A performance audit of the Department of Administration-Data Center

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE d~ THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMl NISTRATION-DATA
CENTER
DECEMBER 1981
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 81 - 24
07FICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFOXMANCE AUDIT OF THE
DEPAiiTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION - DATA CENTER
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 81- 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTIOli . LTD BACKGROUND
SUNSET FACTCSS
FINDINGS
FINDING I
Changes are necessary to improve the DOA- Data
Cenzer's project development process.
CONCLUSION
FINDING I1
Improvements are needed i n t h r e e a s p e c t s of the
management of the DOA- Data Center: management
philosophy, planning and problem resolution procedures.
CONCLUSION
SECOMMENDATIONS
FINDING I11
The DOA- Data Center does not monitor o r evaluate
i t s p r i n t i n g process adequately.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
OTHER PERTIXEPJT INFORMATION
WRITTEN RESPOXSE TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
- Page
i
1
5
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
Department of Administration - Data Center ( DOA-~ atac enter) i n response
to a January 30, 1980, resolution of the J o i n t Legislative Oversight
Committee. This performance audit was conducted a s a part of the Sunset
review s e t f o r t h i n Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s ( A. R. s.) $$ 41- 2351 through
41- 2379
The Department of Administration ( DOA) Data Center provides centralized
data processing services t o S t a t e agencies. These services include the
collection of data, computer processing of data, development of computer
programs and technical support t o agencies u t i l i z i n g computer services.
The DOA- Data Center provides these services t o more than 40 d i f f e r e n t
State agencies, boards and commissions.
We found that the DOA- Data Center's project development process is
deficient i n four areas: 1) projects are not evaluated or planned
properly, 2) the DOA- Data Center spends an excessive amount of time
performing the coding function, 3) projects a r e not monitored properly,
and 4) the DOA- Data Center does not follow project review and acceptance
procedures. We also found t h a t 1 ) user agencies are not provided
a l t e r n a t i v e s t o the DOA- Data Center f o r t h e i r automation needs, and
2) a l l of the above problems have been compounded by high s t a f f turnover
i n the Systems and Programming section. A s a r e s u l t , the DOA- Data Center
does not complete most projects within budgeted costs or completion dates.
To more e f f e c t i v e l y and e f f i c i e n t l y serve the needs of the agencies the
DOA- Data Center serves we found the DOA- Data Center needs t o change:
- A management philosophy that includes providing whatever a user
agency may request regardless of whether the request w i l l r e s u l t
i n i n e f f i c i e n t uses of DOA- Data Center resources.
- A planning process t h a t is not s u f f i c i e n t l y coordinated with user
agencies' needs and is based on inadequate data.
- A problem- resolution process t h a t has never been forinally
established and implemented within the management systems of the
Center.
Reviewing t h e p r i n t i n g function we determined the DOA- Data Center does not
monitor the time t h a t the p r i n t e r s stand i d l e . In addition, the Center
does not monitor unnecessary use of t h e p r i n t i n g process by user agencies
or by its own personnel.
Two e r r o r s i n the DOA- Data Center b i l l i n g system caused DOA- Data Center to
undercharge users f o r printing by approximately $ 300,000. Further, a
DOA- Data Center evaluation of the printing process f a i l e d t o detect these
b i l l i n g e r r o r s . F i n a l l y , t h e DOA- Data Center purchase of an a d d i t i o n a l
p r i n t e r was not properly j u s t i f i e d given 1) the unnecessary printing t h a t
is occurring, and 2) the f a c t that an apparent increase i n u t i l i z a t i o n of
the p r i n t e r s is due i n part t o the correction of b i l l i n g system e r r o r s
which had resulted i n users not being charged f o r a l l printing and
printing u t i l i z a t i o n t o be under- reported.
We report a s Other Pertinent Information the observations and
recommendations f o r improvements made by consultants employed by the
Office of the Auditor General. These observations included:
- The Center's use of a chargeback cost- recovery system which
provides negative incentives f o r efficiency as opposed t o a
cost- accounting cost recovery system which provides positive
incentives.
- The need f o r the Center to widen its s t a f f ' s exposure to training
i n additional management techniques.
- Possible improvements i n the handling of computer tapes.
Consideration should be given t o the following recommendations:
1. The DOA- Data Center should:
a. Change the policy of performing the synopsis and evaluation
phases of a project f r e e of charge i f the user agency does
not proceed with development.
b. Revise the Policy and Standards Manual t o c l a r i f y the
methods for performing each task i n the project development
process, especially f e a s i b i l i t y studies.
c. Adopt a timesharing " style" of development.
d. Analyze the coding function and adopt a method to reduce
coding costs which might include:
- structured programming,
- modular programming,
- reusable code i n the form of l i b r a r y routine, or
- breadboard programming.
e. Monitor projects more closely including more timely updating
of project plans and s t a t u s reports, and ensuring t h a t
project changes are documented.
f. Follow the established project review and acceptance
procedures when concluding projects.
2. The Legislature should consider providing the DOA- Data Processing
Division with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of e s t a b l i s h i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n
review process s i m i l a r t o the EDP equipment acquisition review
process. Such an application review process should include needs
analysis, cost b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s , f e a s i b i l i t y studies - and an
exploration of a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r meeting needs.
3. On an on- going basis, the DOA- Data Center should review and
formally notify u s e r s , t h e DOA- Data Processing Division, the
Executive Budget Office and the J o i n t Legislative Budget
Committee s t a f f of practices or requests that w i l l r e s u l t i n
i n e f f i c i e n t uses of DOA- Data Center resources.
iii
4. The DOA- Data Center a s s i s t a l l users i n preparing data processing
plans and u t i l i z e these plans t o prepare a long- range resource
plan.
5. The BOA- Data Center adopt a b i l l i n g / d a t a gathering system t h a t
provides more u s e f u l d a t a for management planning and control.
6. The DOA- Data Center develop a formalized, centralized problem
resolution function. Consideration should f u r t h e r be given to
assigning t h i s function t o the Quality Control Group.
7. The DOA- Data Center monitor program dumps t o determine what
action should be taken t o reduce t h e i r frequency.
8. The DOA- Data Center evaluate in- house printing and eliminate a l l
unnecessary use of the printing resource.
9. The DOA- Data Center revamp the b i l l i n g system to ensure that
users are charged correctly and t o ensure accurate information
f o r management purposes.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
Department of Administration - Data Center ( DoA-~ ata center) i n response
t o a January 30, 1980, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight
Committee. This performance audit was conducted as a part of the Sunset
review s e t f o r t h i n Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s ( A. R. s.) § § 41- 2351 through
41- 2379.
The Department of Administration ( DOA) Data Center provides centralized
data processing services to S t a t e agencies. These services include the
collection of data, computer processsing of data, development of computer
programs and technical support to agencies u t i l i z i n g computer services.
The DOA- Data Center provides these services t o more than 40 d i f f e r e n t
S t a t e agencies, boards and commissions.
I n 1970 the Legislature recognized the need f o r centralized and
I, coordinated data processing services and 1) prescribed t h a t the then
Commissioner of Finance provide such services t o S t a t e departments,
agencies, boards and commissions, and 2) created the Data Processing
Revolving Fund f o r the purpose of allowing governmental u n i t s t o contract
f o r data processing services with the Department of Finance. Accordingly,
t h e Legislature appropriated $ 483,000 f o r the revolving fund.
Subsequently, e f f o r t s were made to consolidate the S t a t e ' s data processing
a c t i v i t i e s i n t o centralized data processing operations centers.
I n 1973 the Department of Administration was created; the Data Processing
Division was established within it; and the Data Processing Revolving Fund
and the authority to e s t a b l i s h data processing operations centers and
provide data processing services to S t a t e agencies was transferred t o the
Division. E f f o r t s to consolidate the S t a t e ' s data processing resources
were culminated i n 1975 when the Governor's Office designated and
authorized five centralized S t a t e data processing operations centers,* one
of which was the DOA- Data Center.
The DOA- Data Center o r i g i n a l l y reported to the DOA a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r f o r
Data Processing ( ~ a t aP rocessing ~ i v i s i o n.) I n 1978, the reporting
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the DOA- Data Center was transferred from the Data
Processing Division to t h e Director of the Department of Administration.
A l l a c t i v i t i e s of the DOA- Data Center are funded from the Data Processing
Revolving Fund. Table 1 shows the revenues, expenditures and full- time
equivalent employees ( FTE) of the DOA- Data Center f o r the f i s c a l years
1976- 77 through 1980- 81.
The o t h e r f o u r s t a t e data processing operations centers are housed i n
the Departments of Transportation, Public Safety, Revenue and Economic
Security.
TABLE 1
REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND FULL- TIME EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEES OF THE DOA- DATA CENTER
FOR FISCAL YEARS 1976- 77 THROUGH 1980- 81
Fiscal Years
1976- 77 1977- 78 1978- 79 1979- 80 1980- 81
Number of FTE' s - 94 - 95 - 101 - 100 - 122
Total Revenue $ 2,876,717 $ 3,286,910 $ 3,905,803 $ 4,410,460 $ 4,964,297
8 EXPEND1 TURES :
Personal services $ 965,700 $ 1,127,500 $ 1,299,000 $ 1,490,200 $ 1,854,051
Employee- related expense 136,800 205,300 245,800 284,800 361,827
Professional and outside
services 41,400 3,800 53,900 99,800 85,115
Travel:
In State 5,200 3,900 3,800 3,900 4,503
Out of State 2,100 2,000 1,300 1,500 3 , 951
Other operating expense 547,900 563,600 611,500 799,000 1,060,423
Equipment 836,300 1,196,000 1,781,500 1,538,200 1,838,330
TOTAL
EXCESS ( DEFICIT) REVENUES $ 341.317 $ 184.810 $ ( 90.997) $ 193.060 $ ( 243.903)
The Auditor General expresses gratitude t o the manager of the
DOA- Data Center and h i s s t a f f f o r t h e i r cooperation and assistance
during the course of the audit.
