Appendix_3_-NPSAS-16_IT_Program_Assessment_Guide_copy.pdf

U.S. Department of Education Investment Acquisition Management Team (IAMT)

IT Program Assessment Guide

February 4, 2011

Version 2

Page i

Revision History

Version Date Comments By

1 March 23, 2010 Initial Release OCIO IAMT

2 February 2011 Deleted the following sections and appendices that unnecessarily duplicated material found in the Program Assessment Template file:

Sections 3.1 through 3.9 (removed criteria)

Appendix A: Program Assessment Artifacts

Appendix C: Self Assessment Template Instructions

Appendix D: Results Report Template

Appendix E: Corrective Action Plan Template Instructions

In addition to changes to this Guide, changes were made to the Assessment Template file:

Clarified narrative for certain instructions and criteria.

Removed criteria that were over-lapping, or could not be unambiguously assessed

Sec. 3.9.1-Removed requirement to post security documentation in the Business Case tool

Sec. 3.9.2-Modified Privacy criteria to include DoED Privacy Threshold Analysis

(PTA)

Added Quality Assurance Guidance

Added an Assessment Report Template

Modified format and print settings for Self Assessment, Findings, and Corrective Action Plan templates for ease of use

OCIO IAMT

Department of Education

IT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT GUIDE

FEBRUARY 2011

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Objectives

1.3 Applicable Guidance and Standards

1.4 Organizational Structure

1.5 Principal Stakeholders

2 Program Assessment Process

2.1 Pre-Assessment

2.2 Self Assessment

2.3 Validation

2.4 Escalation

3 Program Assessment Criteria

3.1 Scope Management

3.2 Requirements Management

3.3 Schedule Management

3.4 Cost Management

3.5 Risk Management

3.6 Quality Management

3.7 Contract Oversight Criteria

3.8 Performance Management

3.9 Security & Privacy Criteria

4 Program Assessment Scoring

4.1 Scoring Model

4.1.1 Self Assessment

4.1.2 Independent Review Team (IRT) Results

4.2 Scoring Range

4.2.1 Non- Applicability Adjustment

iii

5 Communications Plan

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Purpose

5.3 Objectives

5.4 Organizational Structure

5.5 Communiqués

5.6 Present Approach to PIRWG

5.7 Present Approach to Program Managers

5.8 Send Assessment Pre-notification

5.9 Begin Self Assessment

5.10 Report Completed Self Assessment

5.11 Report Self Assessment Ready for Independent Review

5.12 Report Independent Rating

5.13 Report Findings and Scoring

5.14 Request Corrective Action

5.15 Respond to Corrective Action Request

5.16 Request Re-Assessment

5.17 Report Re-Assessment

5.18 Escalate Request

5.19 Provide CIO Rating

5.20 Program Assessment Communications Flows

Appendix B: Glossary of Acronyms iv

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 26: Program Assessment Scoring Range

Figure 1: Program Assessment Placement in ITIM Schema Figure 2: Program Assessment Process Flow Diagram

Conduct a review to determine project and process adjustments Apply Lessons Learned

Monitor Progress (PA) Undertake Improvement Actions

SELECT

How does ED choose projects for funding?

CONTROL

How is ED managing projects to achieve the desired results?

Did the IT project deliver what was expected?

• Screen

• Score

• Select

EVALUATE

Process

Information

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

The Program Assessment (PA) guide has been developed to provide the Department Project Managers (PMs) of major IT investments with clear and concise instructions to conduct a self-evaluation of their investment and to provide the OCIO/IAMT’s Independent Review Team (IRT) with a mechanism for evaluating those investments.

The PA is an assessment of the entire investment; it is not limited to performance of a contract.

Figure 1: Program Assessment Placement in ITIM Schema

1.2 OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the Program Assessment program are to:

• Review all major investments

• Increase PM awareness of the health of the investment through self assessment

• Obtain a third party assessment, with Investment and Acquisition Management Team (IAMT) as the competent authority

• Identify troubled investments

• Improve healthy investments

• Recommend disposition of unhealthy investments

• Maintain positive communications with project managers and IAMT liaisons

• Refine Program Assessment processes after each review effort

• Increase review criteria based on maturity and resources.

