701A – CAM Roadmap 701B – CAM Plan Improvement and Monitoring 702 – State of Asset Management Score Cards 703 – Grading System – Data Quality and Process Effectiveness 704 – System Review Tool 705 – Service Area DAMP Development Schedule Appendix 700 Plan Improvement & Monitoring
16
Embed
701A –CAM Roadmap 701B –CAM Plan Improvement and ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
701A – CAM Roadmap701B – CAM Plan Improvement and Monitoring702 – State of Asset Management Score Cards703 – Grading System – Data Quality and Process Effectiveness704 – System Review Tool 705 – Service Area DAMP Development Schedule
Description5 Highly Reliable Data based on sound records, procedure, investigations and analysis,
documented properly and recognized as the best method of assessment.
Dataset is complete and estimated to be accurate +/‐ 2%.
4 Reliable Data Data based on sound records, procedures, investigations and analysis,
documented properly but has minor shortcomings, for example some data is
old, some documentation is missing and/or reliance is placed on unconfirmed
reports or some extrapolation. Dataset is complete and estimated to be
accurate +/‐ 10%.
3 Uncertain Data based on sound records, procedures, investigations and analysis which
is incomplete or unsupported, or extrapolated from a limited sample for which
grade 5 or 4 data are available. Dataset is substantially complete but up to
50% is extrapolated data and accuracy estimated +/‐ 25%.
2 Very Uncertain Data based on unconfirmed verbal reports and/or cursory inspection and
analysis. Dataset may not be fully complete and most data is estimated or
extrapolated. Accuracy +/‐ 40%.
1 Unknown None or very little data held
Process Effectiveness Confidence Grading System
Description5 Highly Effective The organization's AM activities are fully integrated and are being
continuously improved to deliver optimal whole life value. AM best practice
concepts are fully rolled out, and being practiced by all staff.
4 Effective The organization’s AM activities are fully effective and are being integrated
throughout the business. AM best practice concepts are fully rolled out, and
being practiced by most staff.
3 Somewhat Effecti The organization's AM activities are developed, embedded and are
becoming effective. Many AM best practice concepts are rolled out, and
being practiced by many staff.
2 Ineffective The organization is developing its AM activities and establishing them as
Business As Usual. Some best practice concepts are rolled out, and being
practiced to a limited extent.
1 Unknown 1 Unknown The organization is aware of the importance of AM and is starting to apply
this knowledge. Few best practice concepts are rolled out, and to a limited extent
Confidence Grade
Confidence Grade
703-1
Systems Review Workshop Results Halifax Water - April 6, 2011
City of Brampton - Corporate AM Program Date:
Systems Review Workshop
City of Brampton- AM Assessment- Systems Review Tool
Innocence Awareness Development Competence Excellence
1 2 3 4 5C M L C M L
Q1 Overall Strategic Planning
The Branch has had no involvement or input into the development of Corporate Strategic Plans related to Technology Assets (Software, hardware and Connectivity)
The Branch Management Team provides limited input relevant to Technology to the production of Corporate Strategic Plans and the reactive workload takes precedence over any longer term strategic planning within the Branch, although the need to think more strategically is understood but not resourced. Little involvement of the staff in the process.
The Branch Mgt Team provides input relevant to technology to the production of Corporate Strategic Plans and some effort is being made towards implementation of a more longer term strategic approach within the Branch. Some involvement from staff other then the managers.
The Branch Mgt Team provides technology related input to the production of Corporate Strategic Plans and the Plans reflect this. Longer term strategies are in place and are being implemented, progress is tracked regularly. There has been opportunity for staff representation from different levels in the Branch to be involved in the process and the resultant corporate plans are communicated to all levels of the Branch.
The Branch Mgt Team provides technology related input to the production of Corporate Strategic Plans. Longer term strategies within the BU are in place and progress is tracked on a regular basis, along with periodic updates. Everyone understands how they contribute to both the Branch's strategic plans and Corporate Strategic Plans and how they are able to influence the content of Branch and ultimately Corporate Strategic Plans.
2.0 3.0 5.0
Q2
Levels of Service for Technology Assets (Customer
as well as Assets)
No documentation of either Customer levels of service (internal as well as external) or asset levels of service related to technology exists and therefore there is no understanding of any gap in required level of service and provided level of service
Customer levels of service (internal as well as external) understood but not well documented. LOS have not been taken for comment/agreement to the BUs. Technology Asset Levels of Service have not been defined.