SUNSET FACTORS
SUNSET FACTOR: THE OBJECTIVE AND
PURPOSE I N ESTABLISHING THE DATA CENTER
The DOA- Data Center was created by administrative action and not through
enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . Therefore, there is no statement of l e g i s l a t i v e
i n t e n t nor are there s t a t u t e s s p e c i f i c a l l y s e t t i n g f o r t h duties of the
DOA- Data Center. The manager of the DOA- Data Center has informed us that
it was created under A. R. S. $ 41- 712 ( B) which provides for the
" . . . establishment of one or more centralized data
processing operations centers, f o r the purpose of
serving the management and other needs of the
l e g i s l a t u r e , excutive and j u d i c i a l branches of s t a t e
government. "
The DOA- Data Center manager has s t a t e d t h e o b j e c t i v e of the Center is to
serve the needs of smaller agencies who have no data processing
c a p a b i l i t i e s of t h e i r own, and also t o serve l a r g e r agencies whose
workload exceeds t h e i r own data processing capacities.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE DEGREE TO WHICH
THE DATA CENTER HAS BEEN ABLE TO RESPOND
TO THE NEEDS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE EFFICIENCY
WITH WHICH I T HAS OPERATED
In contrast t o a licensing board or regulatory agency the DOA- Data Center
has only incidental i n t e r a c t i o n with the public. The nature and purpose
of the DOA- Data Center do not d i r e c t l y place it i n the position of
responding to public needs.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH
THE DATA CENTER HAS OPERATED WITHIN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST
To the extent the DOA- Data Center has f a i l e d t o ensure t h a t its users use
the Center's resources e f f i c i e n t l y , and to the extent the Center has
f a i l e d t o monitor and evaluate its functions, the DOA- Data Center may not
have operated within the public i n t e r e s t . ( pages 21 and 31)
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH
RULES AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY
THE DATA CENTER ARE CONSISTENT WITH
THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
The DOA- Data Center has no enabling s t a t u t e s t o provide it with
rule- making authority. Consequently, the DOA- Data Center does not
promulgate rules.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH
THE DATA CENTER HAS ENCOURAGED INPUT
FROM THE PUBLIC BEFORE PROMULGATING ITS
RULES AND REGULATIONS AND THE EXTENT TO
WHICH I T HAS INFORMED THE PUBLIC AS TO
ITS ACTIONS AND THEIR EXPECTED IMPACT
ON THE PUBLIC
This Sunset f a c t o r is not applicable to DOA- Data Center.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
DATA CENTER HAS BEEN ABLE TO INVESTIGATE
AND RESOLVE COMPLAINTS THAT ARF, WITHIN
ITS JURISDICTION
The Data Center does not receive, investigate or resolve complaints.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE
AGENCY OF STATE GOVERNMENT HAS THE AUTHORITY
TO PROSECUTE ACTIONS UNDER ENABLING LEGISLATION
The DOA- Data Center has no enabling l e g i s l a t i o n to define violations or
offenses.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH
THE DATA CENTER HAS ADDRESSED DEFICENCIES
I N THE ENABLING STATUTES WHICH PREVENT IT
FROM FULFILLING ITS STATUTORY MANDATE
The DOA- Data Center has not found a need t o request t h a t enabling
l e g i s l a t i o n be created or t h a t the Center be given s t a t u t o r y authority or
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of any kind.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH
CHANGES ARE NECESSARY I N THE LAWS OF
THE DATA CENTER TO ADEQUATELY COMPLY
WITH THE FACTORS LISTED I N THE SUBSECTION
The audit did not reveal a need f o r changes i n the laws of the DOA- Data
Center.
FINDING I
CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE DOA- DATA CENTER'S PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS.
The DOA- Data Center is responsible f o r developing and maintaining data
processing systems f o r those S t a t e agencies t h a t do not have the expertise
to perform t h i s function f o r themselves. Our review revealed t h a t the
DOA- Data Center's project development process performed by the Systems and
Programming Section is not functioning adequately. We found the following
deficiencies i n the process:
1. The synopsis and evaluation phases of the process are performed
i n a cursory manner,
2. The DOA- Data Center can reduce the time spent performing the
coding function,
3. Projects are not monitored properly, and
4. Project review and acceptance procedures are not followed.
In addition, we found that 1) user agencies are not provided a l t e r n a t i v e s
to the DOA- Data Center f o r t h e i r automation needs, and 2) the problems
described have been compounded by high s t a f f turnover. A s a r e s u l t , the
DOA- Data Center does not complete projects within the budgeted costs or
required dates or i n some instances does not complete projects a t a l l .
DOA- Data Center Project
Development Life Cycle
The DOA- Data Center has developed a project development l i f e cycle t h a t is
divided i n t o four phases with s e v e r a l s t e p s within each phase. The cycle
is summarized a s follows:
REQUEST AND SYNOPSIS PHASE
A. Project Request
A brief description of the system, objectives to be met and
anticipated costs and benefits.
B. Project Synopsis
A statement of user objectives, l i m i t a t i o n s , expected b e n e f i t s ,
additional recommendations and a f e a s i b i l i t y study.
EVALUATION PHASE
A. General System Flowchart
A graphic outline of the flow of data.
B. C o s t / ~ e n e f i t Analysis
A detailed summary of the estimated development and operational costs
compared with the expected benefits and an evaluation of a l t e r n a t i v e s .
C. Project I n i t i a t i o n and Control Preparation
A document t o support selected a l t e r n a t i v e s , u s e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ,
costs and time frames involved.
DEVELOPMENT PHASE
A. Equipment Preparation
Planning f o r the hardware, software and f a c i l i t y needs of the project.
B. Detail Design
A summary of t h e i n p u t , data, output, programming and processing
requirements of the project.
C. Program Specification
An outline of what function each program is t o perform as a basis f o r
the f i n a l program documentation.
D. Materials Preparation
Ordering any specialized forms or materials necessary f o r t h e p r o j e c t .
E. Coding
The t r a n s l a t i o n of the d e t a i l design i n t o executable programming code.
F. Testing
The preparing of a t e s t plan and the t e s t data, and the t e s t i n g of the
program and the system.
G. Documentation
Communication among analyst, user, programmer and operator t o ensure
that a l l major points of development and implementation have been
addressed.
H. Conversion
Convert existing formats i n t o those required by the new project.
I. User Training
Training conducted t o f a m i l i a r i z e t h e u s e r with t h e i r function within
the system.
PROJECT REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE
A. General Review
A review as soon a s the system is s e t t l e d t o evaluate development,
operation and variance from estimated costs.
B. Project Acceptance
A formal acceptance of t h e p r o j e c t by the user.
C. Problem Resolution
A method for correcting problems t h a t cause t h e p r o j e c t t o not meet
the needs of the user.
Our review of the DOA- Data Center project development l i f e cycle revealed
that some functions are not performed adequately and others not
e f f i c i e n t l y .
The S v n o ~ s i sa nd Evaluation Phases
Of t h e P r o j e c t Development Process
Are Performed I n A Cursory Manner
The synopsis and evaluation phases of t h e p r o j e c t development process are
perhaps the most c r i t i c a l as they e s t a b l i s h t h e framework f o r the whole
project. According t o the manager of the Systems and Programming
function: 1) these phases are the most c r i t i c a l , and 2) there could be a
five- to tenfold improvement i n the r e s u l t s of projects if more analysis
was done.
We found these phases are performed i n a cursory manner i n t h a t too l i t t l e
time is devoted t o these phases and e s s e n t i a l steps a r e e i t h e r not
performed or are not performed adequately.
A productivity analysis of the Systems and Programming s t a f f ' s time showed
t h a t the s t a f f spends l e s s than ten percent of its time performing
synopsis and evaluation tasks. The manager of Systems and Programming
told us t h a t although it was d i f f i c u l t to provide a percentage figure of
what should be spent on these phases, he would prefer t o see h i s s t a f f
spend a minimum of 15 percent of its time i n synopsis and evaluation.
We also found the DOA- Data Center does not perform adequately many of the
steps i n the synopsis and evaluation phases of the project l i f e cycle.
Reviewing 14 projects t h a t were scheduled f o r completion i n f i s c a l year
1980- 81, we found the DOA- Data Center apparently did not perform
f e a s i b i l i t y studies or cost benefit analyses for any of t h e p r o j e c t s
reviewed. I f such s t u d i e s were done, they were e i t h e r not done formally
or not included i n the project f i l e s .
Our review revealed that the DOA- Data Center does not perform the synopsis
and evaluation phases adequately f o r the following reasons:
1. A DOA- Data Center policy t h a t user agencies w i l l not be charged
for synopsis o r evaluation work i f the user decides not to
proceed with the project development.
2. The DOA- Data Center's Policy and Standards Manual is unclear with
regard to what is to be performed i n the synopsis and evaluation
phases.
