Advancing VMM Project Level Expert Choice Session

1
Status Briefing
Business Case for the XML.gov Registry
Washington, DC August 1, 2002
This document is confidential and is intended
solely for the use and information of the client
to whom it is addressed.
2
Agenda

• XML.gov Value Proposition/Profile Performance
  Measures, Metrics and Scoring for Benefits in the
  VMM Analysis
• Alternatives Definition and Analysis
• Cost Models/Cost Element Structures for All
  Alternatives
• Next Steps

3
VMM Decision Framework Development - Overview
Risk Tolerance Boundary
Value per Dollar Invested
Return on Investment
project specific sub-criteria
4
Introduction to Performance Measures, Metrics,
and Scoring for Registry/Repository Benefits
Metrics and Scoring of Benefits

• A performance measure, such as total number of
  users is associated with each benefit. The
  measure identifies how the initiative owners
  would demonstrate that they have delivered the
  benefit in question. If the benefit were
  increased size and awareness of user community,
  it might be measured by total number of users
• The term metric simply refers to actual numbers
  associated with a given measure. The ideal total
  number of users may be
• 100,000 100,000 is the metric.
• For each measure, we must determine threshold
  (min), targeted, and ideal levels of performance.
• Threshold (T) minimum level of performance that
  must be achieved in order to get any value out of
  the initiative.
• Target target level of performance, what the
  initiative owners are shooting for.
• Ideal (I) level of performance in the best of
  all possible worlds, if everything works out
  perfectly.

5
Performance Measures, Metrics, and Scoring
Direct User or Customer Value/Benefits
Metrics and Scoring of Benefits

• Ease of Use of XML Resources and Information
• Average annual increase in the number of
  artifacts in government-sponsored
  registry/repositories
• T 15 / target 60 / I100
• Single Authoritative Source for Agreed Upon
  Schemas for XML Artifacts for Inherently
  Governmental Data/Government-Unique Requirements
• Survey of direct user/customer population
  segments within chosen sample of communities of
  interest (e.g. human resources, environmental)
• of respondents indicating that they use
  schemas in government-sponsored
  registry/repositories as the primary way of
  conducting electronic business transactions with
  the Government
• T25 / target 65 / I80
• Improved Search, Discovery and Access and
  Analysis Capabilities for Functional
  Users/Communities of Interest
• Average number of clicks per search/query to
  achieve desired results
• T 5 / target 4 / I 3

6
Performance Measures, Metrics, and Scoring
Direct User or Customer Value/Benefits
Metrics and Scoring of Benefits

• Ease of Submission for Posting Schemas and
  Artifacts
• Cycle time in business days from logon to
  notification of acceptance/rejection of
  submission
• T 5 / target 3 / I 2
• Broad Knowledge-Sharing Capabilities
• Annual increase in the number of users of
  government sponsored reg/reps
• T 15 / target 60 / I100
• Improved Availability of XML Data and Information
  (such as Schemas and Artifacts) for Communities
  of Interest
• XML.gov Registry/Repository site/system up
  time in
• T 98 / target 99.5 / I 99.9
• Time Savings Due to Efficient and Effective
  Communications among Communities of Interest
• of users indicating that the use of XML
  artifacts reduced the time to conduct business
• T50 / target 75 / I 90

7
Metrics and Scoring of Benefits
Performance Measures, Metrics, and Scoring
Social Value/Benefits

• Coordination and Streamlining of
  Intergovernmental Data Collection and Sharing
• Number of major intergovernmental projects that
  involve electronic communications/transactions
  using artifacts from govt-sponsored reg/reps
• T 5 / target35 / I 50
• More Efficient Use of Taxpayer Dollars
• Average annual increase in the number of
  downloads of artifacts from govt-sponsored
  reg/reps
• T15 / target 30 / I50

