Thursday, February 02, 2006

More on the Business Case for Enterprise Applications

As promised yesterday, here’s a preview of this afternoon’s Cost Cutting Caucus meeting where the Caucus will be hearing a presentation from Tim Bass on the Enterprise Applications Program.

For a preview of why this is so important, and why this is a key area to begin examining potential cost-savings, here’s the introduction from Bill Leighty’s presentation Jan. 24th to the Senate Subcommittee on Capital Outlay and Special Projects:

What we learned in May 2005 …
· Due diligence activities in 2005 uncovered an amazing situation. After surveying and interviewing 46 Executive Branch agencies regarding just 26 business processes, the following was discovered:

o 250 Administrative, Financial, Human Resource and Supply Chain Management systems

o All shapes, sizes and varieties – manual, spreadsheet, PC, server, mainframe and web

o 4750 FTEs are needed to run/use these systems (this includes technical staff to support them)

o It costs $308 million annually to keep this environment going

o Extrapolated to the rest of the Executive Branch (minus Higher Ed) the annual cost is estimated to be $441 million

o Redundant data entry and, therefore, duplicate data

o Old and inflexible technology (such as COBOL) that is difficult to change and which support for is getting more and more difficult to find in the marketplace

o A LOT of suggestions for improvement from the agency staff, they need more capabilities than what the current systems provide – VALUE ADD


  • 4,750 employees to run/use 250 "systems"...

    Are they calling each Excel spreadsheet a "system"?

    Wonder how many are running and how many are using. That sounds like a really big number of employees. Of course, even if you replace an application you will not reduce the number of employees that input to the system unless the data can come from somewhere else.

    $441 million annual cost - It will be interesting to see how much the "new" system(s) cost although better is not always cheaper.

    I hope we get more info soon on what's going on with the EA. All anyone has heard is that we hired CGI. What did we hire them to do?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2/02/2006 5:17 PM  

  • Nevermind, I found the answer to my question.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2/04/2006 2:10 AM  

  • Chris, you never did(I'm sure it was unintentional) answer my question concerning Matt being a member of the CCC.

    By Blogger republitarian, at 2/04/2006 8:49 AM  

  • Myron,

    Matt has attended every CCC meeting.


    By Anonymous Chris Saxman, at 2/04/2006 12:00 PM  

  • Off topic but 2 ideas that have come up around the office:

    1)Does the state pay any fees to have the cafeterias in the larger buildings (SEC, Monroe)? If so, could those cafeterias become a food court? Something like in the malls. Maybe with pizza, taco bell, arbys? They could pay their own costs for electricity, rent, etc. and would most like be a godsend to the employees that work in those buildings.

    2)Any way we could save money by requiring only one license plate on vehicles? I know the prisoners make them and they are probably pretty cheap labor but wouldn't it cut the price of supplies in half?

    By Blogger Lucy Jones, at 2/05/2006 8:14 AM  

  • Lucy,
    Thanks for the suggestions/comments. I'm still working on getting that open thread up for ideas-- hopefully later today!

    On the license plates, I know this is an idea that comes up regularly. I think the last figure was it would save about $1.9 million annually to only do one license plate. Every time it comes up though, state and local law enforcement argue vehemently against getting rid of the front plates. Certainly worth a closer look though, as many states seem to operate just fine with only one tag on vehicles.

    By Anonymous whitney, at 2/06/2006 9:59 AM  

  • Thanks Whitney

    Back to work we go... Next idea...

    By Blogger Lucy Jones, at 2/06/2006 1:12 PM  

  • Mr. Saxman,

    I think the Republitarian wants to know if Matt is a MEMBER. That should be a yes or no answer. Just because you attend meetings doesn't make you a member.

    I must say it is encouraging to see Matt's diligence in his meeting attendence considering his past history.

    The people of this district heard repeatedly from Matt that he was looking forward to being a MEMBER of the CCC.

    By Blogger Tierpfleger, at 2/07/2006 9:00 AM  

  • Yo Dems, I thought Republican Matt Lohr won the election.

    Let the man do his job.

    ~ the blue dog

    By Blogger Steven, at 2/08/2006 5:09 PM  

  • Yo Steve, I just want a clarification. There is a HUGE difference between attending meetings and being a voting member.

    Think they'll let me vote at the next BOS meeting??????????????

    By Blogger republitarian, at 2/08/2006 8:01 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home