The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05.d.1)e) Action Summary-Administration Committee 12-2-14Central 30. d. /)e Sanitary Dlshirct SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ACTION SUMMARY Chair McGill Member Williams Tuesday, December 2, 2014 8:00 a.m. Executive Conference Room 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California BOARD OF DIRECTORS: DAVID R. WILLIAMS President MICHAEL R. MCGILL President Pro Tem PAUL H CAUSEY JAMES A. NEJEDLY TAD J. PILECKI PHONE: (925) 228 -9500 FAX.- (925) 372 -0192 www.centralsan.org PRESENT: Chair Mike McGill, Member David Williams, General Manager Roger Bailey, Director of Administration David Heath, Director of Engineering Jean -Marc Petit (left at the beginning of Item 4.), Finance Manager Thea Vassallo (left after Item 4.), Human Resources Manager Teji O'Malley, Secretary of the District Elaine Boehme, Safety and Risk Administrator Shari Deutsch, Principal with NexLevel IT Consulting Joe Blackwell, Consultant with NexLevel IT Consulting Stephen Madler, and Assistant to the Secretary of the District Donna Anderson Call Meeting to Order Chair McGill called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 2. Public Comments None. 3.� Receive update on ongoing Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association (CCCERA) audit None. 4.* Review draft Information Technology (IT) Master Plan Joe Blackwell, a principal of NexLevel lT Consulting, and Stephen Madler, the NexLevel consultant who has been assisting with managing the District's day -to -day IT operations and directing remediation of urgent IT issues, reviewed the PowerPoint distributed at the Administration Committee Action Summary December 2, 2014 Page 2 meeting (attached) regarding the proposed IT Master Plan, noting that it was developed over a period of months based on interviews with every Division. The IT Master Plan is intended to serve as a roadmap from which to move forward both now and in the future, by providing governance tools and other capabilities to regularly examine priorities so adjustments can be made as needed. Member Williams suggested that a Governance Committee be formed. Mr. Blackwell said that is part of the Plan, noting that an integral part of the IT Master Plan was developed in concert with the IT Steering Committee, an employee group formed during this process of end users from across the District who manage key technology programs currently in place. That Committee has provided significant input into the recommendations contained in the proposed Plan, and will serve a governance role going forward. In response to a question from Member Williams, Mr. Blackwell said the term "best practices" in this context is derived from NexLevel's extensive experience with other agencies, understanding industry standards for management of IT systems, assessment of best practices as relayed by leading IT research firms, and evaluations made when best results are delivered. He said all of these factors were considered when developing the proposed IT Master Plan for the District. Chair McGill asked how IT security will be handled once the new IT Master Plan is implemented. Mr. Blackwell noted that security has been of paramount concern throughout this process. A vulnerability assessment was conducted several months ago and, rather than wait for the IT Master Plan to be the genesis of any action, District staff chartered and implemented a remediation plan to address urgent security issues, which are actively being resolved, including secure backup and redundant connectivity. Going forward, District staff will implement a security program which will allow the entire IT structure to be monitored in such a way that problems can be addressed more proactively than in the past. With regard to ownership and maintenance of software programs, it was noted that there can be value in having a particular