DOA- Data Center " No Charge" Policy
The DOA- Data Center has adopted a " marketing" philosophy of not charging
f o r synopsis or evaluation work i f t h e u s e r decides not to proceed with
t h e p r o j e c t development. This is done because i n many instances agencies
need to know how much a project w i l l cost before requesting funds f o r the
project. However, since the DOA- Data Center operates on a revolving- fund
concept, the " no charge" work must be recovered elsewhere i f the Center is
to remain solvent. This puts pressure on the Systems and Programming
s t a f f to perform the synopsis and evaluation phases quickly to mitigate
the p o s s i b i l i t y of not recovering costs i f the user agency decides not t o
proceed with project development.
Policy and Standards
Manual Is Unclear
The DOA- Data Center's Policy and Standards Manual ( ~ a n u a l ) governing
project development was o r i g i n a l l y prepared i n 1972 and has basically
remained unchanged since. Our review of the Manual revealed t h a t it does
not c l e a r l y define what tasks are t o be performed and how they are to be
performed, e s p e c i a l l y t a s k s regarding f e a s i b i l i t y studies and cost/ benef it
analyses. According to the Systems and Programming manager i n a statement
regarding f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d i e s ,
" There is nothing within t h e P o l i c i e s and Standards
Manual which provides a clue as to what is to go i n
there.... We recognize the out- of- date condition of the
P o l i c i e s and Standards Manual and are working a t t h i s
time toward a complete revision of the document."
The DOA- Data Center Can Reduce The
Time S ~ e n tP erformine: the Codim Function
Our review of the DOA- Data Center development process revealed t h a t the
coding function is the most time- consuming and expensive portion of the
process. The DOA- Data Center has not made a formal e f f o r t t o reduce the
time and cost spent coding. It should be noted t h a t the DOA- Data Center
manager is aware of the problem and is planning to take steps to reduce
coding time and s h i f t the emphasis toward the synopsis and evaluation
phases of the development process. According to a consultant hired by the
Office of the Auditor General t o evaluate the Data Center, the following
steps could be taken to systematically reduce coding time.
" Management should have i d e n t i f i e d one or more options
t o reduce cost, such as structured programming ( not
always seen t o reduce cost) , modular programming,
reuseable code i n the form of l i b r a r y routines,
" breadboard" programming. One of those options should
have been selected, and a project proposed f o r
implementation.
" Elements of coding time should have been analyzed, and
suggestions f o r reducing that time made.
" Time involved i n coding ( as well as the r e s t of the
cycle) could be reduced by adopting a timesharing
' s t y l e ' of development, i n which no printout is
required, data and output are stored on disk, output is
reviewed on disk and programs resubmitted without ever
seeing any printed copy. System u t i l i t y routines, job
control language, and operating techniques may require
modification. Management should be aware of these
possiblities."
Projects Are Not Monitored Properly
Our review revealed t h a t the DOA- Data Center does not monitor adequately
the projects being developed. We found that the project plans were not
being updated systematically and that project changes were not documented
properly. A s a r e s u l t , projects overrun budgeted costs and estimated
completion dates.
For example, as of October 1981 of the 16 Data Center projects scheduled
for completion i n f i s c a l year 1980- 81, eight were overbudget, two were
completed within budget and two had been halted. The s t a t u s of the
remaining f o u r p r o j e c t s could not be determined as they were ongoing
projects.
The DOA- Data Center has an automated project s t a t u s report system designed
to monitor p r o j e c t s , however, t h i s system has not been updated on a timely
basis. In addition, t h e Policy and Standards Manual includes a procedure
f o r documenting project changes and adjusting budgeted costs based on
these changes. However, these procedures are often not followed leaving
the DOA- Data Center with no documentation to support an increased charge.
It should be noted t h a t the DOA- Data Center is now taking steps to resolve
these problems, including having a quality assurance group check each
project being developed a t c e r t a i n mileposts during the development
process.
Project Review and Acceptance
Procedures Are Not Followed
Project review and acceptance procedures a r e necessary t o ensure t h a t
1) the projects a c t u a l l y meet the needs of the users, and 2) Data Center
management becomes aware of any problems t h a t occurred i n the development
of t h e p r o j e c t and can take steps to prevent t h e i r reoccurrences i n
subsequent projects.
Our review of the development projects i n f i s c a l year 1980- 81 revealed
t h a t fewer than ten percent of those projects were formally accepted by
the user agency or reviewed by DOA- Data Center s t a f f even though the
Policy and Procedures Manual r e q u i r e s t h e s e procedures. This occurs
because i n many instances the user agency w i l l not formally accept a
project u n t i l the project is a c t u a l l y i n production a t which time the
analyst i n charge of the project is working on another project and has
forgotten t h a t the project was not reviewed or accepted.
User Agencies Are Not Provided
Alternatives To the DOA- Data Center
For Their Automation Needs
During the synopsis and evaluation phases, user agencies are often not
made aware of the a l t e r n a t i v e s t o the DOA- Data Center t h a t a r e available
to meet t h e i r automation needs. A s a r e s u l t , some agencies contract with
DOA- Data Center to develop projects t h a t may be more e a s i l y , and l e s s
expensively, accomplished through other options.
Two examples of projects i n which the agencies were not informed of l e s s
expensive, more e a s i l y implementable a l t e r n a t i v e s , are described below.
Case I - Liquor Licensing Board
The Liquor Licensing Board contracted with the DOA- Data Center t o develop
a licensing system. The o r i g i n a l c o s t s were estimated to be $ 15,040 to
develop the system and $ 11,354 per year t o operate the system. During the
i n i t i a l evaluation, Liquor Licensing was not informed of any a l t e r n a t i v e s
t o the proposed DOA- Data Center System.
The system was developed and implemented over a three- year period a t a
cost to the Liquor Licensing Board of $ 19,420. An additional $ 2,981 i n
cost overruns was absorbed by the DOA- Data Center as overhead. However,
the system never did work according to the Liquor Licensing Board and was
scrapped i n favor of two word processing u n i t s obtained on a three- year
lease/ purchase agreement costing $ 12,070 per year. Liquor Licensing Board
s t a f f t o l d u s the word processing u n i t s do not have a l l of the
c a p a b i l i t i e s of the DOA- Data Center, but t h a t the u n i t s do meet Liquor
Licensing Board needs and are more cost effective.
It should be noted t h a t the Liquor Licensing Board w i l l be replacing the
present word processing u n i t s with more powerful u n i t s i n February 1982.
These new u n i t s , which w i l l cost an additional $ 91 per month, have
increased storage and memory c a p a b i l i t i e s and a r e cornpatable with the
present units.
Case I1 - Registrar of Contractors
The Registrar of Contractors presently has its licensing system automated
through the DOA- Data Center. I n November 1980 it requested a modification
t o the system t o provide f o r staggered renewal of licenses as required by
a statutory change.
The R e g i s t r a r ' s o f f i c e l a t e r requested a d d i t i o n a l c o s t estimates on
changing the licensing system t o an on- line system and cost estimates on
automating its compliance data. The DOA- Data Center estimated it would
cost $ 15,800 to implement a staggered renewal system. It also estimated
it would cost $ 26,000 to develop a system to automate the compliance ' d a t a
and $ 14,200 annually to operate the system. Before the Registrar realized
it could n o t a f f o r d both the on- line and compliance d a t a c o s t s t u d i e s and
discontinued its request $ 1,200 was spent f o r study work on the on- line
system. The a s s i s t a n t Registrar told u s t o h i s knowledge "... no cost
benefit analyses were performed, nor was any evaluation of possible
a l t e r n a t i v e s explored."
Because of the costs projected by DOA- Data Center the Registrar explored
a l t e r n a t i v e s on its own. The Registrar hired a temporary s t a f f member a t
a cost of $ 2,400 as part of an evaluation t h a t concluded the licensing
system could be placed on a minicomputer, the staggered renewal system
implemented and the compliance data f i l e automated with a five- year
savings of more than $ 85,000 when compared to the DOA- Data Center costs.*
The DOA- Data Processing Division has since given t h e R e g i s t r a r permission
t o proceed with t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e as a " p i l o t " p r o j e c t .
DOA- Data Center often does not inform agencies of a l t e r n a t i v e s t o its
Systems and Programming services f o r two primary reasons: 1) because
DOA- Data Center must market its services it does not regard i t s e l f a s
having a r o l e of providing agencies with a l t e r n a t i v e s , and 2) some
a l t e r n a t i v e s l i e outside t h e e x p e r t i s e of the DOA- Data Center systems and
programming s t a f f .
* The Registrar evaluated s i x a l t e r n a t i v e s ( including the DOA- Data
center) f o r meeting its needs and compared hardware, maintenance,
development, annual operating and overhead costs.
In explaining the DOA- Data Center marketing philosophy, the Systems and
Programming manager gave the following analogy:
"... if you came to me a t 15th Avenue and Adams and I am
a t a x i driver and you asked me to drive you to the
Capitol, I am not going t o suggest you walk down the
two blocks yourself, nor am I going to suggest you walk
one block and catch a bus. I f I know that my vehicle
is capable of conveying you to the Capitol, and it is
an a l t e r n a t i v e that w i l l solve the problems of getting
you to the capitol, I w i l l take you there. I w i l l not
do it i n a round- about fashion, however, I w i l l take
you there i n the best manner I can. I w i l l do it with
a smile knowing f u l l well that my good service might
cause you to use my t a x i again."