1.3 APPLICABLE GUIDANCE AND STANDARDS

The Program Assessment’s governance structure is predicated on Federal guidance and requirements, industry best practices, and Agency specific guidance. The following guidelines and standards were used to define the Program Assessment criteria:

• OMB Circular A-11 Part 7 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/a11_current_year/s300.pdf

• OMB Capital Programming Guide http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/a11_current_year/part7.pdf

• OMB Circular A-94 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/circulars/a094/a094.html

• OMB Circular A-123 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/circulars/a123/a123_rev.html

• OMB Circular A-130 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/circulars/a130/a130.html

• OMB Memorandum 05-23: Improving Information Technology (IT) Project Planning and Execution http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-23.pdf

• GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d093sp.pdf

• DoED OCIO IT Investment Management Process Guide http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-23.pdf

• DoED OCIO Lifecycle Management Framework http://connected/index.cfm?cid=c57b84b9-e921-2b05-78b6-29486b50e574

• PMI Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) 4th Edition http://www.pmi.org/Resources/Pages/Library-of-PMI-Global-Standards-projects.aspx

• SEI Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) version 1.2 http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/start/faq/related-faq.cfm http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/a11_current_year/s300.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/a11_current_year/part7.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/circulars/a094/a094.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/circulars/a123/a123_rev.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/circulars/a130/a130.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-23.pdf http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d093sp.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-23.pdf http://connected/index.cfm?cid=c57b84b9-e921-2b05-78b6-29486b50e574 http://www.pmi.org/Resources/Pages/Library-of-PMI-Global-Standards-projects.aspx http://www.pmi.org/Resources/Pages/Library-of-PMI-Global-Standards-projects.aspx http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/start/faq/related-faq.cfm

1.4 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The Program Assessment Guide is divided into four sections and their respective appendices and templates:

1. Introduction: Describes the purpose and objectives of the guide and lays out the authoritative basis for its contents.

2. Program Assessment Process: Sets forth the methodology for conducting a Program Assessment, reporting its results, and achieving an improved investment management program.

3. Program Assessment Criteria: Establishes nine categories of standardized criteria to ensure that a comprehensive evaluation, yielding repeatable results, is conducted for every major investment that yields repeatable results. The criteria are designed to evaluate each capability area in a progression of maturity from the existence of basic documentation to evidence of continued practice.

4. Program Assessment Scoring: Establishes a pre-determined scoring system to enable an objective summary of the health of the investment. Documented evidence is required to demonstrate achievement.

1.5 PRINCIPAL STAKEHOLDERS

The principal stakeholders in the Program Assessment process are:

Investment Review Board (IRB) - The executive decision-making body for ED’s IT investment management process. The IRB is composed of the senior officers of Principal Offices and other key personnel. It sets priorities and objectives used to assess IT initiatives and is responsible for overseeing the entire IT portfolio of ED. Membership of the IRB is described in the IRB Charter (posted on ConnectED under Investment and Acquisition Management).

IT Principal Office Coordinator (IT POC) – The IT POC is the direct point of contact between the investment project managers and the OCIO ITIM team liaisons.

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) IT Investment Management (ITIM) Team - The OCIO ITIM team (known as the Investment and Acquisition Management Team (IAMT)) has overall responsibility for supporting and coordinating the Department’s ITIM processes and procedures. The ITIM team initiates and manages Select, Control, and Evaluate processes.

Planning and Investment Review Working Group (PIRWG) - The PIRWG is comprised of senior managers with specialized knowledge and skills in the various disciplines that comprise the work of the Department. Members represent the critical areas including acquisition, budget, information technology management, and planning. The PIRWG reviews the IT portfolio from an enterprise perspective and makes recommendations to the CIO and IRB for Select, Control, and Evaluate decisions.

Project Manager (PM) - A PM is the day-to-day leader of an IT initiative. PMs are accountable for the IT initiative and may be supported by other managers or staff in all of the project activities. The PM manages the initiative to ensure it meets expectations by monitoring progress against cost and schedule of milestones and performance targets.

Segment Owner - The Segment Owner is a senior manager from the Principal Office and is ultimately responsible for supporting the IT initiative. The Segment Owner works with the PM and their team throughout the life cycle of the initiative to ensure its success. The Segment Owner acts as representative for and coordinator of the interests of his or her segment’s core mission areas, common or shared (enterprise) business services, and facilitates linkage of the IT Investment Portfolio to the agency’s performance management system.

