state cio's 2011 apm report final (1)

8/10/2019 State Cio's 2011 Apm Report Final (1)

1/20

Report on the Management of

Legacy Application Assets

Report to the North Carolina General Assembly

January 2011

Office of State Chief Information Officer

Gerald Fralick, State CIO


2/20

[This page left blank intentionally]


3/20

3

Executive Summary

Since 2005, the State CIO has prepared a biennial report on applications used throughout stategovernment, as directed by law. This is the fourth biennial report.

Applications are a critical component of IT. Commonly referred to as computer programs,applications are the drive train that links the underlying technical infrastructure with the statesbusiness and program staff and the public. They provide convenient and quality services andoperate state government in a secure, reliable and predictable manner. Applications alsorepresent a large portion of the states IT budget. Spending by Executive Branch agencies forapplication operation and maintenance totals almost $260 million annually.

Overall, the total number of active applications reported by state agencies decreased from1,257 to 1,117. At least part of the decrease can be attributed to a change in how someagencies reported. Instead of reporting each application module as a separate application, theyconsolidated all modules of an application into one application record. To ensure consistency in

data, all agencies will be asked to report applications in the same format for the next report.

Highlights of the 2011 Report

Favorable trends: Applications that are in use statewide or throughout an agency are considered critical

because of their widespread usage and the impact if they failed. Critical applicationshave decreased from 46% to 31%. The decrease is a result of agencies gaining a betterunderstanding of what is truly critical.

Problem applications have high risk, low architectural fit or low operationalperformance. Potential problem applications that are classified as critical have

decreased from 6.8% to 4.6% of the total. Problem applications more than 20 years oldmake up a smaller percentage of the portfolio than in previous reports (28% in 2007 and2009; now 24%).

High Cost applications which have costs > $250,000 yearly have decreased slightlyfrom 9.7% to 9.1%.

Unfavorable trends: The age of the states application portfolio is beginning to increase. In 2007 and 2009

the average age of applications was 9 years. For 2011, the average age has increasedto 10.5 years. Applications over 10 years old have increased from 33.9% to 47.6% (455applications to 532 applications).

While the application portfolio is aging, agencies have fewer plans to replace, remediate

or modernize:o The percentage of mission critical applications potentially at risk with planned

near-term remediation has fallen from 5% in 2007 to 2%.o The percentage of applications that agencies plan to modernize in the next three

years has decreased from 24.7% to 22.7%.o The percentage of older applications (over 20 years old) with potential problems

that have remediation plans has fallen from 20% in 2007 to 3.2%.


4/20

4

The percentage of non-critical applications with high costs has increased from 4.6% to10.8%. These are applications that were deemed non-critical to statewide/agencyoperations that have annual operating and maintenance costs greater than $250,000.

While the data is self-reported by agencies, the unfavorable trends are beginning to show wherefunding is scarce and investment in replacing or remediating aging applications has become

difficult for state agencies. Given the current State budget challenges, this will create futureneed for spending on applications as the budget and funding landscape improves.


5/20

5

Background

Applications are the computer programs that deliver services and operate state government.They represent a significant portion of the states IT budget because they are often complex,expensive to develop and implement, and costly to maintain, upgrade and operate.

Accordingly, they must be closely monitored and managed to maximize value while minimizingcosts and risks over their life spans.

The State Chief Information Officer (CIO), administration and General Assembly launched acomprehensive asset management program with the passage of legislation in 2003. The StateCIO purchased software in 2004 to assist in application management. Armed with informationin the tool, the State CIO and agencies can perform statistical analyses to help determine thesignificant actions they should take, and the timing of those actions, to optimize benefits andmanage risks.

The initial report prepared in 2005 utilized an outside firm. The primary purposes of that studywere to identify applications that presented risks needing immediate attention and to categorizeapplications by timeframes for remediation or replacement. The report indicated that while therewere some applications that merited close attention, in general, the states application inventorywas acceptable. The study provided baseline information and a framework for later reports, butwas limited because it did not include the costs to operate and maintain applications, focusedon fact-finding (where we stand and what may be required), and was a snapshot at a point intime.