Customer LOS (internal as well as external) have been established and are well documented and are described in business plans approved by Senior Management, but true costs (people and assets) of maintaining or improving LOS is not understood. The linkage between Asset LOS, Performance Indicators, Key Performance indicators and customer LOS is not understood for technology asset.
Customer LOS (internal as well as external) has been approved by Senior Management and is fully documented and publicly available. The AMP indicates trend in change of level of service for technology assets required along with the resources required to attain changed LOS. Technology Asset LOS and Performance indicators are documented for internal use and the link to Customer LOS is largely understood, but still requires further data.
Periodic willingness to conduct surveys are used to obtain customer and stakeholder involvement in the setting of the customer LOS. Historic cost and LOS data is available to demonstrate the true cost of maintaining LOS and or improving LOS and this information is used as a basis for the development of strategic plans and justification of funding. The Branch can demonstrate that they are managing the asset LOS with the optimum mix of CAPEX and OPEX interventions and Performance Indicators to meet customer LOS.
2.0 3.0 5.0
Q3 Corporate LOS & Targets
The BU has not considered the need to link its Technology Asset Mgt objectives & targets to the City's Strategic Goals & Objectives - Council Priorities, or longer termstrategies
The BU is in the process of developing technology asset objectives, goals and KPIs that are derived from and are consistent with the City's Strategic Goals & objectives
The BU's objectives and goals for technology are derived from, and are consistent with the City's strategic goals & aims, but there remain gaps.
The BU's objectives and goals for technology assets are derived from, and are consistent with the City's strategic goals & aims. These are cascaded down from Council, to the Corporation, the BU Business Plan and form part of team and personal objectives. Clear targets are set for KPIs and reports show progress on a monthly basis, with results being communicated to all levels.
The Branch regularly reviews its goals & objectives for technology assets to ensure alignment with the City's strategic direction and where necessary aims to proactively influence corporate and other statutory requirements with a view to resetting targets. 2.0 3.0 5.0
Q4 Technology Assets Planning
No documented IT Master Plan (for an Integrated Technology Solution - ITS) in place (either for all Enterprise solutions or AM ) - reactive approach to hardware and software needs.
IT Master Plan (for an Integrated Technology Solution - ITS) is under development, but is not widely publicized and does not have input from end users.
Documented IT Master Plan (for an Integrated Technology Solution - ITS) in place, but has not been communicated widely and is only available to a limited number of staff.
IT Master Plan (for an Integrated Technology Solution - ITS) in place for asset mgt. Plan has involved a wide range of staff in its development and has been communicated to end users. Processes are in place for review of the plan, both on a periodic basis and based on feedback from end users.
Well documented and understood IT Master Plan (for an Integrated Technology Solution - ITS) for asset mgt in place. This is integrated into an overall IT master plan covering all business activities. This is updated annually, or as required and ensures the most appropriate mix of Technology assets, with appropriate interfaces, is in place to enable optimized AM Practices. End users are actively engaged in managing technology assets and feedback enables system to be optimized.
1.0 3.0 5.0
Technology Focus Area
Score Descriptions
Str
ateg
yC
ateg
ory
Qu Nos
Corporate IT Fleet
Page 1 of 4
704-1
Systems Review Workshop Results Halifax Water - April 6, 2011
City of Brampton- AM Assessment- Systems Review Tool
Innocence Awareness Development Competence Excellence
1 2 3 4 5C M L C M L
Technology Focus Area
Score Descriptions
Cat
ego
ry
Qu Nos
Corporate IT Fleet
Q5Business Case to Support
Technology Assets
The Branch has not considered the need for a business case to support acquisition of new technology assets or upgrade to existing assets
The Branch has developed informal rationale to support acquisition of new technology assets or upgrade to existing assets
The Branch develops business cases for technology assets management - clear economic indicators are developed (e.g. NPV, ROI and Payback Period)
The Branch develops business cases for technology assets management on a regular basis - clear economic indicators are developed (e.g. NPV, ROI and Payback Period). In addition, Intangible benefits are identified based on expected impact of the various technologies on the operations
The Branch develops a business case for the Integrated Technology Solution (ITS) - clear economic indicators are developed (e.g. NPV, ROI and Payback Period). In addition, Intangible benefits are identified based on expected impact of the various technologies on the operations
3.0 4.0 5.0
Q6 Benefits Tracking
The Branch has not considered the need to track any benefits (tangible or intangible) associated with technology assets
The Branch has captured information on benefits from technology assets or upgrade to existing assets
The Branch has developed a framework for tracking Tangible Benefits from Technology Solutions.