2 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS

2.1 PRE-ASSESSMENT

The Program Assessment process for 2011 begins with the subject area requirements being defined based on OMB Circulars A-11 and A-130 and the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) process. During pre-assessment, documentation expected to be assessed was identified and the scoring criteria was developed. The IRT developed templates to be used and instructions to the Project Managers (PMs). In addition to the material requirements, a schedule was developed for completing the assessments and review of the results. The plan, requirements, and scoring criteria will be distributed to the PMs, segment owners and the PIRWG in accordance with the Program Assessment Communication Plan in Section 5.

2.2 SELF ASSESSMENT

The PM will identify the investment artifacts that document completion of the activities identified in the Self Assessment. The PM will demonstrate a direct correlation between components of the documents identified and the assessment requirements. Once complete, the PM will post the completed Self Assessment and supporting documentation to the business case tool, and notify his/her Investment and Acquisition Management Team (IAMT) Liaison.

2.3 VALIDATION

The IAMT Liaison will review the Self Assessment for completeness. Program Assessments serve as critical components of ED’s portfolio analysis process, thus it is vital that the process yield thorough, comprehensive results. The IAMT Liaisons are charged with ensuring that Program Assessments progress through their various stages to completion. The IAMT Director will contact Liaisons or PMs as appropriate for PAs that do not demonstrate sufficient progress on a timely basis. Once the Self Assessment and supporting documentation is ready for the Independent Review Team, the Liaison will notify the independent review team (IRT).

The IRT will inspect the self assessment and supporting documents for sufficiency using guidance provided in Appendix D, and provide a rating using the established scoring criteria to the Director, IAMT. The IRT will refer to prior year assessments to ensure conformance. The Director, IAMT will report the findings and IRT scoring to the PM, Segment Owner, and the PIRWG. If necessary, the IAMT Liaison will initiate a corrective action plan, to which the PM will add milestones and completion dates. The IRT will periodically re-assess those investments requiring a corrective action plan to ensure that the corrective action milestones are being met.

Areas for improvement found by the IRT will be documented and reported back to the PM and Segment Owner.

2.4 ESCALATION

Efforts by the IAMT liaisons do not always result in collecting needed items or getting results for corrective action plans. To ensure a program assessment process that is effective at improving the health of the investment, difficulties in obtaining required artifacts and achieving completion of corrective action plans will be elevated to increasing levels of management and oversight. The validation phase anticipates occasional errors or inadvertent omission of document submissions and calls for the IAMT liaison to contact the PM when they occur. In the case of Federal Student Aid (FSA) investments, a copy is sent to the FSA Project Management Office (PMO) and the Segment Owner. If contact with the PM fails to achieve the required results, the matter will be escalated in the following order:

1. The IAMT Director will inform the Segment Owner of the deficiency and request compliance.

2. Should an unresolved issue remain; the ITPS Director will be asked to inform the PIRWG Chair and request assistance.

3. In the unlikely event that an issue remains that prevents an adequate program assessment, and hence impedes CIO scoring of the investment, or important corrective actions are not implemented, the PIRWG Chair will inform the Executive Sponsor on the Investment Review Board and seek resolution.

For investments in FSA:

1. The IAMT Director will inform the Principal Office Coordinator.

2. Should an unresolved issue remain; the ITPS Director will be asked to inform the Segment Owner.

3. In the unlikely event that an issue remains that prevents an adequate program assessment, and hence impedes CIO scoring of the investment, or important corrective actions are not implemented, the PIRWG Chair will inform the FSA Chief Operating Officer who is a member of the Investment Review Board and seek resolution.

Figure 2: Program Assessment Process Flow Diagram

3 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The Investment’s health will be measured against criteria that include evidence that:

Documentation that is required by ED prescribing good project management practices exist for the investment

The content of the documentation is adequate in scope and specific to the investment

Artifacts exist that demonstrate that the activities required of the documentation have been, and are continuing to be performed

There is continuing management review of the documented activities of the investment

Program assessments will evaluate investments in nine capability areas:

Scope Management

Requirements Management

Schedule Management

Cost Management

Risk Management

Quality Management

Contract Oversight

Performance Management

Security & Privacy

A total of twenty-six topical areas have been selected for review within the capability areas. Each topical area has been assigned predefined rating criteria for which documented evidence of compliance will be assessed.