Recognizing that the evaluation and life cycle planning of applications is not a one-time,sporadic event, but a sustained, and structured effort, the State CIO implemented in 2005 andearly 2006 a comprehensive portfolio management software tool, with a fully-featuredcomponent for Asset Portfolio Management (APM). The intent was to:

Assist the State CIO in performing oversight duties and responsibilities.

Provide inventory, analysis, and life cycle decision-making support to agencies inperforming their responsibilities and accountability for the management of applicationassets.

Recognize serious potential problems and high-risk/high-impact situations in a timelymanner in order to take prompt and appropriate actions for mitigation.

Aware that the APM software tool alone would not be sufficient for agency executive, business,and technical staff to adequately manage applications, the State CIO sponsored acomprehensive education program focusing on the theories and best practices for APM.Processing templates, logic models, and detailed instructions were developed to assistagencies in applying key APM concepts, and training was given for performing relevantanalyses, asking pertinent questions, and developing appropriate management plans.

The second report, published in 2007, indicated that the agencies had progressed in theircapabilities for managing their applications. They had used the software tool to assist increating a detailed inventory of these assets; performing assessments of their status frombusiness, financial, and technical perspectives; and developing individual five-year managementplans. The statistical analyses performed by the State CIOs staff showed that the states


6/20

6

applications were in relatively good shape, with an average age of 9 years, close to the industryaverage. However 85 of the 1,257 applications indicated the need for close attention due topotential problems and the fact that they were critical for operations.

The third report, published in 2009, (the second using the data from APM software tool) enabledsome trend observations. Some favorable trends were observed. The number of low-

value/high cost applications decreased and the number and percentage of applications thatagencies indicated would be modernized or replaced in the next three years increased. Therewere also some unfavorable trends observed. The number of applications potentially at riskgrew as well as the number of mission-critical applications potentially at risk.

This document follows much of the focus, scope, and intent of the previous reports. Insummary, it is concerned with the status of the states portfolio of applications and the intentionsof agencies for their remediation, elimination or replacement.


7/20

7

Statist ical Summary

The table below offers some key statewide statistics for the 2011, 2009 and 2007 reports fromthe applications portfolio management software. For this report, more detailed information by

agency and statewide totals are presented in Appendix 1. This report presents data as of Fall2010.

Description2011

Report2009

Report2007

ReportTrend

Observations Significance CommentsGeneral Information

Total number of active applications 1,117 1,341 1,257 Decreasing See Note 1

Applications that have beenclassified as critical due tostatewide or departmental use ofthe application.

34330.7%

62346.4%

62549.7%

Decreasing Decrease in critical applications result in less suppand cost to the agency.

Applications that agencies indicatewill be modernized or replaced overthe next three years

25422.7%

33224.7%

24819.7%

Decreasing Percentage of applications with plans to bemodernized in the next three years has decreased2%.

Potential Problem Applications SeeNotes 2 and 3Total applications with potentialproblems

18816.8%

21516%

19615.6%

SlightIncrease

Percentage of applications potentially at risk hasincreased slightly.

Potential problem applications thatare classified as critical tostatewide or department operations

524.65%

926.9%

854.6%

Decreasing Percentage of portfolio that requires close attentiodecreasing.

Potential problem applications thatare classified as critical and haveplans to remediate or replace withinthe next three years

232%

503.7%

584.6%

Decreasing Percentage of close attention applications withplanned near-term action is trending downward ovthe last three reports.

