Shared Services:

Developing our Potential

John LallyDirector of Strategic Planning

David ArbeitMinnesota Chief Geospatial Information Services Officer

Shared services

The state’s Master Plan reflects the Governor’s and DTE’s vision of a truly contemporary IT environment, which includes:

Enterprise management of common IT resources -- applications, data, hardware

Recognition of centers of excellence

Support for unique agency missions

Our Blueprint: The Federated Governance

Model

The federated enterprise model balances three ways of managing IT activities for the state

Agency-specific services

Shared services

Utility services

Shared Services

Shared services allow agencies to serve one another as centers of excellence

What are Shared Services? –A working definition

• Processes common to several agencies or levels of government

• Requires special expertise

• Tied to best practices, Centers of Excellence and the service center models

• Provided by lead agencies (or central IT) to other agencies on a cost-sharing basis

• Also called in-sourcing

Shared Services Drivers

• Business units need to realize economies of scale to redirect more resources to front line

• EGS demands 24x7 availability for users and customers

• Diminishing availability of technical staff in some areas

• Security-related requirements (access, authentication) are best met by coordination across the enterprise

• Information sharing requires better integration and data consistency across the enterprise

The potential advantages of shared services

• Direct a larger percentage of the total IT spend to unique applications and customer and agency services

• More efficient management of assets

• Protection of service levels

• Compatibility, interoperability, uniform quality

The potential disadvantages of shared services

• Confused priorities without SLA or equivalent

• Requires governance to set direction, tools and standards

Examples of Shared Services

Examples include:

• Case management

• Document management

• Data warehouse

• Grant management

• Licensing and registration

• Debt collection

• Asset management

Financing shared services

• Partnerships

• Negotiated service level agreements

• Rates or fee-for-service

• Shared assets and resources Staff Programs Data

It’s not just for state agencies

• Local government IT consortia

• E-12 service centers

• Cooperative agreements for support services (parks, community ed)

• Purchasing alliances

A practical test

• Not needed by everybody?

• Requires special expertise?

• Multiple delivery options?

Not needed by everybody?

Requires special expertise?

Multiple delivery options?

Shared Services summary

Directions

• Focus on shared resources

• Partners vs. vendor/customers

• Emphasis on performance and value

Desired Results

• Increased efficiency

• Lower cost

• Wider array of options and services

• Shared governance

Two case studies

Central services: Business continuation planning and operations and Data center consolidation

Distributed services: Geospatial Information Systems and Services

Business Continuation aspects

• Coordination – central oversight

• Planning – central support

• COOP operations – decentralized or combined “Hot” sites Recovery services.

Typical agency Business Continuation situation

• Limited financial & human resources

• Lack of legislative support

• Lack of knowledgeable and committed executive sponsorship

• Lack of desire to do planning when other competing priorities exist

• Lack of appropriate facilities.

Benefits of a shared approach to BC

• Planning expertise, consulting and training available, along with tools and templates

• Living Disaster Recovery Planning System (LDRPS) & enterprise-wide tools

• All state COOPs complementary

• Workspace sharing for business recoveryInteragency agreements

Benefits of a shared approach to BC

• Technology recovery strategies are costly

– State Recovery Center (SRC)

– Hot-site contracts

– Reciprocal agreements w/Wisconsin

– OET equipment and application hosting agreements

• Ability to share costs between organizations

Another central services example: Data Center Consolidation

• The business case:

– Less expensive

– More secure

– More stable

– More efficient

Another central services example: Data Center Consolidation

• The decision:

– One Tier III state data center

– A few Tier II DR sites

– Move to common architectures

– Mix of managed and colocated equipment

– Potential for partners

Distributed SolutionsGeospatial Information Systems and Services

David ArbeitMinnesota Chief Geospatial Information Services Officer

GIS: Not Just for Map Techies Anymore!

• MapQuestMapQuest

• Yahoo MapsYahoo Maps

• Google MapsGoogle Maps

• Google EarthGoogle Earth

Geographic Information is Everywhere

• On your TV

• On the Web

• In your Car

• On your Phone!

Location, Location, Location…

Almost everything we do or are concerned about involves location– People, Places, Things, Events

Geography: Why Do We Care?

Geography is fundamental to almost everything we do in government service

Where is it?

How can I get to it?

What’s near it?

What’s affected by it?

What can I build on it?

What’s services are available there?

Geographic Information: Why Do We Need It?

Most government functions concern Geographic Information

Resource Management

Transportation Management and Logistics

Land Management

Economic Development

Health and Human Services

Emergency Services

Homeland Security

Collect and store data

Analyze complex relationships

Produce new information

Increase knowledge and understanding

Solve complex problemsat a level of detail that was not previously possible

Geographic Information Systems:Why We Need Them

GIS in the State: Big and Growing Until recently, no state

has comprehensively reported scale of investment

Conservative - $12.5 M/Yr

Realistic - $25 M/Yr

Growing ~ 10%/Yr

Huge opportunity for controlling costs while enhancing capabilities through Shared Services.