3.1 SCOPE MANAGEMENT

The narrative describing the program scope in the investment’s business case provides a common understanding of the project goals among stakeholders. The scope of the project may be clarified and contain more detail in the Project Charter or Project Plan, but it may not extend the objectives beyond the description in the business plan. Details in other project documentation must provide the schedule and projected cost of achieving interim milestones. These documents and their described processes help the PM in developing and controlling changes to the project scope statement.

3.2 REQUIREMENTS MANAGEMENT

The detailed requirements of the user and system requirements to support the functions to be developed must be documented and managed. Changes to the initial requirements must also be documented and the functionality of those requirements must be clearly traced to components of the delivered product.

3.3 SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT

Schedule management begins with the identification of activities that must be performed and the availability of work force to perform those activities. That information results in a time schedule for deliverables that is used to drive the work and against which progress is measured.

3.4 COST MANAGEMENT

Cost management begins with the identification of a schedule of activities needed to deliver components of the investment and the cost of work force and material needed. That information results in a cost schedule for deliverables that is used to measure the ability to achieve the investment’s goals with available funding.

3.5 RISK MANAGEMENT

Risk management begins with development of a plan to identify and mitigate or prevent factors that threaten the achievement of the investment objectives, delay its completion, increase its cost or delivery date, or otherwise reduce the expected return on investment. Any of these factors are a potential risk to the investment. The risk factors must be documented, assessed as to their probability of occurrence and potential to harm the investment. Actions to mitigate and respond to the risks must be identified and, if necessary, implemented.

3.6 QUALITY MANAGEMENT

A process for establishing the acceptable quality of the project deliverables, measuring the quality of the deliverables and correcting deficiencies is a necessary component of project management. The documented process must be actively managed through testing and reporting.

3.7 CONTRACT OVERSIGHT CRITERIA

One or more components of nearly every IT investment at ED is developed or managed under contract.

Therefore, competent contract oversight is extremely important and begins at the time the acquisition for services and material is planned. Expectations by the government of the contractor, and expectations by the contractor of the government must be clearly documented in the acquisition plan, statement of work, and any other contract documents that are created. Both government and contractor staff may come and go through the life of an investment. Well written contract documents are the only constant that will ensure smooth development, implementation and maintenance of the investment.

3.8 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Performance management includes activities to ensure that goals are consistently being met in an effective and efficient manner. The performance measurement baseline is established at the beginning of the project. It is an approved integrated scope-schedule-cost plan for the project work against which project execution is compared to measure and manage performance.

3.9 SECURITY & PRIVACY CRITERIA

The security and privacy criteria that are reviewed are designed to provide a fundamental understanding of the state of the investments compliance with ED requirements. The Information Assurance (IA) Team will provide the review and assessment for this competency area. The IRT will incorporate the findings of the IA Team in the overall assessment to ascertain the investment’s health.

4 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT SCORING

Each of the nine capability areas will be rated in accordance with the predefined criteria. The ratings will be based on the documentation of the investment’s management practices that is provided to the IAMT by the PM.

4.1 SCORING MODEL

Scoring of an investment will be conducted through the process described in this section.

4.1.1 SELF ASSESSMENT

The PM will assess the investment’s compliance with each of the listed criteria and indicate his/her determination of the degree to which the individual criteria is satisfied.

4.1.2 INDEPENDENT REVIEW TEAM (IRT) RESULTS

The IRT will review the documentation posted to the Business Case tool and consider the PM’s Self Assessment and comments. Based on the degree of completeness, pertinence of content to the nine competency areas and rating criteria, and specificity to the individual investment, the IRT will assign a numerical score ranging from 1 to 5 for each topical area. Ratings for each topical area will be compiled into a numerical score for each capability area.

The score for each of the capability areas will be weighted based upon EDs area of emphasis that will be established for each fiscal year. The weights will be determined by the PIRWG and will be announced by the IAMT Director.

4.2 SCORING RANGE

Each criterion within the nine capability areas will receive a score based on the five point scoring range described in the table below. This scoring range will be applied to each topical area, capability area and overall investment assessment.