Age Except ion Appli cat ions See Note 2Average age of statewide portfolio 10.5

years9 years 9 years Increasing Trend showing slowing of investment in applicatio

portfolio.Applications over 20 years old 149

13.3%

172

12.8%

154

12.2%

Slight

Increase

For all three reports percentage of portfolio subjec

potential problems due to age is increasing slightlyApplications over 20 years old andwith potential problems

3624.1%

4827.9%

4327.9%

Decreasing Percentage has decreased from previous years 20and 2007.

Applications over 20 years old withpotential problems and have plansto remediate or replace within thenext three years

96%

179.8%

3120.1%

Decreasing Percentage of older applications with potentialproblems that have plans is trending downward ovthe last three reports.

Cost Exception Applications See Note 4

Applications with high costs 1029.1%

1309.7%

1088.6%

Decreasing Percentage of high cost applications is decreasingfrom 2009 report

Applications with high costs thatare classified as non-critical

1110.8%

64.6%

98.3%

Increasing Percentage of low-value/high-cost applications isincreasing.

Total Statewide Costs See Note 5

Total annual operations and

maintenance costs for allapplications

$259.2 $266.2 $239.7 Decreasing Total cost decreased from FY 2007-08 but is still

greater than FY 2005-06

Note 1: Some agencies changed the way they report applications. Consolidating application modules,previously reported separately, into one application record; therefore the total number of applications hasdecreased. Agencies will be asked to report in a uniform manner in the future.Note 2:Potential problem applications are those that have low architectural fit scores, low operationalperformance scores, and/or high risk scores.Note 3:Critical applications are those considered important to statewide or departmental operations.Note 4:High costs for analysis purposes are annual operating and maintenance costs > $250k.Note 5:Costs are in millions and the two fiscal years correspond to the 2007 and 2009 reports.


8/20

8

Appendix 1 Key Appl ication Statist ics

The following seven tables provide statistical information from the APM software by agency andstatewide totals. Descriptions and definitions are given below.

Table 1 - General Statistical Informationcontains overview information of interest indetermining the priority and urgency for further review and evaluation of individualapplications. Problem applicationsare those that have low architectural fit scores, lowoperational performance scores, and/or high risk scores. Critical applications arethose classified as critical to statewide or departmental operations.

Table 2 - Age Statistical Informationprovides average age and number of applicationsin various age categories. Age, by itself, is not an indicator of problems, risk, or priority;however, older applications are more subject to problem and risk factors, such astechnical obsolescence, lack of vendor support, inability to meet changing businessrequirements, etc.

Table 3 - Cost Statistical Information gives order of magnitude cost information foroperating and maintaining applications. These costs may be useful in justifyingremediation or replacement decisions that offer lower annual operating expenses andrecognizing opportunities for retiring high-cost/non-critical applications to redirect fundsfor optimizing IT expenses.

Table 4 - Disaster Recovery Statistical Information offers return-to-service timerequirements for applications, and it gives the location for backup facilities (ITS or other).Other could be at the department, outsourcer, or no backup capabilities.

Table 5 - Potential Problems Statistical Information identifies total applications with

potential problems and those by problem type.

Table 6 - Critical and Non-Critical Statistical Information gives the number ofapplications by type of criticality. The column labeled Critical Applicationsis the sumof the columns labeled Statewide Critical and Department Critical (the two highestlevels of criticality). This is the same number as that in the column labeled Critical

Appl ications in theGeneral Statistical Information(first table above).

Table 7 PlansStatistical Informationgives the number of applications with intentionsfor modernization or replacement within the next three years.

Table 8 Priority Classification Statistical Information segregates applications by

relative importance to the agency (high or low critically) and severity of deficiencies/risks(large or small problems). Greater attention for action should be given to important(mission critical) applications with more severe technical or business problems (highrisks and severe adverse impact if risk materializes).