With regard to expertise, the DOA- Data Center manager t o l d u s h i s s t a f f ' s
expertise was largely i n the use of mainframe computers and t h e i r
applications and that they did not have s u f f i c i e n t expertise i n mini- and
microcomputers and word processors to be able to provide users with
comparative data on these alternatives.
During the course of the performance audit of the DOA- Data Processing
Division ( ~ e p o r t 81- 12) we noted that the DOA- Data Processing Division has
identified a need for projects ( computer applications) to be reviewed i n a
manner similar t o that used f o r acquiring data processing equipment. I f
such a procedure were established it would allow DOA- Data Processing
Division, a third party not concerned with marketing its services, to
provide users with a l t e r n a t i v e s to DOA- Data Center.
Turnover Has Compounded Development Problems
Each of the problems i n the development process described above has been
compounded by high s t a f f turnover i n the Systems and Programming section.
The turnover r a t e f o r EDP Programmer Analyst 11' s i n the Department of
Administration was 83 percent i n f i s c a l year 1979- 80 and 33 percent i n
f i s c a l year 1980- 81. The turnover r a t e for EDP Programmer Analyst 111' s
was 50 percent i n f i s c a l year 1979- 80 and 100 percent i n f i s c a l year
1980- 81. By way of contrast, turnover f o r a l l positions i n State service
was 25 percent i n f i s c a l year 1980- 81.
Such turnover has had its impact on the development process p a r t i c u l a r l y
with regard to overruns of budgets and deadlines. For example, the data
base system being developed f o r the Land Department is $ 107,000 over
budget. This project has had four different project leaders i n three
years. Similarly, i n responding to an Auditor General survey of DOA- Data
Center users, the Controller of the Arizona Corporation Commission wrote:
" I think the biggest and most important problem with
the Data Center is turnover. We have l o s t three of the
five Programmers and Project Leaders assigned t o us i n
the l a s t month. One of our projects is of such a
magnitude that we have had t o stop a l l f u r t h e r action
on it due to t h i s loss of continuity i n s t a f f i n g and
lack of adequate support. The r e s u l t is costly and
annoying delays. "
DOA- Data Center and the S t a t e Personnel Division have taken some steps to
attempt t o a l l e v i a t e the problem. Beginning July 1, 1981, the DOA- Data
Center was given permission to hire EDP prograrnmer/~ nalyst 1' s and 11' s a t
step three of t h e s a l a r y schedule. I n September 1981 the positions i n the
Systems and Programming section received one grade upgrades. The Systems
and Programming manager told us that although these new s a l a r i e s may still
be s l i g h t l y low, they are now competitive. He believes it w i l l help
relieve the problem of s t a f f leaving for 25 percent to 35 percent salary
increases.
CONCLUSION
The DOA- Data Center's project development process is deficient i n several
areas. Projects are not evaluated or planned properly. I n addition, the
DOA- Data Center spends a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of time performing the coding
function. Also, projects are not monitored properly and the DOA- Data
Center does not follow project review and acceptance procedures. Finally,
user agencies are not provided a l t e r n a t i v e s to the DOA- Data Center and a l l
of the above problems have been compounded by high s t a f f turnover i n the
Systems and Programming section. A s a r e s u l t , the DOA- Data Center does
not complete most projects within budgeted costs or completion dates.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The DOA- Data Center should:
a. Change t h e p o l i c y of performing the synopsis and evaluation
phases of a project f r e e of charge i f the user agency does
not proceed with development.
b. Revise the Policy and Standards Manual to c l a r i f y the
methods for performing each task i n the project development
process, especially f e a s i b i l i t y studies.
c. Adopt a time- sharing " style" of development.
d. Analyze the coding function and adopt a method to reduce
coding costs which might include:
- structured programming,
- modular programming,
- reusable code i n the form of l i b r a r y routine, or
- breadboard programming.
e. Monitor projects more closely including more timely updating
of p r o j e c t p l a n s and s t a t u s reports, and ensuring t h a t
project changes are documented.
f. Follow the e s t a b l i s h e d p r o j e c t review and acceptance
procedures when concluding projects.
2. The Legislature should consider providing the DOA- Data Processing
Division with t h e r e s p o n s i b l i t y of establishing an application
review process s i m i l a r to the EDP equipment acquisition review
process. Such an a p p l i c a t i o n review process should include needs
a n a l y s i s , c o s t b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s , f e a s i b i l i t y studies - and an
exploration of a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r meeting needs.
FINDING I1
IMPROVEMENTS ARE NEEDED I N THREE ASPECTS OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE DOA- DATA
CENTER: MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY, PLANNING AND PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCEDURES.
The DOA- Data Center has primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r meeting t h e d a t a
processing needs of a l l s t a t e agencies t h a t do not have t h e i r own data
centers. To more e f f e c t i v e l y and e f f i c i e n t l y serve the needs of these
agencies DOA- Data Center needs t o change:
- A management philosophy t h a t includes providing whatever service
a user agency may request regardless of whether the request w i l l
r e s u l t i n i n e f f i c i e n t use of DOA- Data Center resources.
- A planning process t h a t is not s u f f i c i e n t l y coordinated with user
agencies' needs and is based on inadequate data.
- A problem- resolution process t h a t has never been formally
established and implemented within the management systems of the
Center.
Inappropriate Data Center
Management Philosophy
Our review of the DOA- Data Center revealed a management philosophy t h a t
allows i n e f f i c i e n t u t i l i z a t i o n of resources. This philosophy includes
providing whatever service a user agency r e q u e s t s r e g a r d l e s s of whether
resources are e f f i c i e n t l y used. Incentives t o operate e f f i c i e n t l y a r e
lacking because
1. the DOA- Data Center operates under a revolving fund concept.
2. Users are required to use the DOA- Data Center i n preference to
outside sources.
Operating under a revolving fund DOA- Data Center has no incentive t o
ensure t h a t its users use its resources e f f i c i e n t l y . DOA- Data Center is
funded by charges t o its users based on the resources consumed. The more
resources consumed because of user requests the more funds are generated
f o r the Revolving Fund. If the Data Center's s t a f f or equipment capacity
is reached any additional funds generated w i l l pay for new staff or
equipment. Thus, i n terms of DOA- Data Center expansion there may actually
be a disincentive to have user agencies use its resources e f f i c i e n t l y .
The problem is compounded by the f a c t t h a t many DOA- Data Center users are
small and may not be s u f f i c i e n t l y sophisticated i n data processing t o know
i f they are using its resources e f f i c i e n t l y .
In a similar manner the DOA- Data Center may not have an i n c e n t i v e to use
resources e f f i c i e n t l y because unlike a computer service bureau i n the
p r i v a t e s e c t o r , DOA- Data Center does not have t o compete f o r its c l i e n t s .
Under DOA- Data Processing Division p o l i c i e s , users are required t o use
DOA- Data Center i n preference to outside sources. Further, users are
limited i n t h e i r a b i l i t i e s t o buy equipment and perform t h e i r own data
processing because 1) DOA- Data Processing Division has no plans to
authorize large users t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i r own centers, and 2) smaller
users cannot buy equipment because DOA- Data Processing Division has placed
a freeze on the acquisitions of mini- and microcomputers.
I n e f f i c i e n t Use of
Data Center Resources
The DOA- Data Center does very l i t t l e t o ensure t h a t its resources are
u t i l i z e d e f f i c i e n t l y by user agencies. The Data Center has established
some standards " in an e f f o r t to a t t a i n g r e a t e r throughput efficiency."
However, these l i m i t s only regulate the s i z e of the job not the efficiency
with which it operates. Our review revealed t h a t i n many i n s t a n c e s t h e
DOA- Data Center does not monitor the jobs it processes a s the following
cases i l l u s t r a t e :
CASE I - A Significant Number of Program Dumps
A s discussed on page 32, Finding 111, Auditor General s t a f f observed
t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t number of program dumps were being printed. A
program dump is a printout of a portion of main memory a t a s p e c i f i c
time which usually involves the e n t i r e program and may include some of
the raw data. These printouts range i n s i z e from j u s t a few pages t o
l i t e r a l l y hundreds of pages. Most program dumps a r e caused by poor
program editing or d a t a e n t r y problems which can be systematically
corrected. However, the DOA- Data Center has not attempted t o
determine the cause of program dumps or reduce the number of program
dumps being printed. DOA- Data Center personnel were asked about the
program dumps and responded t h a t they f e l t obligated t o perform
services f o r which users are willing t o pay.
According to the DOA- Data Center Operations Manager users are not normally
contacted even i f it is known t h a t a requested job is i n e f f i c i e n t provided
the job is: 1) within established s i z e l i m i t s , and 2) run on the second
or t h i r d s h i f t . He f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e Data Center does not perceive
i t s e l f a s being responsible f o r u s e r s ' a p p l i c a t i o n s and gave the following
example of an i n e f f i c i e n t user request t h a t the Data Center would not
necessarily attempt to discourage. The example is shown a s Case 11.
CASE I1 - I n e f f i c i e n t Tape Drive U t i l i z a t i o n
The DOA- Data Center w i l l become aware t h a t an application with ten
a c t i v i t i e s t i e s up f o u r t a p e d r i v e s simultaneously. However, the
f i r s t nine a c t i v i t i e s require only one tape drive while the tenth
a c t i v i t y r e q u i r e s f o u r tape drives. I f the user is willing t o pay for
a l l four tape drives f o r the e n t i r e application including the time
when only one tape drive is being used, the DOA- Data Center does not
f e e l responsible t o notify the user of the unnecessary cost it is
incurring.