Table 1: Program Assessment Scoring Range

Points Rating Description

1 No Evidence No evidence was submitted for evaluation 2 Insufficient Evidence Not enough evidence was submitted for evaluation 3 Below Expectations Evidence meets sufficiency criteria, but is weak, incomplete, inappropriate, or limited in some way 4 Meets Expectation Evidence is adequate and demonstrates proficiency in the standard 5 Exceeds Expectations Evidence is thorough, in-depth, insightful, or exceptional in some way

- Not Applicable Not Applicable means that the assessment criterion is not pertinent to the program under review. An assessment should not be performed.

4.2.1 NON- APPLICABILITY ADJUSTMENT

Not all criteria apply to every investment. For example, investments that are entirely in DME are not expected to be assessed in the topical area for Operational Analysis. No score will be assigned for that topical area if the investment is entirely in DME and it will not be considered when calculating the score for the Performance Management capability area.

5 COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This Communications Plan describes the communications protocols associated with all actions undertaken by any stakeholder involved with Program Assessments. This is an iterative document that will be updated as the PA process matures and circumstances change.

5.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of the Communications Plan is to provide PA participants a roadmap for ensuring the continuity of information flow throughout the PA process. Each instance requiring specific communication from one PA participant to another is decomposed to identify the initiator, recipient, content, timing and feedback mechanism. By adhering to the protocols outlined in this Plan, PA participants will consistently inform each subsequent stage of the PA process and thereby ensure a timely, thorough assessment.

5.3 OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the program assessment Communications Plan are to:

1. Define a consistent, repeatable process by which Program Assessment stakeholders communicate PA information.

2. Define the required elements and methodology of each PA communication, specific to the PA action prompting it.

5.4 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The Communications Plan is divided into two sections and one attachment. These sections are:

1. Introduction: introduces the Communications Plan concept and describes its purpose and objectives.

2. Communiqués: articulates the communication instances that may be required of PA participants and decomposes each into standardized parameters. Includes the description, method, audience, content, attachments, timing, and anticipated feedback for each type of communication.

3. Attachment 1 – Program Assessment Contacts: provides general contact/organizational information for PA stakeholders.

5.5 COMMUNIQUÉS

The program assessment process includes numerous actions wherein some form of information dissemination (i.e., communiqué) is required between all or a subset of PA stakeholders (e.g., PM, IRT, IAMT Liaison, IAMT Director, Principal Office Coordinator, and others). To maintain independence and objectivity, content-related PA information is communicated to and from the IRT only through the IAMT Liaison and/or IAMT Director.

For procedural questions such as how to use the assessment template or the location of PA materials, PMs may address an email to the IAMT Mailbox at OCIO IAMT@ed.gov.

To bolster the PM’s understanding of the program assessment and self assessment process, the IRT and IAMT Liaisons collectively host a series of “open call” sessions at regular intervals prior to and after the onset of self assessments. These sessions provide a designated window during which PMs can call a pre-determined phone number to help resolve many of the questions anticipated as a result of changes to the PA process and tool suite. The dial-in number and call schedule are provided to the PMs by the IAMT Liaisons and/or IAMT Director with the Begin Self Assessment notification.

Below we describe the types, actors, timing, content, and feedback mechanisms of PA communiqués.

The communiqués are sequenced in the order in which they will occur in a during the Program Assessment lifecycle.

5.6 PRESENT APPROACH TO PIRWG

To kick off the annual Select Phase process, the IAMT Director outlines the focus of the upcoming Select Phase activities at the February PIRWG meeting. This involves a brief refresher of the previous year’s activities, with an update of new events, processes and circumstances shaping the current year’s presentations and deliberations. The Program Assessment criteria were approved by the PIRWG.

Post-meeting PIRWG follow-up questions and information requests should be emailed to the IAMT Director, IAMT Liaisons, and Enterprise Architecture representative as appropriate.

5.7 PRESENT APPROACH TO PROGRAM MANAGERS

At the March PM Quarterly meeting, the IAMT Director, IAMT Liaisons and others instruct Major Investment PMs on business case approach and Business Case tool functionality, and provide a brief overview of milestones and expectations for the upcoming Select Phase activities. PMs are provided with the PowerPoint instructional presentation, 2013 Select Phase calendar, and the PM CPIC calendar.

Post-meeting PM follow-up questions should be emailed to the IAMT Liaison.