9/20

9

Table 1 General Statistical Information

Agency

Numberof

Active

Applications

Applications

withPlansin

Roadmapfor

FY2011-2014

Total

"Problem"

Applications

Critical

Applications

AverageAgeof

Applications

TotalFY2010

Operationsand

Maintenance

Application

Costs

Administration, Department of 52 1 17 28 9.31 $11,177,449Administrative Hearings, Office of 3 3 1 2 7.67 $2,980Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of 68 3 31 6 10.87 $947,800

Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 5 3 0 3 9.20 $194,320Auditor, Office of the State 4 2 0 0 5.00 $79,892Budget and Management, Office of State 9 0 4 1 14.00 $883,496Commerce, Department of 26 16 3 5 5.19 $984,845Controller, Office of the State 13 3 2 12 13.77 $21,447,954Correction, Department of 28 0 0 8 6.79 $18,361,930Crime Control and Public Safety, Department of 79 0 5 45 16.33 $7,922,359Cultural Resources, Department of 28 1 3 2 11.25 $226,756Employment Security Commission 18 0 0 9 15.33 $5,707,768Environment and Natural Resources, Department of 200 79 29 6 8.70 $2,802,627Health and Human Services, Department of 227 35 22 47 12.90 $88,616,192Industrial Commission - Workers' Compensation 8 8 5 3 10.13 $399,266Information Technology Services, Office of 27 6 6 12 5.93 $15,758,248Insurance, Department of 18 1 7 14 6.83 $614,343Justice, Department of 78 46 16 53 11.06 $2,734,411Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Department of 6 2 2 1 5.00 $909,633

Labor, Department of 7 1 0 7 7.43 $14,951North Carolina Community Colleges 5 1 0 5 13.80 $66,564Public Instruction, Department of 106 10 30 24 8.83 $23,098,594Revenue, Department of 15 7 1 8 9.33 $1,076,958Secretary of State, Department of the 1 0 0 1 10.00 $1,377,988State Board of Elections 5 0 0 5 5.80 $3,605,400Transportation, Department of 62 21 1 26 9.60 $43,465,993Treasurer, Department of the State 14 5 3 5 8.57 $5,510,479Wildlife Resources Commission 5 0 0 5 3.80 $1,197,326State Totals: 1,117 254 188 343 10.49 $259,186,522


10/20

10

Table 2 Age Statistical Information

Agency

NumberofActive

Applications

AverageAgeof

Applications

Over5YearsOld

Over10YearsOld

Over15YearsOld

Over20YearsOld

Administration, Department of 52 9.31 44 27 7 1

Administrative Hearings, Office of 3 7.67 3 1 0 0

Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of 68 10.87 49 23 17 13

Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 5 9.20 5 1 0 0

Auditor, Office of the State 4 5.00 2 0 0 0

Budget and Management, Office of State 9 14.00 7 4 4 4

Commerce, Department of 26 5.19 10 3 1 1

Controller, Office of the State 13 13.77 10 8 5 3

Correction, Department of 28 6.79 22 4 0 0

Crime Control and Public Safety, Department of 79 16.33 76 47 38 37

Cultural Resources, Department of 28 11.25 23 13 6 6

Employment Security Commission 18 15.33 18 16 10 5

Environment and Natural Resources, Department of 200 8.70 164 80 21 10

Health and Human Services, Department of 227 12.90 211 144 66 43

Industrial Commission - Workers' Compensation 8 10.13 6 4 1 1

Information Technology Services, Office of 27 5.93 13 7 0 0

Insurance, Department of 18 6.83 12 5 0 0

Justice, Department of 78 11.06 68 42 15 10

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Department of 6 5.00 3 0 0 0