department own and maintain certain programs, and in other instances, it makes more sense for the IT Department to own and maintain them. Member Williams noted that from a management perspective, this is an important issue. Chair McGill noted the importance of using technology to assure the District is meeting all necessary regulatory requirements. Mr. Madler stated that the proposed IT Master Plan envisions a restructured IT Division with the net number of positions in the Division increasing from 9 to 11 full -time employees. The new, functionally driven, centralized structure would (1) stabilize the IT environment, (2) be in accordance with industry best practices, and (3) provide cross training and 2417 support, which is necessary because the plant operates on a 2417 basis. The Division would continue to report to the Director of Administration, but would be headed by an IT Manager, an elevated role that recognizes the importance of the function. That position would be supported by: (1) a Project Manager, who would review new applications and projects, analyze current technology trends, and present Administration Committee Action Summary December 2, 2014 Page 3 them to affected departments; (2) a four - person customer service group, which would include the help desk and asset management support; and (3) a 5- person systems maintenance group, which would include infrastructure services, networks and phone systems, and enterprise applications. Mr. Blackwell said that NexLevel is nearly done with its work. A few minor modifications may be made to the proposed IT Master Plan to accommodate the foray into the electronic records management, but in terms of a roadmap for action, the Plan is basically ready. Director of Administration David Heath said funding for the proposed IT Master Plan has not yet been fully integrated into the capital program, nor have long -term budget projections been included for any additional employees to support the proposed restructuring. Member Williams said the only other information he would be interested in was benchmarking information with comparable agencies. Member Williams said the proposed IT Master Plan appeared reasonable and he felt comfortable recommending that the full Board accept it, stating that recommending it for adoption seemed unnecessary since the Board eventually would be adopting the budgets and Ten -Year Plan, which will take into consideration any funding needed to implement the Plan. Chair McGill said he too was comfortable accepting the proposed IT Master Plan as a roadmap for action and as part of the process for budgeting and staffing. General Manager Roger Bailey said staff would refine the financial data and incorporate it into the budgets and Ten -Year Plan currently under development. He said staff also will gather benchmarking data relative to other districts. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed and recommended Board acceptance of the proposed IT Master Plan, and asked staff to gather benchmarking data relative to other districts. 5.� Standing Items a. Planning for 2017 Labor Negotiations None. b. Risk Management 1) Review Loss Control Report and discuss outstanding claims Safety and Risk Management Administrator Shari Deutsch reviewed the Loss Control Report included with the agenda packet. Administration Committee Action Summary December 2, 2014 Page 4 COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed the report and discussed outstanding claims. 2) Discuss new claims, if any COMMITTEE ACTION: None. C. Biennial review of existing Board - approved policies, with a view toward separating out the procedures included in many previously- adopted Board policies None. d. Receive update on pending litigation re AB 197 (Public Employers Pension Reform Act of 2013) (PEPRA) None. 6. Announcements a. Future scheduled meetings: Monday, December 15, 2014 from 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. (Special) COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the announcement. 