5.8 SEND ASSESSMENT PRE-NOTIFICATION

Prior to annual PA onset, the IAMT Director emails an announcement to PMs advising them as to the upcoming PA.

PM Follow-up questions of a content nature should be emailed to the IAMT Liaison. PM Follow-up questions related to technical issues (using the self assessment spreadsheet) should be emailed to “OCIO IAMT@ed.gov”.

5.9 BEGIN SELF ASSESSMENT

On the scheduled PA start date, the IAMT Director emails an announcement to PMs advising them to start their self assessments. The announcement reiterates the schedule, key dates and documentation requirements, and provides the dial-in number and schedule for the open call sessions. Attachments include the PA Guide, Self Assessment Template, Calendar of events and any additional planned communications.

PM follow-up questions and information requests should be emailed to the IAMT Liaison.

5.10 REPORT COMPLETED SELF ASSESSMENT

When the PM has completed the Self Assessment (on or before the required date), he or she emails a notification to the appropriate IAMT Liaison with a courtesy copy to the IAMT Director and Segment Owner. The PM must post to their 2012 business case within the Business Case tool the Self Assessment Template and substantiating documentation (e.g. business case, test/performance reports, certification/accreditation documents, Earned Value analysis, Alternatives Analyses, Risk analyses as appropriate).

IAMT Liaison follow-up questions and information requests should be emailed to PMs, IAMT Director, and Segment Owner as appropriate.

5.11 REPORT SELF ASSESSMENT READY FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW

When the IAMT Liaison has completed preliminary validation of a Self Assessment (not later than seven work days after receipt), the Liaison emails a notification to the IRT with a courtesy copy to the IAMT Director, PM, and Segment Owner. The message includes a short narrative describing the validation process, confirmation that all required documentation was submitted and key highlights/issues.

IRT follow-up questions should be emailed to the IAMT Liaison.

5.12 REPORT INDEPENDENT RATING

Not later than ten working days after receiving the completed Self Assessment, the IRT completes its assessment and emails a notification to the IAMT Director accordingly. The message will include the IRT’s findings, conclusions, key issues/highlights, and scoring for the investment. The IRT must include the Program Assessment Results Report and any other appropriate documentation with the email.

IAMT Director’s questions and information requests should be emailed to the IRT or IAMT Liaison as appropriate.

5.13 REPORT FINDINGS AND SCORING

Upon acceptance/modification of the IRT’s investment review and scoring recommendations, the IAMT Liaison posts the results on the Business Case tool and saves a copy to the K: drive. Once the results have been posted, the IAMT Liaison emails a notification to the PM, with a courtesy copy to the IAMT Director, IRT, Enterprise Architecture (EA) representative, and Segment Owner. The message includes an overview of assessment findings and key issues, culminating in the investment score. A summary of the findings and scores will be provided the PIRWG by the IAMT Director.

Recipient questions should be emailed to the IAMT Liaison, who will likely need to talk with the IRT to respond to some questions.

5.14 REQUEST CORRECTIVE ACTION

If the Self Assessment or program performance is lacking in some fashion and requires a formal response, the IAMT Liaison emails a Corrective Action Request to the PM, with a courtesy copy to the IRT. The message will include the reasons for the request and PM response instructions. The Corrective Action Plan will be attached to the message.

PM questions and information requests should be emailed to the IAMT Liaison.

5.15 RESPOND TO CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUEST

Not later than five business days after receipt of a Corrective Action Request, the PM posts the response to the Business Case tool and notifies the IAMT Liaison via email with a courtesy copy to the Segment Owner. The message must provide a narrative explaining how the PM’s corrective actions have resolved any noted deficiencies. The PM includes substantiating documentation as appropriate and attaches all documents sought by the IAMT Liaison as part of the initial request.

IAMT Liaison questions and information requests should be emailed to the PM.

5.16 REQUEST RE-ASSESSMENT

When the IAMT Liaison receives new information/documentation from PMs in response to a Corrective Action Plan (or at the IAMT Director’s request), the Liaison emails a re-assessment request to the IRT, with a courtesy copy to the IAMT Director and Segment Owner. The message must describe the circumstances surrounding the initial assessment—in particular the deficiencies or performance issues requiring re-assessment—and the actions undertaken by or documentation provided by the PM.