Labor, Department of 7 7.43 6 0 0 0

North Carolina Community Colleges 5 13.80 5 2 2 1

Public Instruction, Department of 106 8.83 67 45 22 11

Revenue, Department of 15 9.33 13 7 3 0

Secretary of State, Department of the 1 10.00 1 1 0 0

State Board of Elections 5 5.80 3 1 0 0

Transportation, Department of 62 9.60 53 41 8 3

Treasurer, Department of the State 14 8.57 11 6 1 0

Wildlife Resources Commission 5 3.80 3 0 0 0

State Totals: 1,117 10.49 908 532 227 149


11/20

11

Table 3 Cost Statistical Information

Agency

NumberofActive

Applications

TotalFY2010

Operationsand

Maintenance

ApplicationCosts

Applicationswith

O&Mcostsover

$100,000/Year

Applicationswith

O&Mcostsover

$250,000/Year

Applicationswith

O&Mcostsover

$500,000/Year

Applicationswith

O&Mcostsover

$1,000,000/Year

Administration, Department of 52 $11,177,449 3 2 1 1

Administrative Hearings, Office of 3 $2,980 0 0 0 0

Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of 68 $947,800 4 0 0 0

Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 5 $194,320 0 0 0 0

Auditor, Office of the State 4 $79,892 0 0 0 0

Budget and Management, Office of State 9 $883,496 4 0 0 0

Commerce, Department of 26 $984,845 2 1 0 0

Controller, Office of the State 13 $21,447,954 9 6 4 2

Correction, Department of 28 $18,361,930 11 8 5 3

Crime Control and Public Safety, Department of 79 $7,922,359 6 5 2 2

Cultural Resources, Department of 28 $226,756 0 0 0 0

Employment Security Commission 18 $5,707,768 9 4 4 3

Environment and Natural Resources, Department of 200 $2,802,627 6 2 0 0

Health and Human Services, Department of 227 $88,616,192 43 25 19 12

Industrial Commission - Workers' Compensation 8 $399,266 2 0 0 0

Information Technology Services, Office of 27 $15,758,248 16 12 10 6

Insurance, Department of 18 $614,343 3 0 0 0

Justice, Department of 78 $2,734,411 6 1 0 0

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Department of 6 $909,633 3 1 0 0

Labor, Department of 7 $14,951 0 0 0 0

North Carolina Community Colleges 5 $66,564 0 0 0 0

Public Instruction, Department of 106 $23,098,594 15 6 4 3

Revenue, Department of 15 $1,076,958 2 1 1 0

Secretary of State, Department of the 1 $1,377,988 1 1 1 1

State Board of Elections 5 $3,605,400 3 3 2 1

Transportation, Department of 62 $43,465,993 27 19 13 8

Treasurer, Department of the State 14 $5,510,479 8 4 3 1

Wildlife Resources Commission 5 $1,197,326 3 1 1 0

State Totals: 1,117 $259,186,522 186 102 70 43


12/20

12

Table 4 Disaster Recovery Statistical Information

Agency

NumberofActive

Applications

ReturntoService

Requirementunder8

Hours

ReturntoService

Requirement

Between8and24

Hours

ReturntoService

RequirementOver24

Hours

BackupandRestore

atITS

BackupandRestore

Other

AdequateOffsite

BackupandRestore

Capability

Administration, Department of 52 10 34 6 32 20 25

Administrative Hearings, Office of 3 0 0 3 3 0 3Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of 68 6 10 22 9 59 57

Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 5 1 2 2 5 0 5

Auditor, Office of the State 4 0 1 3 0 4 1

Budget and Management, Office of State 9 6 1 2 9 0 9

Commerce, Department of 26 12 5 9 3 23 26

Controller, Office of the State 13 0 1 12 12 1 13

Correction, Department of 28 4 23 1 20 8 28

Crime Control and Public Safety, Department of 79 3 37 36 2 77 39

Cultural Resources, Department of 28 2 9 15 14 14 16

Employment Security Commission 18 8 7 3 11 7 18

Environment and Natural Resources, Department of 200 7 49 139 6 194 114

Health and Human Services, Department of 227 27 33 166 68 159 215

Industrial Commission - Workers' Compensation 8 1 0 2 6 2 8

Information Technology Services, Office of 27 14 0 13 17 10 26

Insurance, Department of 18 1 6 11 0 18 18Justice, Department of 78 9 50 19 0 78 78

