, and State and departmental policies.

A post-implementation assessment shall be carried out by the Department following the completion of each information technology project. No project is considered complete until the report of that assessment, the Post-implementation Evaluation Report (PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report), has been approved by OITOffice of Information Technology or the Department Director, as specified in OITOffice of Information Technology’s response to the Department’s IMAPInformation Management Annual Plan and in accordance with SAMState Administrative Manual 4819.36 and 4941. Approval of a PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report by OITOffice of Information Technology or The Director, as required, terminates project reporting requirements.

The post-implementation assessment shall be conducted after the new information technology capability has been operational for a sufficient period of time to allow its benefits and costs to be accurately assessed. Initial operational problems shall have been resolved and sufficient experience and data shall have been accumulated to determine whether the project met the proposed objectives, was completed within the anticipated time and budgetary constraints, and achieved the proposed benefits. The optimum time after implementation to conduct the assessment depends upon the nature of the project. Six months after implementation is typical. The assessment shall be completed within two years of implementation of the information technology capability.

The required content for a PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report is defined in SAMState Administrative Manual Section 4947.2. The format and content of the PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report Transmittal Letter for each nondelegated project shall conform to the standard format shown in SAMState Administrative Manual 4947, Illustration 1. The format and content of the Transmittal Letter for each delegated project requiring submission of the PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report to OITOffice of Information Technology shall conform to the standard format shown in SAMState Administrative Manual 4947, Illustration 2.

Two copies of the PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report shall be submitted to OITOffice of Information Technology and one copy to the Office of the Legislative Analyst if the project was subject to approval and oversight by OITOffice of Information Technology. If OITOffice of Information Technology has delegated project approval authority to CDC, but in conjunction with that delegation has required that CDC submit a copy of the PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report following completion of the project, CDC’s submission of the PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report shall include a copy of the approved FSRFeasibility Study Reports with its signed Project Approval Letter.

PIERs for projects subject to approval and oversight by the Department Director (delegated or non-reportable) or projects for which project reporting has been delegated to the Department Director after OITOffice of Information Technology approval of the FSRFeasibility Study Reports shall be approved by the Director or designee (see SAMState Administrative Manual 4971.1).

The level of detail included in the PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report shall be commensurate with the scope and complexity of the project and its anticipated benefits. The narrative portion of the PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report for a minor project can be as brief as one or two pages. However, it shall provide sufficient information for Department management, executive branch control agencies, and the Legislature to assess the success of the project (see SAMState Administrative Manual Section 4947.2).

PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report Composition

• The PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report is comprised of five sections:

  • Background and Summary of Results Section. A brief summary is provided of the project history, objectives, and results. Topics to be discussed normally include: how the project was initiated, how it progressed, problems that were overcome, user and management acceptance of the operational application, how Department management views the management of the project, and how the application fits into the Department’s overall management and operations strategy.

  • Attainment of Objectives Section. Specific objectives are established during the feasibility study for each project and are documented in the FSRFeasibility Study Reports. These objectives, which are normally defined in terms of measurable impact on Department programs and resources, provide the baseline for measurement of the project’s success. Accordingly, the narrative portion of this section of the PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report shall describe the project outcome with respect to each objective included in the FSRFeasibility Study Reports. This section shall also include a clear statement regarding the capture of benefits and whether they were achieved as anticipated.

• Two attachments shall be included with this section of the PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report:

  • Attachment 1 – PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report Economic Summary Report. Project costs and benefits shall be summarized using the PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report Economic Summary (SAMState Administrative Manual 4947.2 Illustration1). This spreadsheet allows comparison of the anticipated costs of the selected alternative, as documented in the FSRFeasibility Study Reports Economic Analysis Summary (SAMState Administrative Manual 4929.3), with actual project costs from the project start date through the period of project operation chosen as the basis for the PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report. For detailed information on the completion of entries in the PIEREconomic Summary, see the instructions for the FSREconomic Analysis Worksheet (SAMState Administrative Manual 4929.1 through 4929.2) and the Economic Analysis Summary (SAMState Administrative Manual 4929.3).

  • Significant deviations from the anticipated costs shall be explained in the narrative portion of this section.

  • Attachment 2 Project Management Schedule Report. Arevised Project Management Schedule (see SAMState Administrative Manual 4928.4) showing targeted and actual completion dates for major accomplishments during the project shall be provided, with significant deviations from the original schedule explained in the narrative.

  • Projected Operations/Maintenance Costs Section. The Summary of Projected Operations/Maintenance Costs documents anticipated costs of systems operation and maintenance by fiscal year over the expected operational life of the application or system. These costs shall begin where the costs contained in the PIERPost Implementation Evaluation Report Economic Summary ended. For detailed information on completion of the specific line items in the Summary of Projected Operations/Maintenance Costs, see the instructions for continuing costs found on lines 9-16 of the FSRFeasibility Study Reports Economic Analysis Worksheet contained in SAMState Administrative Manual 4929.1 through 4929.2.

  • Special Observations Section. This section is optional. If completed, it should contain a narrative of any notable occurrences or factors that contributed to the project’s success, or problems or other information that could be helpful during future project efforts.

  • Corrective Actions Section. This section shall be included when the project is deemed to be a limited success or a failure, or when there are significant differences between project expectations (as expressed in the FSRFeasibility Study Reports) and project results.

    • If the project was a limited success or involved significant differences between expectations and results, alternatives for improving the outcome shall be summarized. If the project was a failure, available alternatives for addressing the problem or opportunity shall be summarized.

The Assistant Secretary, EISEnterprise Information Services (formerly Information Services Division), or designee shall be responsible for ensuring that the contents of this Article are kept current and accurate.

SAMState Administrative Manual §§ 4819.36, 4928.4, 4929.1 – 4929.3, 4941, 4941, 4941.1, and 4947 – 4947.1.