The Liaison must provide in the email message the names of the documents requiring re-assessment and confirm that the appropriate files reside within the business Case tool. The Liaison must attach the initial Self Assessment, Program Assessment Results Report, Corrective Action Plan, PM response to the Corrective Action Request (including substantiating documentation), and other documents as appropriate.

Questions for the IRT should be emailed to the IAMT Liaison.

5.17 REPORT RE-ASSESSMENT

Not later than 10 working days after receiving the re-assessment request, the IRT emails its findings, conclusions, and suggested scoring for the investment to the IAMT Liaison and provides a courtesy copy to the IAMT Director. The IRT attaches an updated Program Assessment Results Report and other relevant documents as appropriate.

IAMT Director’s questions and information requests should be emailed to the IRT, IAMT Liaison, or Segment Owner.

5.18 ESCALATE REQUEST

In the event that PMs are deemed insufficiently responsive in completing self assessments or furnishing requested documents and information, and to ensure an effective PA process, the PA Guide establishes an escalation hierarchy involving increasing levels of management and oversight. The validation phase anticipates occasional errors or inadvertent omission of document submissions and calls for the IAMT liaison to contact the PM when they occur and in the case of Federal Student Aid (FSA) investments, copy the FSA Project Management Office (PMO) and the Segment Owner.

If contact with the PM fails to achieve the required results, the matter will be escalated according to the process delineated in the PA Guide. Figure G1 depicts the Escalate Request process.

Figure G1. Escalate Request

IAMT Liaison Requires Additional Information

Escalation Process

YES

Contact Investment PM, copy to FSA PMO & Segment owner

FSA?

End Process

= Start/End = Non FSA

Contact Investment PM

Satisfactory Response?

Satisfactory Response?

IAMT Director Informs

Principal Office Coordinator

Satisfactory Response?

ITPS Director informs

Segment Owner

Satisfactory Response?

PIRWG Chair informs FSA

COO

Satisfactory Response?

Satisfactory Response?

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES YES

IAMT Director Informs

Segment Owner

ITPS Director Informs

PIRWG Chair

NO

PIRWG Chair informs

Executive Sponsor

NO

YESYESYES YES

= FSA

5.19 PROVIDE CIO RATING

Not later than five business days after confirming the CIO rating, the IAMT Director emails the investment’s CIO rating to the PM, with a courtesy copy to the IAMT Liaison, IRT, EA, and Segment Owner. The CIO Ratings will be cleared by the Information Technology Program Services (ITPS) Director prior to posting the CIO Rating on the OMB Dashboard. The message will include a brief overview of the rationale behind the rating. Questions may be emailed to the IAMT Director.

Information requests should be directed to the IAMT Liaison.

5.20 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT COMMUNICATIONS FLOWS

Figure G2 depicts the communications flow for the Communiques described below. Note that because escalation requests are organization-specific (FSA vs. non-FSA), the “Escalate Request” scenario is shown as “As Needed” and described more fully in Section 5.18 above.

Figure G2. Program Assessment Communications Flows

Provide

CIO

Rating

Escalate Request

Report Re-assessment

Respond to

Corrective Action

Request

Request Re-assessment

Request Corrective

Action

Report Findings and

Scoring

Report Independent

Rating

Report Validated

Self Assessment

Report Completed

Self Assessment

Begin Self Assessment

Send Assessment

Pre-notification

Present Approach to PMs

Present Approach to

PIRWG

Verbal

PMs

PIRWG

IAMT

Director

IAMT

Liaison

EmailVerbal Email Email

Email

Email

Email

Email Email

Email EmailEmail

Email

As NeededIRT Email

Program Assessment Communication Flows

Email

= Communique Type = Communique Initiator = Communique Recipient

= CPIC Mailbox

APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

Acronym/Abbreviation Definition

BCR Baseline Change Request CIO Chief Information Officer DME Development/Modernization/Enhancement EA Enterprise Architecture ED Department of Education EVM Earned Value Management FY Fiscal Year GAO Government Accountability Office IAMT Investment & Acquisition Management Team IRB Investment Review Board IRT Independent Review Team (OCIO IAMT) IT Information Technology ITIM Information Technology Investment Management LCM Life Cycle Management NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer OMB Office of Management and Budget PIRWG Planning and Investment Review Working Group PMBOK Project Management Body of Knowledge PM Project Manager