7. Suggestions for future agenda items None. 8. Adjournment — at 10:00 a.m. * Attachment ' Standing Item bad l� Y. maawf) w Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Information Technology Master Plan Prepared by Revised November 25, 2014 CLIENT WORKING DRAFT Agenda • Objectives and Methodology • Progress Status • Assessment Findings Summary • Assessment Recommendations • Actions to Date • IT Staffing Recommendations • IT Projects Roadmap IT Master Plan (ITMP) Objectives The ITMP provides the bridge to close the gap between the capabilities of the District's present technology environment and business requirements. IT Mgmt & Staff Interviews Departmental Tasks / Activities User Planning & Strategic Stakeholder Best Practices Enterprise Tasks / Prioritization Plan Govern Interviews Assessment Activities Workshop Development IT Organization Voice of the Tasks / Activities User Survey Survey IT Assessment IT Strategic Governance Report Report Plan M Tools ITMP Development Progress • Voice of User Survey ....... ...........................Done • IT Services Assessment ............................ Done • Business Technology Assessment ..........Done • Task and Initiative Identification .............Done • Strategic Plan Development ...................Done — Final Draft Pending ITMP Timeline — On Schedule December -May 'e Best Practices Assessment c U X N G 0 v M v N C 0 CL C� h A ayy \`tea Q m n` 1 C) k--- -, - 0 Original Assessment Service Delivery o 00 O ' o �o I tic Infrastructure Best Practices Compliance Current State no Pct. Best Practice Compliance Maturity level 100 Valu 7771�1 e Proactive 90 80 70 60 SO Reactive 40 30 20 10 30 Return on Investment (ROI) Maturity level % of Best Practices Conformance: (B) Target Maturity State I IT Proactive 40 50 60 70 Gap Between Current and Target States: -0 Illp �' � M--- I --- � -- - =-�' - -, - -- 80 90 100 (A) Best Practices Assessment If 0 10 20 30 (B) Target Maturity State I IT Proactive 40 50 60 70 Gap Between Current and Target States: -0 Illp �' � M--- I --- � -- - =-�' - -, - -- 80 90 100 SWOT Analysis F Enablers 11 Inhibitors Senior management is committed to the use of technology as an enabler in the attainment of strategic business objectives The District has the financial resources to support expanded use of IT Staff members are not fully trained to handle current responsibilities Functional responsibilities within ITD are not well defined IT Infrastructure is not reliable and must be renovated Organization structure inhibits focus on customer support Inconsistent application of best practices r Ad -hoc approach to IT governance r Incomplete strategic vision regarding the use of IT Dated application portfolio (esp. HTE) Inconsistent adoption of enterprise applications Components of IT infrastructure under the control of user departments Cybersecurity Application Effectiveness M x A C 0 7 u. W 7 le e! ai c eM U O T People / Process Constrained ; Effective Application Ineffective Application ; Application Constrained User Effectiveness (i.e., People / Process / Training) High l.0 I I GIS Recruiting SCADA (ESRI) (NeoG01n (Transdyn) I - - -� I I SCADA OTIS (Wonder (Common Were) Spot) _ I _— Document I Mgmt (taserFiche) 1 1 CMMS 1 (MalnSaver) ------------ - - -- -^ J� CMMS Public (AcceIa) WebPage J I _ GIs • RepoDI Ad-Nx (GDI / (CognDatabases Geornecis) InfoM(MS Access) Flnance/ I I I I ERP I I ESRI GK sohw" 1 I Okasesee (HTE) 1 i abowl i Ineffective Application ; Application Constrained User Effectiveness (i.e., People / Process / Training) High l.0 Assessment Recommendations 1. IT Organizational Structure and Process Realignment 2. Implement Technology Planning and Governance 3. Implement Business Application Improvements 4. Adopt IT Service Delivery Best Practices 