Our review also revealed unnecessary u t i l i z a t i o n of resources for DOA- Data
Center in- house purposes a s the following case i l l u s t r a t e s :
CASE I11 - Unnecessary Repetitive Printing
A s discussed on page 33, Finding 111, our review of a DOA- Data Center
overhead printing account revealed t h a t c e r t a i n programs were being
reprinted as many as seven times with only minor changes over a
one- month period. When DOA- Data Center personnel were questioned
about t h i s practice they responded t h a t t h e r e p e t i t i v e printing was
unnecessary and could be eliminated with a few programming changes.
Our analysis indicated t h a t a t l e a s t eight percent and a s much as 35
percent of the DOA- Data Center in- house printing is unnecessary. It
should be noted t h a t t h i s could amount to more than 1.5 million p r i n t
l i n e s monthly since the DOA- Data Center is the l a r g e s t s i n g l e u s e r of
printing d i r e c t l y from disk. Such a reduction could save the DOA- Data
Center approximately $ 10,000 per year.
A s the preceding cases i l l u s t r a t e , the DOA- Data Center does not f e e l
compelled t o operate e f f i c i e n t l y . This r e s u l t s from a philosophy a t the
DOA- Data Center that its primary function is to f u l f i l l user requests
regardless of any inherent i n e f f i c i e n c i e s i n those requests.
The DOA- Data Center Planning
Frocess Is Inadequate
Our review of the DOA- Data Center planning process revealed the following
two weaknesses:
1. I n s u f f i c i e n t coordination between the DOA- Data Center and the
user agencies, and
2. A management information system t h a t does not provide accurate,
useful planning information.
A s a r e s u l t , the DOA- Data Center has developed projects that only
p a r t i a l l y meet the needs of the user agencies. In a d d i t i o n , t h e DOA- Data
Center has been unable t o update its own overall long- range data
processing plan. Further, even the short- range plans f o r revenue
acquisition have proven to be inadequate.
I n s u f f i c i e n t Coordination Between
DOA- Data Center and User Agencies
According to the Long Range Planning Guidelines For EDP Functions the
" planning process must be b u i l t on the objectives and plans of the user
and host agency." The DOA- Data Center has made only cursory attempts to
o b t a i n t h e o b j e c t i v e s and plans of t h e i r user agencies. P r i o r to 1981 the
only structured attempt t o g a t h e r d a t a from users was a form t h a t asked
users t o estimate t h e i r future requirements i n only technical terms such
a s CPU time and disk space a s opposed t o program requirements such as
documents processed. A s a r e s u l t , the DOA- Data Center was unable to
update its long- range plan for 1981 because it did not receive information
from the user agencies regarding t h e i r data processing needs. The absence
of coordinated planning between the DOA- Data Center and user agencies also
causes problems with resource acquisition a s the following example
i l l u s t r a t e s :
Example : Front- End Processor Acquisition.
The S t a t e Compensation Fund purchased approximately 40 new terminals
i n April 1981 without n o t i f y i n g t h e DOA- Data Center. The inclusion of
these terminals i n the DOA- Data Center network caused the front- end
processors to reach almost f u l l capacity. A s a r e s u l t , the DOA- Data
Center was forced to purchase a new front- end processor much sooner
than anticipated i n order t o maintain an adequate response time.
The inadequacies i n the DOA- Data Center planning process have also
adversely affected project development. According t o the Manager of the
DOA- Data Center Systems and Programming section who is responsible f o r
project development.
" In many cases, because of t h e s h o r t period of time
t h a t everyone has i n order t o prepare a budget request,
we are asked t o develop a cost off the top of our heads
t h a t might s a t i s f y t h i s based on c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a t h a t
we hear about. Many times the c r i t e r i a t h a t we hear
about is only a p a r t of what the user r e a l l y wants, but
a t the time the request is made of us, is never given.
These funds, when they become available, are r e a l l y not
enough t o s a t i s f y the t o t a l p r o j e c t t h a t the user now
has i n mind. I n t h a t case, we w i l l , with the user,
develop i n a s modular fashion as possible, a system
using those funds t h a t are available. In t h a t case, we
a l l recognize t h a t we a r e r e a l l y going t o p a r t i a l l y
meet the u s e r ' s desires."
A s the preceding statement i l l u s t r a t e s the DOA- Data Center has developed
projects t h a t only p a r t i a l l y meet the needs of the user agencies because
the p r o j e c t s are not adequately planned before being funded. This is
another indication t h a t the DOA- Data Center needs t o increase its
coordination with and assistance t o user agencies. I n an e f f o r t to do
t h i s the DOA- Data Center is preparing a new data processing planning
questionnaire. However, as of September 25, 1981, the planning
questionnaire was not yet completed.
Substandard Management
Information System
A second problem t h a t causes t h e d a t a c e n t e r ' s planning process to break
down is the f a i l u r e t o consistently gather information necessary for
planning. Most of the resource u t i l i z a t i o n information is gathered from
DOA- Data Center b i l l i n g records. However, i n many i n s t a n c e s t h e s e records
do not r e f l e c t actual u t i l i z a t i o n i n s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l f o r proper resource
management. For i n s t a n c e , t h e DOA- Data Center considers the p r i n t e r s as a
single b i l l i n g unit. However, there are now four p r i n t e r s operating a t
two d i f f e r e n t speeds with varying efficiency. The b i l l i n g system does not
separate the d i f f e r e n t types of p r i n t e r s s o t h e DOA- Data Center has no
information on how e f f i c i e n t each p r i n t e r operates or a t what capacity.
A s a r e s u l t , the DOA- Data Center w i l l not have any data t o support the
need f o r a new p r i n t e r when the older p r i n t e r s lose t h e i r efficiency.
A similar s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s with t h e d i s k drives and tape drives. There
are three models of d i s k d r i v e s with three d i f f e r e n t capacities. There
a r e a l s o two models of tape drives operating a t two d i f f e r e n t speeds.
Although these d i f f e r e n t models operate a t d i f f e r e n t capacities - and
d i f f e r e n t c o s t s they, l i k e the p r i n t e r s , a r e treated as one b i l l i n g unit.
This does not allow f o r analysis of a more cost- effective equipment mix.
It should be noted t h a t the DOA- Data Center has been discussing the need
f o r a new b i l l i n g system f o r more than a year. However, t h i s is
considered a low p r i o r i t y item and no action has been taken t o obtain a
more accurate, useful system.
Establishment Of a Quality
Control Group I n the DOA- Data Center
The DOA- Data Center established a quality assurance section i n August 1981
t o help a l l e v i a t e some of the problems mentioned previously. The
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of t h i s section are summarized a s follows:
1. Develop and maintain a five- year plan which r e f l e c t s the Data
Center and user goals.
2. Monitor the five- year plan and provide periodic reports on its
progress.
3. Provide a c e n t r a l repository f o r a l l Data Center p o l i c i e s and
procedures, application systems documentation, and technical
l i b r a r y .
4. Conduct reviews of a l l systems developed by Data Center s t a f f to
ensure that:
A. Systems are documented according t o existing standards.
B. Systems are developed i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of the Data
Center and user.
C. Systems are developed i n accordance with existing p o l i c i e s
and procedures.
5. Provide accounting f a c i l i t i e s f o r the following:
A. User b i l l i n g data,
B. Produce Data Center f i n a n c i a l reports,
C. Monitor user f i n a n c i a l resources,
D. Maintain equipment inventory, and
E. Develop and maintain Data Center budget.
6. Coordinate the procurement of training as i d e n t i f i e d by other
sections within the Data Center.
Lack Of a Formal
Problem Resolution Process
The DOA- Data Center has not established a formal centralized problem
resolution process. This precludes the DOA- Data Center from determining
how often problems recur, how quickly they are resolved or whether they
are resolved a t a l l . The consultants hired by the Office of the Auditor
General s t a t e d t h a t 1) a centralized problem resolution process
encompassing the above elements is e s s e n t i a l f o r the e f f i c i e n t operation
of a d a t a c e n t e r and 2) i n productivity analyses they have done i n other
centers, such a process is commonplace. DOA- Data Center devotes l e s s than
two percent of its s t a f f time t o such a c t i v i t i e s . DOA- Data Center d r a f t
proposal f o r t h e q u a l i t y c o n t r o l section included a function f o r problem
detection as follows:
" Maintain a system to monitor problem reports. Report
the s t a t u s of problems d+ etected and resolved monthly.
Analyze problems to i d e n t i f y frequencies and trends of
problems and r e p o r t f i n d i n g s to Data Center managment.
It should be noted t h a t the f i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the quality
assurance section did not include the problem resolution function.
CONCLUSION
The DOA- Data Center does not e f f i c i e n t l y use its resources. I n addition,
the DOA- Data Center planning process is i n e f f e c t i v e because of a lack of
coordination with user agencies and a poor i n t e r n a l data gathering
system. Finally, there is no formal problem resolution process t o
i d e n t i f y and resolve recurring problems impacting t h e e f f i c i e n c y of
DOA- Data Center.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Consideration should be given to the following recommendations:
1. On an on- going basis, the DOA- Data Center should review and
formally notify u s e r s , t h e DOA- Data Processing Division, the
Executive Budget Off i c e and the J o i n t Legislative Budget
Committee s t a f f of practices o r requests t h a t w i l l r e s u l t i n
i n e f f i c i e n t use of DOA- Data Center resources.
