|
March 28, 2005 - Rumor Control Questions & Responses
Rumor 1: Will the state data center be its own agency? If so, at what point during the CNIC process would this happen?
The state data center will not be an agency. It will be a division of DAS with the director of the data center reporting directly to the DAS director. The data center will not be a part of the Information Resources Management Division (IRMD).
Rumor 2: It seems the scope has changed again. As of now, all servers (including file, print, mail, database, and any other type of server) is to be moved. All development of applications and databases will be done by the data center, as well as all help desk support. Simply put, the data center will be in control of all IT.
Application development remains at the agencies. It has to be that way, because the bulk of each agency´s line of business applications are unique, reflecting the different business each agency is in. It does not make sense to centralize this.
Desktop systems are also out of scope, though consolidating desktop support is certainly a potential future opportunity.
Help desk functions are out of scope, though tier 2 and 3 support for networking and host computing is in.
Physical DBA is in, and logical DBA is out, though the data center will offer that service for agencies choosing to buy it.
Similarly, the data center will provide CICS and various middleware support, though some agencies will also likely retain some of that capability in their application development and support organizations.
The CNIC Steering Committee will clarify all this in the approval of a revised scope document that will be out shortly.
Rumor 3: DAS employees will have competitive advantage for data center jobs by virtue of the fact that they will have had experience operating the single perimeter infrastructure.
On February 14, the CNIC Steering Committee discussed this general concept and reached consensus that training for specific technologies not currently deployed within the CNIC agencies will be provided by the state data center after positions are filled. In other words, to avoid unfair advantage by DAS or other employees with such work experience, hiring will be based on a generic skill set.
The Project Office made a commitment to explore other ways to resolve the issue, i.e. via rotation, during a recent work group discussion.
Rumor 4: Single Perimeter Group - So far two major decisions now have been made without the consensus model with the affected agencies. The group is being asked to work on recommendations and when the trend is starting to steer towards a certain direction that someone somewhere doesn’t like, an e-mail from Theresa Masse (State Chief Information Security Officer) comes out the night before the recommendation meeting, announcing the decision. The consensus model does not exist in this work group is the feeling and the group is just for show.
There will be instances where the Project Office, Steering Committee, or other leaders such as the State Chief Information Security Officer, will make decisions in conflict with work groups for the following reasons:
- The strategic objectives of the CNIC project are not being met by a recommendation of a work group.
- Certain “assumptions” used as a basis for a decision are not understood by a work group. Example: The state has invested millions of dollars in security infrastructure using Cisco – an investment that must be leveraged. If a work group’s recommendation veers away from use of Cisco, it is appropriate for IT leaders to announce a decision that Cisco, to whatever degree is appropriate and not to the exclusion of other solutions, will be used.
- Not all decisions are appropriate to be made at the technical level. For business or other strategic reasons, there will be times when the consensus model is not used, and leadership announces a decision.
The Steering Committee has given direction to the Project Office to provide work groups with clarity on the decision model. In addition, efforts will increase to ensure that work group expectations are clearly defined.
It is important to note that the state of Oregon’s information security “immediate action plan” (now being implemented by the office of the State Chief Information Security Officer) calls for a certain amount of decision-making that is external to CNIC but that will have an effect on CNIC. These are the types of issues where “announcing the decision” is occurring, and rightly so. The Legislature funded the immediate action plan and work must be complete by June 30. CNIC is only one component of this larger security effort.
Rumor 5: The Mainframe work group - They were asked to make a decision towards what would be purchased for CNIC and used for the agencies. The rumor is that before the group could make logical recommendations, someone announced a purchase decision was made regardless of what the group did or would have recommended. The group themselves did not agree with the logic of the purchase decision.
This is not true; the Steering Committee has not made a decision. Some CIOs asked for some information on how things in this group were progressing, and when information on the “current thinking” was shared, it was misconstrued to be a “done deal.” This issue is being addressed by the Mainframe work group.
Rumor 6: There are CIOs who think their agency will be able to pull out of CNIC and have been communicating the same to staff. Staff is wondering what will happen if they accept a position in the data center and their agency does not move.
It is not possible to “pull out of CNIC.” The decision to move forward to implement CNIC for the 12 participating agencies was made in July 2004 and then re-validated in December.
Rumor 7: The Server work group was apparently told that the Smart Buy Program has not to-date showed any money savings that can be utilized by the needs of the CNIC project because what is available to buy is not up to the level of equipment needed. The rumor is this lacks common sense. The Smart Buy program was considered to be the vehicle of lower cost savings for the state and planned and implemented by the powers-that-be especially with CNIC coming. These same powers-that-be are considered to also be driving the CNIC project. The rumor is that the CNIC project is going to end up with the same problems that Smart Buy has run into, no real money savings in anyway close to what is being promised, just look what Smart Buy turned into...., it´s costing the state money and so will CNIC.
It has never been the goal of the Smart Buy PC price agreements to provide comprehensive coverage across all server types, especially the specialized ones required by CNIC. It has always been the intention for more specialized needs to be addressed separately from the Smart Buy PC price agreement, but using Smart Buy techniques that may include additional solicitations.
The claim that Smart Buy pricing is costing the state more money is completely unfounded:
- The spend and savings reports generated by the State Procurement Office (SPO) shows that through November 2004, agencies collectively have realized hard dollar savings of $727K and $105K respectively for PC Hardware and PC Peripherals purchases made through Smart Buy price agreements. These reports have been validated by an independent third-party auditor.
- Through January 2005 the Smart Buy spend and savings show realized hard dollar savings have risen to $1.9 million and $219K respectively for PC Hardware and PC Peripherals purchased through the Smart Buy price agreements.
- Savings achieved by Smart Buy is measured against historical pricing instead of current pricing offered by suppliers that did not win Smart Buy awards. This is because such suppliers may opportunistically offer pricing that is more aggressive than that offered historically in an attempt to “win back” business. We have in fact observed repeated instances of such pricing practices and would like to stress that the state needs to maintain its integrity by honoring its obligation to contracted suppliers that fairly won Smart Buy awards instead of rewarding suppliers involved in “back-door” selling.
- If an agency is looking at a purchase and is getting information on pricing or product they believe is not the best around, we urge them to contact SPO management. They are available to discuss problems and concerns at any time.
It is an industry standard that data center consolidation projects yield savings in the range of 30 to 50 percent of current costs. There is no proof that Oregon is so unique as to deviate from this norm. To say that CNIC will cost the state money in the end is inconsistent with hundreds of successful data center consolidation projects throughout the nation. A component of the CNIC project will track and measure savings.
The “powers that be” for the CNIC project are the CNIC Steering Committee and Governing Board. Oversight of the Smart Buy program is provided by a separate Steering Committee comprised of many non-CNIC agencies.
Return to CNIC Project home page
|