5. Adopt IT Vendor Management and Project Management Best Practices 6. Address Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery District Project Intersections • Asset Management • Recommendations will inform requirements for CMMS and ERP • Cost of Service Study • IT Organizational and Staffing recommendations aligned • Records Management • Recommendations will inform requirements for ECM and ERP Actions and Progress to Date • Security Assessment and Remediation • Network vulnerability assessment completed • Findings remediation project underway with solid progress • Backup technology and process assessment and remediation underway • IT Operations Governance, Leadership and Process Improvement • IT Steering Committee Established • Interim IT Operations Manager in place • Staff assessments completed and operational realignment in progress • Process and cultural improvements underway • Targeted critical application and infrastructure updates underway • CMMS updates • Backup appliance stabilization • Network redundancy IT Staffing — Existing Structure CCCSD Current IT Organization Chart DYKt01 d AdrriNmatbn' t Daid HNth ITAdm (Vt Wf Roy U IF Proyrmnu Mahm Tad Bvry - Sy3um adnY1 "rbabf lnfa Vqa ♦ SYRem ANnl+dbaWr� -� -� vxm ♦ SYAam atmtinn,W r VK art Inafp IT Malpt Imtan tn.,dnary TKhrvol Supprrt Ma/yA Sp -Chun ♦ TKhniol $upppt nnahA Gao�a Sol'vsr Ida mxbn 5ymmfSgfiNu VKar< IT Staffing Recommended Approach • Phase 1— Remediation • Realignment of existing staff with net increase of 2 FTE • Underway now under guidance of Interim IT Operations Manager • Phase 2 - Restructuring • Add IT Staff • Transition to 7x24 IT Operations Model to meet District needs • Properly align staff skills and bandwidth • Prepare to address significant IT project roadmap requirements IT Staffing— Phase 1 Recommended Structure 1111.0ftw SON.Ce yrt Htlp D&* Twhww Support Mgnt �Sef Menapmeat, Doc —w wcn, Trehh� tT Manger iAraurucare '. Savkes Stgervaor &ands MNy Ttlecom 8 $N[ V Ry TBD Enterprise Appikaaons SY3Ymt AQrI'%rtiWKa DBk 16 IT Roadmap — • Technology Trends Informing the Plan • Organizational Needs • Organizational Constraints • The Plan Belongs to the District— Collaboratively Developed IT Roadmap — Summary Y��tu LabNNY lwwap SetwMy MoErYry SoutMj SotW Mega Legend: Eneerpr;sr !L -_ E+'6N+8 OvKaNm�� ilnYnte /NR F1KIr0Yk Conh��ptM E Mal, ONw 09t. Attest 08 ManKt+nent Roadmp Trat �iCM„ i '� iNrfrNi R� f- SlfnaNin/ Wa111ow Wmediatbn U�KIfL�� ❑ Y��tu LabNNY lwwap SetwMy MoErYry SoutMj SotW Mega Legend: Eneerpr;sr !L -_ E+'6N+8 OvKaNm�� ilnYnte /NR F1KIr0Yk Conh��ptM i�pW Attest 08 Trat �iCM„ SyYSm iNrfrNi ❑ � Wmediatbn U�KIfL�� ❑ irYdL� Y��tu LabNNY lwwap SetwMy MoErYry SoutMj SotW Mega Legend: Eneerpr;sr !L -_ E+'6N+8 OvKaNm�� IT Roadmap —User Project Detail "t of Cosl EY 7014/15 1 FY 7015/16 IF 2116/17 FY 2017/13 402014 102015 2011115 30!015 402015 102016 Ilan 202016 302016 401016 102017 202017 302017 $000's Resource Business Fumy Project Groups / Projer is Status low Nigh Use Value IhiaiN Ott Noy Dec loco {eD Mar Apr May tun WI Aug Sep Ott NW Oa FeD Mar AIM May tun lul Aug Sep Olt Noy Dec tin fe0 Mar API May tun luty Artg Sep Nolen Um Project GIS lmplemenlatlon In Process 25 50 High High High ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IT Governance(Recurfingl In Process 0 5Low Hyh High ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Enterprise Technology Policies DenOino 10 25 1.4 d. High Hith ■ ■ NISI ihreal Protection Pending 50 75 Medium High High ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Business Continuity Plan Pending 10 2S High High Hlgh ■ ■ Desktop Technology Refreshen !.