The Branch has developed a framework for tracking both Tangible and Intangible Benefits from Technology Solutions.
The Benefits Tracking framework provides an overall view of both Tangible and Intangible Benefits for the ITS as well as the major technology systems. This is updated when new technologies are added to the ITS or existing systems are upgraded. Reports on Benefits Tracking are prepared and circulated on an annual basis.
2.0 3.0 5.0
Q7 Business applications
Few or limited technology solutions are available for use by staff
Staff are evaluating systems and are experimenting, but are operating in separate groups and dealing with various vendors on a silo basis.
Staff have identified necessary systems and they working with IT to implement and integrate them
All key business applications (e.g. CWMS, AMS, FIS, GIS, SCADA etc) are in place to support and optimize business processes
IT and representative Branch Staff actively seek out, evaluate and pilot new technology solutions that could enhance productivity and effectiveness 4.0 4.0 5.0
Q8 Asset Registry
No documented common registry or asset database. Not sure what assets are owned by the Branch.
50% of Assets are accurately captured in separate registries by Branches
All assets are accurately captured in separate registries by Branch
Integration is underway for a City wide Registry all City Assets. Information in the Branch asset registry is easily accessible to those requiring access.
One Registry is in place for all City Assets that includes all pertinent information on asset. Process in place for review of data 2.0 3.0 5.0
Q9 Hardware and Networking
Technology Hardware and Networking is acquired on an adhoc basis, end users have limited access and experience regular performance issues. No plan in place to ensure that hardware meets asset management needs
Core hardware and networking is in place but there are issues with user access and system performance. No plan in place to ensure that hardware meets asset management needs
Hardware and networking requirements from a key part of the IT Master Plan, there is adequate access for end users, acceptable system performance, however, upgrades and replacements do not keep pace with technology advances
Hardware and Networking specifications are designed to match overall technology needs. All end users have full access and are satisfied with overall performance. Upgrades and replacements are done based are carried out but tends to lag behind industry changes.
Hardware and Networking specifications are designed to match overall technology needs. All end users have full access and are very satisfied with overall performance. Projects are carried out on a regular basis to keep current and meet end user needs as identified in the IT Master Plan. There is close coordination between Technology providers and End Users to ensure
4.0 4.0 5.0
Q10Technology Asset Investment
Plans (AIP)
Reactive approach to developing input for the Technology Investment projects are not ranked. Time frame is 1-2 years
Business Unit staff provide input on an annual basis to the AIP based on subjective judgments of technology needs. No cost allocation for projects.
Risk workshops carried out for technology asset groups, is used to develop input to the AIP. Time frame is up to 5 years.
A consistent risk based approach is applied and all critical technology assets have been identified. Governance procedure in place for the progress of projects from needs identification to commissioning and costs are allocated to the correct purpose categories.
Well documented full risk based approach is applied to the AIP program for technology assets, using a standard risk model. Projects are continually assessed and whole life costs reviewed to assess continued viability. 2.0 3.0 5.0
Rat
iona
l for
Sys
tem
sT
echn
olog
y A
sset
s
Page 2 of 4
704-2
Systems Review Workshop Results Halifax Water - April 6, 2011
City of Brampton- AM Assessment- Systems Review Tool
Innocence Awareness Development Competence Excellence
1 2 3 4 5C M L C M L
Technology Focus Area
Score Descriptions
Cat
ego
ry
Qu Nos
Corporate IT Fleet
Q11 Selection Process
No clear or standard selection processes in place for Technology assets, very little or no end-user involvement in the process.
Selection of Technology assets is driven primarily by the IT BU with very little or no end-user involvement in the process. Systems are selected based on a Corporate view only.
BUs follow a selection process for Technology Assets but this process is not standard across BUs. The selection team is limited to BU staff.
A standard selection for acquiring technology assets (including: Team Selection, Functional/Technical Requirements, Market Survey, RFI & RFP, Demos, Reference Checks, Site Visits and Vendor Negotiations). Selection Teams have representatives from all key interest groups (including end users).
A standard selection process is used by all BUs for acquiring technology assets. Selection Teams have representatives from all key interest groups (including end users). The focus is development of a long term partnership with the selected vendor. 4.0 4.0 5.0
Q12 Implementation Process
No clear or standard Implementation processes in place for Technology assets, very little or no end-user involvement in the process.