2. The DOA- Data Center a s s i s t a l l users i n preparing data processing
plans and u t i l i z e these plans to prepare a long- range resource
plan.
3. The DOA- Data Center adopt a b i l l i n g / d a t a gathering system t h a t
provides more u s e f u l d a t a f o r management planning and control.
4. The DOA- Data Center develop a formalized, centralized problem
resolution function. Consideration should f u r t h e r be given to
assigning t h i s function t o the Quality Control Group.
FINDING I11
THE DOA- DATA CENTER DOES NOT MONITOR OR EVALUATE ITS PRINTING PROCESS
ADEQUATELY.
Printing is the t h i r d most costly DOA- Data Center function. I n f i s c a l
year 1980- 81, DOA- Data Center printing costs were approximately $ 500,000.
Our review of the DOA- Data Center revealed t h a t it has not monitored or
evaluated its printing function adequately.
In addition, b i l l i n g system e r r o r s caused the DOA- Data Center t o
undercharge users almost $ 300,000 over a 28- month period f o r printing and
to acquire $ 83,000 of a d d i t i o n a l p r i n t i n g equipment based on erroneous
information. Both of these problems were not detected by the DOA- Data
Center when it evaluated its printing function i n August 1980. Finally,
it appears t h a t the DOA- Data Center's purchase of another p r i n t e r f o r
$ 83,000 i n October 1981 was not properly j u s t i f i e d .
Fiscal Year 1980- 81 Printing Budget
The DOA- Data Center printing budget was almost $ 500,000 f o r f i s c a l year
1980- 81. Over two- thirds of t h i s t o t a l was f o r printing paper and
supplies. The remaining budget was t o cover the costs and maintenance of
the three existing l i n e p r i n t e r s and for the purchase of a new p r i n t e r i n
December 1980.
P r i n t e r U t i l i z a t i o n Is Not
Adequately Monitored
DOA- Data Center maintains p r i n t e r u t i l i z a t i o n s t a t i s t i c s f o r b i l l i n g
purposes. However, these s t a t i s t i c s a r e not routinely used f o r
measurement and analysis of p r i n t e r u t i l i z a t i o n .
According t o DOA- Data Center personnel u t i l i z a t i o n data are not routinely
produced and analyzed, because the information is d i f f i c u l t to gather.
However, usage records kept by the computing system could be used t o track
p r i n t e r usage, i d l e time, and any unusual operating conditions. A program
could be written to e x t r a c t , s o r t and display pertinent information. Such
data, together with observations of what is printed, could then be used to
identify problem areas. For example, i f it is found t h a t the number of
forms changes is excessive, a possible solution would be to a l t e r the
p r i n t e r queuing strategy t o reduce the number of changes. If excessive
system control information, program dumps, or other specialized
information is printed, operating procedures can be changed t o eliminate
those items unless s p e c i f i c a l l y requested by a programmer or user.
Unnecessary U t i l i z a t i o n Of
The Printing Process
DOA- Data Center personnel do not attempt t o discourage unnecessary
u t i l i z a t i o n of the p r i n t i n g process by users. Further, i n some instances,
DOA- Data Center personnel u t i l i z e the printing process unnecessarily.
Our review of the DOA- Data Center printing process revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t
number of program dumps* were being printed. This was observed during our
review of procedures by the operations section and was verified by
analysis of b i l l i n g records.
Program dumps should only be used a s a l a s t r e s o r t t o debug a program
being developed or for production jobs*" that abort. Even i n these
s i t u a t i o n s , program dumps can often be avoided. For example, i n many
cases programs can be debugged by printing the area of the program
immediately surrounding the problem area r a t h e r than printing a program
dump, or by using the program source and documentation to locate a problem.
* A program dump is a printed numerical representation of the contents
of a portion of main memory a t a specified time. ** A production job is a job- t h a t is f u l l y developed and tested and has
been run previously.
This would be s i g n i f i c a n t since a program dump printout can be hundreds of
pages long. Excessive program dumps are an indication of problems with
program applications, programming, data i n t e g r i t y or other software
elements. However, the DOA- Data center does not routinely analyze the
program dumps t o determine what is causing them. This precludes the Data
Center from identifying problems and taking corrective actions. The
DOA- Data Center operations personnel were asked about the program dump
problem and responded t h a t a s a service agency they f e l t compelled to
p r i n t program dumps as long a s the users were willing to pay the costs.
In addition, we found t h a t the DOA- Data Center i t s e l f is the single
l a r g e s t user of its own p r i n t e r s and, i n some instances, u t i l i z e s those
p r i n t e r s unnecessarily. An analysis of one of the overhead accounts
revealed t h a t c e r t a i n programs were compiled* and reprinted a s many as
seven times i n a one- month period with only minor changes. Further review
indicated t h a t a s much as 35 percent of DOA- Data Center in- house printing
could be eliminated with minor programming changes t o p r i n t only the
problem areas of the program. The excessive printing from t h i s one
overhead account could amount t o as much a s 1.5 million l i n e s monthly or
10 percent of the Center's t o t a l disk- to- print printing. These
unnecessary costs, which we estimate a t $ 10,000 p e r y e a r are subsequently
passed on to user agencies and u l t i m a t e l y t h e taxpayer.
* Compiling is the conversion of a computer language i n t o machine
language.
B i l l i n g System Errors Caused The
DOA- Data Center To Underchange
User Agencies Approximately $ 300,000
Our review of the DOA- Data Center b i l l i n g records involving the printing
process revealed t h a t t h e u s e r s were undercharged approximately $ 300,000
over a 28- month period. There were two e r r o r s i n the b i l l i n g systems which
caused the undercharges. The f i r s t involved an improper device code which
went undetected for approximately twenty- two months from January 1979
through November 1980. The second involved a programming e r r o r i n the
b i l l i n g system which was made i n October 1979 and was not detected u n t i l
April 1981. A device code is a numerical i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number given to
each piece of equipment i n t h e d a t a center for b i l l i n g purposes. It
should be noted t h a t n e i t h e r of these e r r o r s were detected by DOA- Data
Center personnel.
The following two cases summarize the e f f e c t s of the b i l l i n g e r r o r s and
the manner is which the e r r o r s were detected.
CASE I
This e r r o r involved an improper device code* and was uncovered by a
user agency i n November 1980. The user compared two b i l l s f o r an
i d e n t i c a l job and noticed a discrepancy i n the charges. The DOA- Data
Center reviewed the b i l l s and discovered t h a t one b i l l did not contain
any printing charges. Further analysis revealed t h a t the Data Center
had not been charging f o r any batch jobsw* printed by its large
p r i n t e r because of an improper device code. The e r r o r caused the
DOA- Data Center t o f a i l t o charge f o r approximately 20 percent of the
c e n t e r ' s p r i n t i n g which amounted t o a l o s s of approximately $ 100,000
over a two- year period. The DOA- Data Center d i d c o r r e c t t h i s e r r o r i n
January 1981, but it could not recover the $ 100,000 because data was
not available to determine who should have been charged.
* A code used to i d e n t i f y f o r the b i l l i n g system the piece of equipment
being used. ** Jobs which are transferred from disk to tape before being printed.
Case I1
The programming e r r o r i n the b i l l i n g system was detected by Auditor
General s t a f f , during analysis of the b i l l i n g records i n April 1981.
We found t h a t the DOA- Data Center was not b i l l i n g users f o r any of the
printing performed d i r e c t l y from disk. Approximately 28 percent of
the DOA- Data Center printing is d i r e c t l y from disk, and we determined
t h a t t h i s e r r o r had been occurring since October 1979 when changes
were made t o the b i l l i n g system. The e r r o r went undetected because
the b i l l i n g system was not adequately tested a f t e r the changes were
made. A s a r e s u l t , the DOA- Data Center undercharged users more than
$ 210,000 during the period from October 1979 through April 1981. The
Center did charge the users r e t r o a c t i v e l y f o r t h i s printing and as of
September 15, 1981, had collected almost $ 200,000.
A s the previous two cases show, the DOA- Data Center b i l l i n g system does
not contain adequate controls. This is s i g n i f i c a n t because the Center
r e l i e s on the b i l l i n g system t o provide data f o r management. This is
i l l u s t r a t e d by the r e s u l t s of an evaluation performed by the DOA- Data
Center i n August 1980.
P r i n t e r Evaluation Based
On Incorrect Information
The DOA- Data Center performed an evaluation i n August 1980 t o determine if
the purchase of a new p r i n t e r , which was budgeted f o r December 1980, was
j u s t i f i e d . The evaluation was requested by Operations personnel because
they f e l t t h e p r i n t i n g workload j u s t i f i e d a new p r i n t e r i n t h a t they could
not p r i n t a l l jobs i n a timely manner. However, a preliminary evaluation,
which was based on data gathered from the b i l l i n g system, indicated t h a t
the p r i n t e r s were being u t i l i z e d at l e s s than 40 percent of capacity.