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Department of 6 1 1 4 1 5 6

Labor, Department of 7 0 5 2 0 7 1

North Carolina Community Colleges 5 0 0 0 0 5 5

Public Instruction, Department of 106 8 14 80 29 77 72

Revenue, Department of 15 2 3 10 3 12 5

Secretary of State, Department of the 1 0 1 0 0 1 1

State Board of Elections 5 2 2 1 0 5 5

Transportation, Department of 62 3 27 32 15 47 28

Treasurer, Department of the State 14 0 4 10 14 0 14

Wildlife Resources Commission 5 5 0 0 0 5 5

State Totals: 1,117 132 325 603 279 838 841


13/20


14/20

14

Table 6 Critical and Non-Critical Statistical Information

Agency

NumberofActive

Applications

Critical

Applications*

StatewideCritical

Applications

DepartmentCritical

Applicatoins

ProgramCritical

Applications

Non-Critical

Applications

Administration, Department of 52 28 18 10 22 2

Administrative Hearings, Office of 3 2 1 1 1 0

Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of 68 6 1 5 43 12

Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 5 3 0 3 2 0

Auditor, Office of the State 4 0 0 0 0 4

Budget and Management, Office of State 9 1 0 1 7 1

Commerce, Department of 26 5 0 5 18 3

Controller, Office of the State 13 12 10 2 1 0

Correction, Department of 28 8 0 8 16 4

Crime Control and Public Safety, Department of 79 45 14 31 23 10

Cultural Resources, Department of 28 2 1 1 11 15

Employment Security Commission 18 9 6 3 0 9

Environment and Natural Resources, Department of 200 6 3 3 20 174

Health and Human Services, Department of 227 47 13 34 156 23

Industrial Commission - Workers' Compensation 8 3 0 3 2 0

Information Technology Services, Office of 27 12 8 4 6 9

Insurance, Department of 18 14 2 12 2 2

Justice, Department of 78 53 12 41 7 18

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Department of 6 1 0 1 0 5

Labor, Department of 7 7 0 7 0 0

North Carolina Community Colleges 5 5 1 4 0 0

Public Instruction, Department of 106 24 12 12 7 74

Revenue, Department of 15 8 0 8 5 2

Secretary of State, Department of the 1 1 0 1 0 0

State Board of Elections 5 5 5 0 0 0

Transportation, Department of 62 26 17 9 30 6

Treasurer, Department of the State 14 5 3 2 2 7

Wildlife Resources Commission 5 5 0 5 0 0

State Totals: 1,117 343 127 216 381 380


15/20

15

Table 7 Remediation Plans Statistical Information

Agency

NumberofActive

Applications

Applicationswith

PlansinRoadmap

forFY2011-2014

Applicationswith

RemediationPlans

in2011

Applicationswith

RemediationPlans

in2012

Administration, Department of 52 1 0 0

Administrative Hearings, Office of 3 3 3 0

Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of 68 3 1 0

Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 5 3 3 0

Auditor, Office of the State 4 2 2 1

Budget and Management, Office of State 9 0 0 0

Commerce, Department of 26 16 7 2

Controller, Office of the State 13 3 1 1

Correction, Department of 28 0 0 0

Crime Control and Public Safety, Department of 79 0 0 0

Cultural Resources, Department of 28 1 1 1

Employment Security Commission 18 0 0 0

Environment and Natural Resources, Department of 200 79 51 42

Health and Human Services, Department of 227 35 12 8

Industrial Commission - Workers' Compensation 8 8 0 6

Information Technology Services, Office of 27 6 5 3

Insurance, Department of 18 1 1 0

Justice, Department of 78 46 43 11

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Department of 6 2 1 0

Labor, Department of 7 1 1 0

North Carolina Community Colleges 5 1 1 0

Public Instruction, Department of 106 10 9 5

Revenue, Department of 15 7 7 0

Secretary of State, Department of the 1 0 0 0

State Board of Elections 5 0 0 0

Transportation, Department of 62 21 7 8

Treasurer, Department of the State 14 5 4 0

Wildlife Resources Commission 5 0 0 0

State Totals: 1,117 254 160 88


16/20

16

Table 8 Priori ty Classification Statistical Information

Agency

NumberofActive

Applications

LowCriticality

ApplicationwithLow

Problems

LowCriticality

Applicationwith

HighProblems

HighCriticality

ApplicationwithLow

Problems

HighCriticality

Applicationwith

HighProblems

(ActionQuadrant)