Implementation of Technology assets is driven primarily by the IT Branch with very little or no end-user involvement in the process. Systems are implemented without a clear understanding of the business processes to be enabled.
Branch's follow an Implementation process for Technology Assets but this process is not standard across Brnaches. The Implementation Team is limited to Branch staff.
A standard Implementation Process is in place for acquiring technology assets (including: Pre-planning, Conference Room Pilot, Field Trial, Rollout). Implementation Teams have representatives from all key interest groups (including end users).
A standard implementation process is used by all Branches for implementing technology asset solution. Implementation Teams have representatives from all key interest groups (including end users and vendor resources). The focus is ensuring that the solutions implemented truly enables AM and there is Buy In from end-users.
3.0 4.0 5.0
Q13 Post Implementation Review
There is no process in place to check that Technology Implementations have been successful and meet the goals and objectives for the project as well as the end-user needs
Informal process in place to check on status and level of success of Technology Implementations. No formal action planning is in place to correct any deficiencies identified.
Branches have a process in place to check on status and level of success of Technology Implementations. There is no standardization of the process across Branches. There is informal action planning in place to correct any deficiencies identified.
All Technology Asset implementations are subjected to a standard formal review using a multi-disciplinary team (including a vendor rep) focusing on performance, end-user access, ease of use and buy-in, data quality and quantity, data use to drive decision making. Immediate action is taken to improve the system.
All Technology Asset implementations are subjected to a standard formal review focusing on performance, end-user access, ease of use and buy-in, data quality and quantity, data use to drive decision making. Action is taken to immediately improve overall results. Medium and longer term projects go into the Capital Planning process for Technology assets
2.0 3.0 5.0
Q14Technology Systems
Integration
Limited technology and no integration - extensive use of paper or manual systems
Use of stand alone spreadsheet tools and databases and any systems in use are unsupported or obsolete.
Stand alone Commercial Off The Shelf (COTTS) systems are in place to support business processes, but are not integrated.
Systems integration is in place for key systems e.g. the finance information system and the CWMS, but there are still areas where the optimum value is not being extracted from the data in the systems, or where the same data is input into several different systems.
A full Integrated Technology Solution in place using modern integration techniques (Data warehouse, Middleware etc.) and is under regular review - the concept of "data entered once and used many times" is in place.
4.0 4.0 5.0
Q15Technology Asset
Governance/Management
A short term approach to managing the assets takes precedence to a longer term sustainable approach. Resources not made available to progress an asset mgt approach.
The need to move towards a more planned environment is understood but resource or time limitations are restricting progress. No formal governance procedures in place with regard to managing technology assets.
The management team are agreed on a move towards adopting asset management approach to technology assets. IT staff still own and manage technology assets. There continues to be an adversarial relationship between IT and Branch staff.
Branch Senior management actively encourage and support partnership with IT and BU staff for technology assets. Funding and resources are made available for the adoption of new processes and systems. The Organization design provides for AM Roles related to managing technology assets (e.g. a CMMS coordinator) however the design is not fully implemented.
A mix of Centralized (IT Staff) /Decentralized (Branch Staff) organization design is in place for managing technology assets. BUs have clearly defined roles for managing technology assets. There is an active Technology Steering Committee (with cross Branch representation) for managing technology assets in the short, medium and long term. Governance procedures are in place and
3.0 4.0 5.0
Q16 System Support
All system support is provided through the IT Group for Software, Hardware and Connectively issues. There is no formal Help Desk process in place. Service is considered to be poor.
All system support is provided through the IT Group for Software, Hardware and Connectively issues. There is no formal Help Desk process in place and BUs have developed informal support systems to ensure continuity of operations.
Post Implementation Reviews of Technology Asset Implementation have identified significant gaps in system support. There is overall BU, IT and Senior Management agreement of solutions to improve service levels and overall performance.
The BUs have partnered with IT to develop clear levels of service for Technology Assets. The Help Desk has been implemented and service levels have improved from a joint effort between IT and BU Staff.
There is an effective Help Desk (with issue tracking and management capability) together with remote desktop control in place. The organization design provides for advanced users providing the first line of support with back up from the Help Desk. The vendor partnerships are very effective and leads to effective resolution of issues.