No e f f o r t was made to determine the cause of the discrepancy between the
r e s u l t s of the preliminary evaluation and the operations s e c t i o n ' s report
of actual p r i n t e r u t i l i z a t i o n . Instead, the evaluation was never
completed and the purchase of the p r i n t e r was postponed. Had f u r t h e r
evaluation been performed the DOA- Data Center could have detected the two
e r r o r s i n the b i l l i n g system previously mentioned.
The DOA- Data Center purchased an additional p r i n t e r i n October 1981 a t a
cost of $ 83,000. The new p r i n t e r increases the DOA- Data Center's printing
capacity by 40 percent. In processing its request through the EDP
acquisition review procedure of the DOA- Data Processing Division, the
DOA- Data Center cited increased usage of the p r i n t e r s and excessive
downtime of the older p r i n t e r s a s j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the new p r i n t e r .
However, the increased u t i l i z a t i o n c i t e d involved a comparison of two time
periods. One period was before the Center corrected its b i l l i n g system to
record and charge f o r the batch jobs printed on the l a r g e p r i n t e r . The
second period measured u t i l i z a t i o n a f t e r t h e c o r r e c t i o n was made. Thus,
some of the apparent increased usage was only a r e s u l t of recording
p r i n t i n g t h a t was already occurring.
Buying a new p r i n t e r t o replace old equipment may have some
j u s t i f i c a t i o n . However, buying a new p r i n t e r because of increased
u t i l i z a t i o n was not properly j u s t i f i e d f o r two reasons:
1. A s i g n i f i c a n t amount of unnecessary printing is occurring; and
( page 32)
2. Some of the increased usage cited by the Center can be explained
by the f a c t the Center s t a r t e d recording and charging f o r
printing for which it had not previously been charging. ( page 34)
CONCLUSION
The DOA- Data Center does not adequately monitor p r i n t e r usage. A s a
r e s u l t , unnecessary use of the printing process by user agencies and by
Center personnel occurs.
Two e r r o r s i n the DOA- Data Center b i l l i n g system caused DOA- Data Center t o
undercharge users f o r printing by approximately $ 300,000. Further, a
DOA- Data Center evaluation of t h e p r i n t i n g process f a i l e d t o detect these
b i l l i n g e r r o r s . F i n a l l y , t h e DOA- Data Center's purchase of an additional
p r i n t e r was not properly j u s t i f i e d given: 1) the unnecessary printing
t h a t is occurring, and 2 ) t h e f a c t t h a t an apparent increase i n
u t i l i z a t i o n of the p r i n t e r s may be largely due t o the correction of
b i l l i n g system e r r o r s which had resulted i n users not being charged f o r
a l l printing and printing u t i l i z a t i o n t o be under- reported.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Consideration should be given t o the following recommendations:
1. The DOA- Data Center monitor program dumps t o determine what
action should be taken t o reduce t h e i r frequency.
2. The DOA- Data Center evaluate in- house printing and eliminate a l l
unnecessary use of the printing resource.
3. The DOA- Data Center revamp the b i l l i n g system t o ensure t h a t
users are charged c o r r e c t l y and t o ensure accurate information
f o r management purposes.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
CONSULTANT OBSERVATIONS
The Office of the Auditor General employed the consulting services of
Performance Management Associates, Incorporated to a s s i s t audit s t a f f i n
analyzing t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y and costs of the DOA- Data Center's work
centers. The r e s u l t s of the analyses combined with t h e c o n s u l t a n t s '
observations were used t o rank order areas f o r audit work based on the
p o t e n t i a l f o r increased efficiency and/ or p o t e n t i a l cost savings. The
most important areas a r e shown a s Finding I ( page 9), Finding I1 ( page 21)
and Finding I11 ( page 31).
In addition, t h e consultants made other observations and recommendations
f o r improvements i n the operation of the DOA- Data Center. These
observations included:
1. The Center's use of a chargeback cost- recovery system which
provides negative incentives f o r efficiency a s opposed to a
cost- accounting cost recovery system which provides p o s i t i v e
incentives.
2. The need f o r the Center t o widen i t s s t a f f ' s exposure to t r a i n i n g
i n additional management techniques.
3. Possible improvements i n the handling of computer tapes.
These observations are presented i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l :
COST- RECOVERY FOR DP SERVICES
Cost Accounting vs Chargeback*
Controlling the performance of a DP center includes r e l a t i n g the costs and
prices f o r services t o the use of resources. The costs of services within
a government agency or corporation must be related to pricing of services
and effecting cost- recovery. A recommended way t o s e t up a method for
planning f o r resources, assuring t h e i r performance l e v e l s , and controlling
revenues is t o use basic cost accounting analysis f o r DP resources.
Another method, called chargeback, is also used to recover costs. This
method is more d i r e c t l y related t o machine u t i l i z a t i o n r a t h e r than
considering all other resources as personnel or support a c t i v i t i e s .
Cost Accounting
Cost accounting is a disciplined way to account f o r a l l the resources i n a
DP center and measure t h e i r uses t o produce work and services. The
capacity f o r each resource is derived and related to the amount used f o r
productive work. Time is often the u n i t of measure used, but counts of
other u n i t s are used f o r machine resources.
Resource types include personnel, machine, software, communications and
support services. Work centers are a grouping of resources performing
similar functions so t h a t there is a single u n i t of measure f o r its
resources.
Within each work c e n t e r t h e r e is a l i s t i n g of job tasks or work functions
which r e l a t e to the u t i l i z a t i o n of its resources. For example, s e t t i n g up
a production job involves tasks as manual log i n , prepare JCL card, get
tapes from l i b r a r y , delivery t o operations. Each task is measurable i n
terms of the number of minutes o r hours it takes. In the case of a
machine resource l i k e a CPU, measuring its use would be i n terms of CPU
hours.
* Auditor General Note:
The DOA- Data Center u t i l i z e s the chargeback system o f c o s t recovery.
The cost budget f o r the DP center is broken down i n t o an i n d i v i d u a l budget
for each work center. In t h i s way costs f o r resources by month are
d i r e c t l y related t o where the work is a c t u a l l y performed. Costs are
categorized i n t o fixed and variable. Fixed costs are basic costs which
are independent of the workload volume. Variable costs a r e those which
fluctuate based on a change i n workload volume.
This method includes the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of work which comes i n f o r
processing. It is defined as batch jobs, time spent a t a terminal,
administrative p r o j e c t s , or s p e c i a l user services. Items off of a
workplan f o r DP are related t o an amount of resource use as hours or
counts of u n i t s of measure.
The workload volume r e l a t e s to the use of an amount of capacity f o r a work
center. The remaining capacity is f o r nonproductive a c t i v i t i e s . A
standard cost f o r each u n i t of measure is derived and used t o develop
standard costs f o r using each work center.
The cost f o r processing work i n each work center is known and a b i l l i n g
method s e t up. Prices can be s e t to e f f e c t a p r o f i t f o r the DP center and
control user behavior i n using services. The r e s u l t is unit- of- work
costing which is applicable to both government and commerical environments.
Chargeback
In a chargeback b i l l i n g system the emphasis is placed upon the use of
machine resources. Other resources as people, support functions and
customer services are a l l o c a t e d a c r o s s the machine resources. These
overhead accounts tend t o prevent the v i s i b i l i t y over the resources
involved which would provide b e t t e r performance and control.
Machine resources are separated i n t o working groups, called cost centers.
A u n i t of measure is derived f o r measuring the use of the resource. I n
t h i s way it is l i k e cost accounting.
On a u s e r ' s b i l l the types of u n i t s used to show charges are usually i n
machine terms o r a l i s t i n g of the equipment used t o process work. This
can be d i f f i c u l t f o r the user or non- DP manager t o understand. The
t r a n s l a t i o n process which r e s u l t s over understanding the b i l l takes
considerable a t t e n t i o n . The r e s u l t is t h a t the use of all resources and
t h e i r costs does not get communicated clearly.
Inequities i n the b i l l i n g can r e s u l t . Since overhead charges a r e included
i n user b i l l s , a user who only uses machine resources w i l l have other
costs included i n h i s b i l l . " This w i l l n o t accurately r e f l e c t the
services he received.
I n order t o e f f e c t f u l l cost- recovery and revenue incentives, a pricing
scheme is developed based on costs. The p r i c i n g i s s u e adds another
computational layer which must be taken i n t o consideration. The u s e r s e e s
t h e p r i c e s r a t h e r than the t r u e costs and he cannot r e l a t e prices t o
resources used.
Further Observations
Full chargeback of a l l DP costs provides negative motivations t o a l l
p a r t i e s involved i n the process. For example, under chargeback i f a user
wants t o decrease h i s b i l l , he would normally make it perform more
e f f i c i e n t l y by changing the program, the number of reports received, or
the way it uses resources. For a time, he might get a lower b i l l . The DP
manager, however, notices t h a t t h e r e ' s l e s s money being collected from
that user, and from a l l users i n general i f they a l l take t h i s approach.
He is then forced by chargeback p o l i c i e s t o r a i s e h i s r a t e s u n t i l costs
are recovered. The r e s u l t is t h a t a user who intends to become more
e f f i c i e n t winds up with what could become the same s i z e b i l l , o r t h a t
other users pay an increased price because one user becomes more
e f f i c i e n t . ( ~ m ~ h a saidsd ed)
* Auditor General Note:
An example of such a user a t the DOA- Data Center is the S t a t e
Compensation Fund.