HighCriticality/

HighProblem

PlaninPlace

HighCriticality/

HighProblem

NoPlaninPlace

Administration, Department of 52 16 8 19 9 2 7

Administrative Hearings, Office of 3 1 0 1 1 1 0

Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of 68 32 30 5 1 0 1

Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 5 2 0 3 0 0 0

Auditor, Office of the State 4 4 0 0 0 0 0

Budget and Management, Office of State 9 4 4 1 0 0 0

Commerce, Department of 26 18 3 5 0 0 0

Controller, Office of the State 13 1 0 10 2 1 1

Correction, Department of 28 20 0 8 0 0 0

Crime Control and Public Safety, Department of 79 33 1 41 4 1 3

Cultural Resources, Department of 28 23 3 2 0 0 0

Employment Security Commission 18 9 0 9 0 0 0

Environment and Natural Resources, Department of 200 166 28 5 1 0 1

Health and Human Services, Department of 227 161 19 44 3 1 2

Industrial Commission - Workers' Compensation 8 1 4 2 1 1 0

Information Technology Services, Office of 27 11 4 10 2 1 1

Insurance, Department of 18 4 0 7 7 0 7

Justice, Department of 78 19 6 43 10 10 0

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Department of 6 3 2 1 0 0 0

Labor, Department of 7 0 0 7 0 0 0

North Carolina Community Colleges 5 0 0 5 0 0 0

Public Instruction, Department of 106 60 22 16 8 3 5

Revenue, Department of 15 7 0 7 1 1 0

Secretary of State, Department of the 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

State Board of Elections 5 0 0 5 0 0 0

Transportation, Department of 62 36 0 25 1 0 1

Treasurer, Department of the State 14 7 2 4 1 1 0

Wildlife Resources Commission 5 0 0 5 0 0 0

State Totals: 1,117 638 136 291 52 23 29


17/20

17

Appendix 2

147-33.90. Analysis of State agency legacy systems.

(a) The Office of Information Technology Services shall analyze the State's legacyinformation technology systems and develop a plan to ascertain the needs, costs, and time

frame required for State agencies to progress to more modern information technology

systems.

(b) In conducting the legacy system assessment phase of the analysis, the Office shall:

(1) Examine the hierarchical structure and interrelated relationships within

and between State agency legacy systems.(2) Catalog and analyze the portfolio of legacy applications in use in State

agencies and consider the extent to which new applications could be

used concurrently with, or should replace, legacy systems.

(3) Consider issues related to migration from legacy environments toInternet-based and client/server environments, and related to the

availability of programmers and other information technology

professionals with the skills to migrate legacy applications to otherenvironments.

(4) Study any other issue relative to the assessment of legacy information

technology systems in State agencies.

(c) Upon completion of the legacy system assessment phase of the analysis, the Office

shall ascertain the needs, costs, and time frame required to modernize State agencyinformation technology. The Office shall complete this phase of the assessment by

January 31, 2005, and shall report its findings and recommendations to the 2005 General

Assembly. The findings and recommendations shall include a cost estimate and time linefor modernization of legacy information technology systems in State agencies. The

Office shall submit an ongoing, updated report on modernization needs, costs, and time

lines to the General Assembly on the opening day of each biennial session. (2003-172, s.

1; 2004-129, s. 22.)