8
Metrics and Scoring of Benefits
Performance Measures, Metrics, and Scoring
Operational/Foundational Value/Benefits

• Improved Interagency Collaboration (Current and
  Foundation for Future Collaboration)
• Number of major federal cross-agency projects
  that involve electronic communications/transaction
  s using artifacts from govt-sponsored reg/reps
• T 5 / target 34 / I 50
• Increase in Productivity and Efficiency in
  Government Operations
• Increases in productivity are a function of
  positive movement, meeting minimum levels of
  performance on an annual basis, for 5 key
  indicators. All of the following must occur in
  order to achieve productivity gains average
  annual increase in the number of artifacts in
  govt-sponsored reg/reps ? 15, of users
  indicating that using artifacts from govt
  reg/reps saved time ? 50, number of major
  intergovernmental projects that involve
  electronic communications/ transactions using
  artifacts from govt reg/reps ? 5, number of major
  federal cross-agency projects that involve
  electronic communications/transactions using
  artifacts from reg/reps ? 5, average annual
  increase in the number of downloads of artifacts
  from govt reg/reps ? 15.
• Have govt sponsored XML reg/reps yielded
  productivity gains in system development?
• Binary measure Y/N TtargetI

9
Metrics and Scoring of Benefits
Performance Measures, Metrics, and Scoring
Operational/Foundational Value/Benefits

• Efficient Reuse and Adaptation of Existing XML
  Efforts and Consolidation of Currently Fragmented
  Federal XML Efforts
• Ratio of submissions to retrievals of schemas on
  govt-sponsored reg/reps
• T 13 / target140 / I 1100
• Minimization of Administrative Burdens Associated
  with Posting/Creating XML Artifacts
• of agency managers indicating that the
  administrative burden of posting/creating XML
  artifacts is minimal
• T 50 / target75 / I 90
• Facilitation of Data and Information-Sharing
  Among Disparate Systems and Entities/Interoperabil
  ity
• Number of major intergovernmental (state/local
  w. federal) projects that involve electronic
  communications/transactions using artifacts from
  govt-sponsored reg/reps
• T 5 / target35 / I 50

10
Which Alternatives Will Be Compared and How Have
They Been Defined?
Alternatives Analysis

• Status Quo/Base Case Undertaking no coordination
  activities to standardize data and ensure the
  interoperability of all government-sponsored
  registry/repositories. Allowing any and all
  agencies to build, operate and maintain as many
  reg/reps with as many different underlying
  technologies and specifications as they choose.
• Single Unified Registry/Repository Building a
  single federal reg/rep from scratch that will
  require that every federal agency wishing to
  publish schemas or artifacts go through/ provide
  submissions to the central reg/rep for review and
  approval. This alternative requires the
  termination of all current XML activities in
  agencies (EPA, DoD, etc) and would require
  existing activities to be subsumed by the new
  single reg/rep.
• Federated/Distributed Model Each agency or
  entity may stand up its own reg/rep. However,
  they must do so according to certain
  specifications that ensure interoperability with
  the central government-wide (XML.gov)
  portal/reg-rep. For those agencies electing not
  to build their own reg/reps, they may publish
  information on the central reg/rep.

11
Standard Cost Element Structure
Cost Element Structure

• System Development and Planning includes
  personnel costs associated with the studies,
  planning, documentation, and analysis required
  for the project along with any personnel,
  hardware and software necessary for a testing
  environment of new systems or applications. It
  captures program management and oversight type
  activities.
• System Acquisition and Implementation includes
  the acquisition of the actual project hardware
  and software, as well as the personnel required
  to accomplish implementation.
• System Maintenance and Operation includes
  upgrades, maintenance, and recurring training.

12
Cost Element Structure
Standard Cost Element Structure System Planning
and Development
13
Cost Element Structure
Standard Cost Element Structure System
Acquisition and Implementation
14
Cost Element Structure
Standard Cost Element Structure System
Maintenance and Operation
15
Next Steps
Next Steps

• Complete Cost Estimates for 3 Alternatives
• Populate VMM Framework, Run Model and Analyze VMM
  Output
• Compare Value of Alternatives and Select
  Alternative/Develop Recommendation
• Complete First Draft