4.0 5.0 5.0
Sel
ectio
n an
d Im
plem
enta
tion
nd S
yste
m S
uppo
rt
Page 3 of 4
704-3
Systems Review Workshop Results Halifax Water - April 6, 2011
City of Brampton- AM Assessment- Systems Review Tool
Innocence Awareness Development Competence Excellence
1 2 3 4 5C M L C M L
Technology Focus Area
Score Descriptions
Cat
ego
ry
Qu Nos
Corporate IT Fleet
Q17 Learning and Development
Training and development is prescribed (both for IT support and use of technology systems) and available courses are part of the standard corporate program - no skills analysis has been done
Skills gap is developed based on desired AM Job Descriptions and Technology Support needs. Less than 50% of Skills gap analysis complete and no training plans in place.
50% of staff skills gap analysis complete and 50% of staff IT training plans implemented. Short term training needs identified, but no longer term development plans in place.
100% of staff's (AM) training needs assessment done and training under way for all staff. There is a high degree of confidence that all staff have the right skills to use and support Technology Assets. Competency based role profiles exist for all staff. Development plans, aimed at the medium to long term are also in place.
AM Skills development is a continuous process with regular supervisor and subordinate development sessions that provide input to the training program ensuring skills gaps are filled. Skills are periodically assessed against external benchmarks.
1.0 2.0 4.0
Q18Knowledge retention & Succession planning
Branch Management has not considered the need for a formal approach to knowledge management with respect to Technology Assets and takes a reactive approach.
Succession planning is carried out for a limited number of staff, however, no strategies are in place to manage knowledge. Knowledge management is carried out at a local level.
Potential retirees are identified and Branch Staff work with HR to fill vacancies as they arise. A knowledge management system is under development
Knowledge management strategies are documented and are in use by Branch Management in partnership with HR. There is continuity of people resources for managing assets. Succession planning in place for all key technical staff
Knowledge management strategies are documented and incorporated into an appropriate technological solution and are practiced by Branch Management in partnership with HR. There is continuity of people resources for managing technology assets. Succession plans in place for all critical staff.
1.0 2.0 4.0
Q19 Data Maintenance
Data is not maintained and cannot be relied on. Databases are incomplete (<50%) of key records. No program or processes in place for reviewing or updating data
Processes for data maintenance are being developed. Databases are still incomplete (<75%) of key records. Data maintenance is ongoing in certain areas of the Branch.
Databases are >90%. Data for critical assets is maintained and kept relevant. Process for database record maintenance has been developed, but is only being applied to certain asset groups, or certain parts of the Branch
Program in place across all database records for all systems for periodic re-surveying and updating of data. Databases are close to 100%. Timetable is based on fixed period surveying. Process is in place for the maintenance of data. Confidence grades to be either A3, B2 or better. Action Plans for data improvement are in place and being implemented.
Records (e.g. asset records) are resurveyed and data updated on periodic basis, with the time interval based on a robust statistical analysis. Action plans for continuous data improvements are well established and are being tracked.
3.0 4.0 5.0
Q20Lifecycle Management
Strategies
Technology is not considered to be an asset and there is no process in place to manage lifecycles.
There is general recognition of the investment in Technology, but management of these assets continues to be reactive and is left to the IT Group.
IT and Branches work independently to keep the various technology solutions current. The process is still reactive and usually driven by market changes.
IT and Branches work together to keep the various technology solutions current. There is active scanning for technology related business drivers as well ongoing research into new ways technology assets can enable asset management. Both IT and BUs implement Vendor Management concepts to ensure that vendor related issues are actively resolved or managed.
A System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) approach is in place for managing the ITS on a release basis. This falls under the responsibility of the Technology Steering Committee and the IT Group. These teams ensure that overall goals and objectives for technology are met and the ITS is always current and supports end-user needs.
3.0 4.0 5.0
Sys
tem
Life
cycl
e M
anag
emen
tG
over
nanc
e an
Page 4 of 4
704-4
Appendix 705 ‐ CAMP ROADMAP ‐ SERVICE AREA DAMP DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
Priority Services Service Area Departmental Asset Management Plan Asset Hierarchy covered in 1st CAM (2016) Level 4‐ Types of Services Level 6‐ Asset Classes Level 7‐ Asset Sub Classes
Target Date for
DAM Plan
Primary
Responsibility
1 Facilities
Corporate Facilities; Fire Facilities; Library
Facilities; Parks & Recreation Facilities; Transit