18/20

18

Appendix 3

Purpose and Benefits of Application Portfo lio Management

The management of application assets is important because they:

Are essential to the reliable, effective, efficient, and secure business operationsof state government, the accomplishment of its primary governmental initiatives,and the success of its governmental programs.

Represent significant capital investments and are expensive to operate, upgrade,enhance and maintain over their useful lives. Moreover, the mission critical onesincur extra planning efforts and associated expenses for data backup and systemrecoverability to support continuity of business in the event of a catastrophicfailure.

Present risks in the areas of security, confidentiality of records, privacy ofindividuals, and integrity of technical operations and business processes resulting in possible unfavorable public repercussions and significant financialrepercussions in the event of breach or failure.

Provide opportunities for delivering innovative, responsive, and quality servicesto constituents; achieve efficiencies of operations and improve the productivityand effectiveness of employees, and enhance the outcomes and results ofgovernmental programs. However, they must be implemented properly,operated proficiently, maintained effectively, and upgraded or enhancedperiodically to provide maximum value.

What is Application Portfolio Management (APM)?

Application assets are managed through the discipline of application portfoliomanagement (APM). In summary, APM is about how agencies measure and respond tothe business value, cost, operational and technical performance, and risk of theirapplication portfolios. APM employs a combination of business/IT governanceprocesses, portfolio management concepts, and best practices and techniques for assetlife cycle management. The goals are to obtain optimal performance and value fromapplications over their life spans while minimizing costs and risks and to consolidate,eliminate, or retire them when they are no longer business-acceptable, cost-justified, orrisk-tolerable.

In practice, many business shortcomings, technical problems, and operational risksassociated with aging applications can be attributed to outdated technologies; therefore,agency business, application, and infrastructure architectures are key considerations forthe management of applications. Accordingly, the road map for individual or groups ofrelated applications is often called the applications modernization plan because it showsthe paths and timeframes (what to do and when to do it) for removing technicallyobsolete applications from the portfolio or renovating them to employ more modern


19/20

19

designs and newer technologies and run on more cost-effective and better-performingplatforms.

Benefits of APMThe benefits of APM can be summarized in four areas highlighted below:

Reduce costs The identification of overlapping capabilities and unusedfunctions of applications to offer opportunities for retirements withoutreplacement, consolidation of like applications, or multiple retirements from acommon initiative (such as ERP replacing several legacy applications). Theremoval of redundant, elimination of low-value/high-cost, and technicalrenovation of high-maintenance applications free up funds for possible use onnew investments and innovative projects offering greater benefits.

Identify and reduce risks A list of areas creating potentially unacceptablerisks includes regulatory compliance (unable to meet), disasterrecovery/business continuity (unable to perform), security vulnerabilities, vendorviability for support or warranty coverage, product viability for technicalcomponents, loss of staff with technical or business knowledge, privacy(compromise of sensitive citizen data), information (unable to follow dataretention/deletion policies), and business failure (unable to support changingbusiness requirements).

Priorit ize capital investments An understanding of the state of the applicationportfolio from value, cost, and risk perspectives and its supporting ITinfrastructure provides important information for the IT investment review,

selection, and funding process.

Provide business value The development of application modernization plansassists in the alignment of IT initiatives with business strategies and enables thereengineering of business processes that improve efficiencies and effectivenessof governmental services and programs. The objective is to transform theapplications portfolio to a position that is more business-responsive, cost-optimized, financially-affordable, technically-suitable, and risk-acceptable.

Primary goals of the states application portfolio management effort include:

Maintain an accurate, up-to-date inventory.

Evaluate their present status:o Costs to operate and maintain.o Ability to support current and future agency business processes and the

operations of governmental programs.o Fit with the states technical architecture and each agencys business and

applications architectures.o Risk of technical and/or business failure due to lack of staff or vendor

support, technical obsolescence, defunct technical component, security


20/20

state cio's 2011 apm report final (1)

Documents