(Retuning! Pending 50 100 Low High Medium ■ ■ ■ ■ Plem mformeuon integration Roadmap Pending 30 50 wen sign tow ■ ■ ■ ■ Field Mob, litv Pending 10 25 Filed um High High ■ ■ Enterprise Document /Content Management Document Management Roadmap Pending 100 150 High High High ■ ■ , Agenda Management Pending 50 75 Medium Metlium Medwm ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ E•Mail, Online Document Retention DOhN Pending 0 Slow Medium Medium ■ E- Signatures /Workflow Pending S 101ow low low, ■ Web Re •design /Enhanced Public Access PeMin2 100 125 Medium Medium Medium ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ERP- Related Protects CMMS Replacement In Process 574 776 High High High ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ , Permit System Replacement Pending 150 110 "" "' High Hyh ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ fleet Management Pending SO 75 Metlium Medium Medium ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Warehouse Inventory Pending 15 50 Medium Medium Medwm ■ ■ ■ ■ ERP finance / HR Alternatives Analyses In Process 0 Olow High High ■ ■ , finable / HR Acquisition Roadmap Pending IS 30 High High Hlgh ■ ■ ■ Access Database inventory Pending 0 0 High High High ■ Interim Time Entry System Pending 25 50 Medium Hlth High ■ ■ ■ ■ Finance /HR System Denoing 400 700 High High High ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Electronic Time Entry Penoing 75 100 Medwm High High ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Contract / Risk Management Pending 25 50 N: etlium Medium Medium ■ Financial System Reporting Pending 25 50 Medium High High ■ ■ ■ ■ Utllilyeil ling Pending 2S 50 to Metlium Medium ■ Trainin[. Cetti /lcatlon 35afety Tracking Denomg 15 SO low hfeoium Low ■ Access Database Remediation Pend mg 5 10 Medium High High ■ ■ ■ ■ ERP'SORcost* Pending 425 S75 Medium High Hyh 5 Capital Protect Management system Pending 15 SO low Medium Medium ■ Perfofmance Evaluation Mgm15ystem Penom` S 25 low hledmm Low ■ Application Training (Recurring) Pending 50 75 Medwm High low I NJ NJ ■ IT Roadmap — IT Division Project Detail ReneeM Cost {Y 2011/15 {Y 1015116 {Y 2016/17 FY2017 /IB SM, a Buslfsett I I aQ201a IQi015 ig20t5 SQi015 4Q2014 102016 202016 3Q2016 a01016 Ig1017 2Q1017 3Qi01) {uture _ P10(e[I Groups / ProiNts Status Low I High Ute Us, Value Pf(phy /kl Nov Ot[ IM itD Mar Apr May laic lYl Aut Se0 Ott Nov Get IM {eD M 11Or M 1 All 6i.e See Notes ITO Prcocts ITp office Space lmprowment In Process 0 SMedium LOw High ■ ■ ■ ImplementcIlec, Precdces Pending 1S 20 Medium Hleh Hleh ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ITO Staff Analysis Pend 15 20 High Htgh Hlgh ■ ■ ■ ITO Succession Plan Pending 0 Slow Hlgh High ■ Customer Support Organization In Process 0 SMedium HieD Hiyh ■ ■ ■ Technical Oo[umentation Pending 0 S High Hlgh Hieh ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ Vendor / Product Management Pentling 0 5 Medium Medium Medium ■ Technical O/R Iniphl"merrta In Places S 25 50 High Hleh Mieh ■ ■ ■ ■ Network VNMrabllityJF en'n lest (Recurring) Plntling 10 1S LOW Hlgh Hlgh ■ ■ Misc. Technical Improvements Pending 1S 20 Medium Medium Medium ■ 111 ■ ■ Infrastructure Refreshment Plan (Recurring) Pend..$ 100 1501" High High ■ ■ ■ ■ IT Roadmap — CCCSD Requested Project Detail Range of Cost Rtsourw I Business FY 2014/15 1 FY 2015/16 I FY 2016/17 1 FY 2017/16 60201 102015 242015 3Q20 1S 4Q2015 1(120 36 242016 342016 aQ2016 IQZ017 2(12011 3(12017 Future Mar, rlec It Feb Mar Aor Mav lun lul Am Sey Ott Nor Dec Ian Feb Mar An Mav Jon lul puff Sea Ocl Nav DH Nn Feb Mar Ayr May )on )uN Au! 5ey Notes CCCSD hopoW Pro(ects, Timeline Not Yet Defined 6 Ada I IT Infrastructure Up grades /Replacements Pending 550 600 Medwm low High Asset Management SYStem Pending 510 690 Medium High Hlgh Long-Term ELM SOIUhon Pendlnff 60 510 H,th Hlgh Hleh 2 '; IT Roadmap — Project Cost summary Total Costs Low $000's High $000's a) User Projects: b) ITD Projects: $2,364 $180 $3,686 $300 * ** Subtotal: c) CCCSD- Requested Projects: $2,544 $1,140 $3,986 $1,800 Total Project Cost: $3,684 $5,786 Budgeted IT Funds: ($1,000) ($1,000) Net Unfunded Balance: $2,684 $4,786