From the DP managers viewpoint, i f he has excess capacity, has not bought
supplies wisely, and they cost more than expected, has a very high
incidence of reruns and has to work h i s shop overtime to d e l i v e r the work,
he can r a i s e the r a t e s t o recover those added expenses. These are items
which i n many views would be described a s poor management. Chargeback
helps conceal poor management, and removes t h e i n c e n t i v e s t o become more
e f f i c i e n t . Motivations i n f u l l chargeback of a l l DP costs are a l l
negative. (~ mphasis added)
An argument is usually made i n favor of chargeback a s a control on user
behavior. By making daytime processing more expensive, f o r example, the
users w i l l choose t o process at night, thereby relieving a peak loading
problem during the day. The degree to which chargeback accomplishes t h i s
is inversely related t o the degree of integration of DP i n t o the
day- to- day a f f a i r s of a business. Automatic t e l l e r machines, f o r example
are highly integrated i n t o banking, and are t o t a l l y i n s e n s i t i v e t o charges
for use, s i n c e t h e u s e r s want t o make deposits or withdraw money a t times
convenient to them. A service bureau, delivering DP services t o the
general public, notices t h a t prime time charges do indeed have an e f f e c t ,
but those services a r e usually not an i n t e g r a l part of a f i r m ' s business.
Chargeback can be viewed as having l i t t l e r e a l e f f e c t on user behavior.
An a l t e r n a t i v e to chargeback is to use d i r e c t costing methods. F i r s t ,
measurement and cost accounting methods are used together t o detemine the
excess capacity needed t o maintain service level delivery, and t h e c o s t of
that excess capacity. It is possible t h a t DP could t r a n s f e r t h a t amount
as overhead back t o the corporation a s a whole. I n e f f e c t , the
corporation " eats" the excess capacity t h a t they have chosen to put i n
place i n order to maintain service levels. Then, a d i r e c t measurement is
made as to the amount of people and hardware resources used by work and a
b i l l is sent out on t h a t amount.
The DP manager then must manage the resource t o account f o r any
variances. I f users become more e f f i c i e n t , they get a lower b i l l , and DP
shows up with an underrecovery. The manager of DP must then e i t h e r get
additional work to create more b i l l i n g s , o r must t r i m expenses o r reduce
the amount of resource available. If the DP shop becomes more e f f i c i e n t ,
a l l users can benefit through reduced costs.
With d i r e c t cost charging, motivations a r e a l l i n t h e p o s i t i v e
directions. ( Emphasis added)
WIDENING STAFF EXPOSURE TO
ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
During audit interviews, we noticed t h a t d a t a c e n t e r personnel were not
routinely exposed to education other than t h a t done i n t e r n a l l y , or t h a t
provided by the vendor.
I f data center personnel routinely attended seminars and t e c h n i c a l s o c i e t y
meetings other than those sponsored by the vendor, useful techniques of
i n s t a l l a t i o n management could be brought back f o r use. Some of these
techniques can improve productivity and save money.
One obvious technique involves the way i n which programs are developed.
Currently, the d a t a c e n t e r personnel prepare and submit programs using
on- line terminal f a c i l i t i e s . Once submitted, the programs are processed
and printed i n the data center, and the output returned t o the
programmers. Often, the programmers watch the progress of t h e i r jobs
using an on- line terminal, tying up that terminal and blocking use by
someone else. Further, the p r i n t volume generated by t h i s approach can be
s i g n i f i c a n t , and the time delays introduced can measurably decrease the
speed at which programming projects are completed.
It is common practice i n the industry to prepare and submit programs using
an on- line f a c i l i t y . When the programs are submitted, however, the
resulting output is placed i n a disk f i l e , r a t h e r than printed. The
programmer can then review the r e s u l t s without ever printing the program
output, and without delays introduced by delivery of bulky printed
material.
TAPE HANDLING PROCEDURES
A review of the tape l i b r a r y system should be made, looking toward
increased automation of l i b r a r y functions including release of tapes and
retention procedures.
Changes t o job processing procedures should be considered to allow
prefetching tapes f o r production and t e s t o r remote a c t i v i t i e s . Tapes
should be fetched i n quantity, placed on a c a r t i n s e r i a l number order and
brought to the machine room i n batches of 50 or 100, r a t h e r than the
existing groups of from one t o ten or more.
Minicomputer devices a r e a v a i l a b l e which " read" computer consoles,
intercept tape mount messages, and p l a c e t h e required information i n large
display l i g h t s over each tape drive. When processing is complete, s t a t u s
l i g h t s also specify the dispostion of the tape. Such a device can reduce
mount time by eliminating console reading time, making the mount
information v i s i b l e from anywhere i n the room. Errors i n mounting and
tape disposition are also reduced.
a11 DDAETPAA RCTEMNETNERT OF ADMINISTRATION --
1510 W. ADAMS
PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85007
STATE OF ARIZONA
-
BRUCE BABBITT, GOVERNOR
ROBERT B. TANGUY, DIRECTOR
December 28, 1981
M r . Douglas R. Norton
Audi t o r General
11 1 West Monroe, Suite 600
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Dear M r . Norton:
You w i l l f i n d enclosed our w r i t t e n response t o the performance
a u d i t o f the Department o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Data Center. This
response i s based upon the modified d r a f t r e p o r t received December
24, 1981.
We appreciate the opportunity t o comment on your r e p o r t .
Respectfully submitted,
Robert B. Tanguy
Attach.
RESPONSE OF THE D. O. A. DATA CENTER TO PERFORMANCE AUDIT CONDUCTED BY THE
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL AS PART OF THE SUNSET REVIEW
The D. O. A. Data Center wishes to thank the Auditor General's s t a f f f o r t h e i r
efforts and courtesy in conducting this audit. The report general ly ref1 ects
the discussion; however, there are several basic concepts that should be
i ncl uded.
FINDING I
4
With respect to Finding I recommendations, the following are Data Center comments:
1. a. Do not concur - The Data Center policy of not charging the user for
preparation of the synopsis and evaluation phases, which include cost
estimates, allows the Center to be more responsive and cost effective
during that phase of project development. The user normally has no
funds available to pay for the a c t i v i t y , and to wait until a budget
request can be made and approved to pay for a proposal could add as
much as a year to the process.
1. b. Concur - The Data Center Policy and Standards Manual has already been
reviewed and i s being rewritten.
Finding I
Page 2
1. c. Concur - The Data Center, as stated i n the r e p o r t , i s aware o f the
s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f time spent i n performing the coding f u n c t i o n
and has taken some steps t o reduce the expenditure. Our programmers
have been t r a i n e d and are versed i n the use o f time- sharing. They
presently do many things t h a t do not r e s u l t i n hard copy p r i n t o u t s .
When they are p r i n t e d they are used t o " desk check" the program l o g i c
r a t h e r than t i e up computer time and space. There should be a happy
medium between a l l p r i n t o u t and no p r i n t o u t .
1 . d. Concur - DOADC has, and i s using, techniques t o reduce the coding e f f o r t .
Some o f these are l i b r a r i e s , structured programming, modular programming,
and some structured design. As noted i n y o u r r e p o r t , some o f the techni-ques
save l i t t l e i n preparation, but can be s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h e c o s t of
l a t e r system m o d i f i c a t i o n s .
1. e. Concur - We are now developing a process o f c o n s o l i d a t i n g work plan
information and actual cost t h a t w i l l provide us a b e t t e r monitoring
t o o l f o r projects. Changes t o p r o j e c t development should, o f course,
be documented and we w i l l s t r i v e t o ensure t h a t t h i s i s done r o u t i n e l y .
1 . f. Concur - As i n d i c a t e d i n Finding I1 discussion, the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r
p r o j e c t review w i l l be i n Q u a l i t y Assurance; however, the user should
remain the f i n a l a u t h o r i t y f o r acceptance o f the system.
FINDING I1
Comments on recommendations for Finding I1 are as follows:
1. Concur - Informing the users of inefficient use of the computer is being
done on an informal basis. This notification can be formally documented
in the future. However, we believe that including the budget offices when
a specific cost cannot be identified is not necessary.
2. Concur - The Data Center is in the process of including user plans in the
Center 1 ong- range plan.
3. Concur - The current computer programs used for billing are being reviewed
and i t is anticipated they will be replaced.
4. Concur - Currently there are several procedures used by the Center for the
resolution of problems. These include procedures for dealing with vendors,
production processing, remote terminal equipment, and application program-ming.
This information will be centralized for review.
FINDING I11
Comments relative t o the recommendations of Finding I11 are as follows:
1. Do not concur - Monitoring of program dumps initiated by remote users
is not cost effective when considering the Center and user staff time
required. I t should also be noted that the program dump facility is a
tool used to assist programmers in the correction of program errors and
savings in printing cost of dumps may decrease programmer productivity.
Finding I11
Page 4
2. Concur - There are some reports that can be p u t on microfiche instead
of printing and this will be reviewed.
3. Concur - As stated in the comments of recommendation three of Finding
11, the billing process is being reviewed.
With regard t o the point that the printer installed in October 1981 was n o t
justified, the following comment is submitted:
The acquisition request forwarded t o the Data Processing Division on May 29,
1981 states that February, March, and April 1981 print volumes were compared
t o the same months of 1980; and that this comparison showed the printer hours
used had increased by 92 percent and local lines printed had increased by 15
percent. The information used for this comparison was not the dollars, b u t
rather actual print hours and number of print lines extracted from the account-ing
data. This information is extracted prior to the billing error that was
found.