Even cutting growth in half would yield about $1 to $2 M/Yr

Typical Agency GIS Technology Situation

Limited financial & human resources

Limited technical capacity

Lack of attention when other competing priorities exist

Lack of appropriate facilities

Lack of knowledgeable and committed executive sponsorship

Lack of legislative support

Lots of GIS & IT Planning in MN LatelyThis project is part of a logical progression

A Foundation for a Coordinated GISMGCGI, 2004

2004 2005 2006 2007

State GIS Enterprise Conceptual Architecture Design - MGCGI, 2005

The Case for a MN State GIS EnterpriseMGCGI, 2006

IT & TeleCom Systems and Services Master PlanOET, 2007

Compass Points Retreat Report – MGCGI / LMIC, 2007

Drive to Excellence Transformation RoadmapDOA, 2005

Drive to Excellence Launch of Enterprise GIS Project – D2E, 2008

2008

Transforming the GIS Business

Extensive analysis of agency needs, capabilities, resources, and plans.

Detailed profiles of State agency GIS programs.

Analysis of GIS programs in other states.

Identication of opportunities for collaboration and shared solutions.

Recommended program elements and design.

Implementation options.

2008: DTE GIS Coordination Study

Benefits of Shared Approach to GIS

Shared HW, SW, infrastructure

Staffing – greater breadth and depth

Joint development teams

Joint training

Leveraged funding/cooperative purchasing

Standardized solutions

Services through “Shared Service Centers”

Minnesota Geospatial Information Office

Shared Application Services Concept

GovernmentBusiness

Application B

HostedServices

Government Entity 1

HostedServices

Government Entity 3

GovernmentBusiness

Application A

HostedServices

GovernmentBusiness

Application C

Government Entity 2

ServiceProvider

Commercial ServiceProvider

Mash Ups!!??Mash Ups!!??

Consumer

Enterprise Geospatial Services Architecture

ServiceProvider

Service

Broker Organization

CatalogServices

Catalog

Query forService

Consumers learn about services through a broker catalog service

Consumer applications interact directly with Service Providers

Service providers identify & document services

Access Service

Consumer

Service

MnGeo

MnDOT

MPCA

DNR

Agriculture

Example Services

Name 

Request Description

Result

Image 

Area of Interest Image file suitable for viewing

Geocoding 

Street Address Coordinate Location

Lake Buffer Lake IDBuffer Distance

Area feature (in GML format)

Floodplain Test

Coordinate Location

0 – Not in Floodplain1 – In Floodplain

Routing Service

Start LocationEnd Location

Travel directions and route map

What Services Exist Now?

Several Minnesota state agencies host geospatial services that potentially eliminatepotentially eliminate the need for duplication.

– MnGeo

– MN Department of Natural Resources

– MN Department of Transportation

– MetroGIS

Organizations like these already have invested in expertise and technology. Why not use them?

500,000 images/month and growing!500,000 images/month and growing!

$6.5 M Investment

Who Uses WMS Image Server?

• MnGeo - NorthStar Mapper• MN DOT-Boring Sites• MN Dept. of Agriculture - Weed Mapping• MN DNR- Firewise program• U of MN - Swine Disease Mapping Project• U of MN Natural Resources Research Institute• Metropolitan Mosquito Control District• Private companies

– Houston Engineering – The Lawrence Group – Riverside Companies

Shared Service Opportunities

Application Function Services Address Geocoding Routing Service Mail Label Service

Web Mapping Hosting Services Application Development Services Secure Data Center GIS Training Center Contract Coordination Services Enterprise Licensing Agreements

The MnGeo Vision

"Minnesota makes "Minnesota makes CCoordinated, oordinated, AAffordable, ffordable, RReliable, and eliable, and EEffective ffective use of GIS use of GIS technology to technology to improve services improve services throughout the throughout the state." state."

Things to Watch For

Positive Signs– Strategic (serendipitous) opportunities– Champions who “Get It”– A community of partners – Small successes to build on

Warning Signs– Territorial bahavior! That Turf Thing! – Pride of ownership – Failure to meet commitments– Mistrust

Things to Watch ForChampions Who Get It

Brad MooreProject SponsorCommissionerMN Pollution Control Agency

Gopal KhannaCommissioner and State CIOOffice of Enterprise Technology

Dana BadgerowCommissionerDepartment of Administration

Things to Watch ForLeaders and Team Members

“Drive” Team Leadership Brad Moore, SponsorCommissioner, Pollution Control Agency

“Drive” Team Members David Arbeit, Department of AdministrationMichael Barnes, Department of Transportation Janet Cain, Department of Public Safety Margaret Kelly, Department of Health John Lally, Office of Enterprise Technology Fred Logman, Department of Administration Robert Maki, Department of Natural Resources Larry Palmer, Department of Agriculture Leo Raudys, Pollution Control Agency Dan Storkamp, Department of Corrections

Governance

Governance that respects customers and promotes trust that their needs will be met.

Things to Watch ForAdvisors, Contributors and Stakeholders

Community of Partners

Final Thoughts

We face a fundamental challenge:

Customers continue to expect more Technology is essential to providing it The era of budget growth has ended

We are smart enough and committed enough to meet that challenge.

Working together through creative shared service arrangements are key to getting it done.

We can get it done!

Let’s Talk Shared Services