Project SLIM / final report

              GV80.2 : R36
COpy 2 - - l
I
r o .~ c. t
FIN A LR'E P OR T
JULY 2, 1992
Coopers
& Lybrand
FINAL REPORT
> tt : j!:? <>
~~:::::
pre t
• • •
Coopers
& Lybrand
JULY 2,1992
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STATE LONG- TERM IMPROVED MANAGEMENT
PROJECT SUM - FINAL REPORT
July 2,1992
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE orTAS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Key Issues 3
Agency Reports . . . . 7
Conclusions 8
Special Studies Recommendations 10
Human Resources Administration 10
Training and Development 12
Redeployment 13
Compensation and Benefits " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Information Resources Management 14
EXHIBITS
1. Project SUM Summary of Benefits
2. Project SUM Summary of Titles and Benefits
3. Project SUM Steering Committee Members
4. Project SUM Organization Chart
5. Project SUM Common Assumptions
SPECIAL STUDIES
Human Resources Administration Human Resources
Training & Development Training
Redeployment Redeployment
C- ompensat! o!' l. Classification. Beneftts . . Compensation
Information Resources Management ( IRM) Information Resources
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STATE LONG- TERM IMPROVED MANAGEMENT
PROJECT SUM - RNAl REPORT
Jib 2. 1992
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE or TAB
AGENCY REVIEWS
Department of Administration Administration
Department of Agriculture Agriculture
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System AHCCCS
Arizona Department Of Corrections Corrections
Department of Economic Security Economic Security
Department of Environmental Quality Environmental Quality
State Land Department Land
Department of Public Safety Public Safety
Department of Revenue " Revenue
Arizona Department of Transportation Transportation
Department of Water Resources , . . . . . . . . Water Resources
Department of Youth Treatment & Rehabilitation Youth Treatment
II
1700 WEST WASHINGTON, THIRD FLOOR, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007. ( 602) 542- 7546
The Steering Committee of the State Long- term Improved Management Project ( project SUM) is
pleased to present you with its final report for Phase I.
July 2,1992
STATE OF ARIZONA
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
c t
~.
Successful implementation of our recommendations will require a profound shift in the way state
agencies approach their tasks and responsibilities. In essence, it demands a cultural change in management
attitude and functioning of state government. Additionally, successful implementation will reqUire new levels
of cooperation by all in state government.
We are convinced that the results of our labors and those of the dedicated project teams that
assisted us will bring substantive improvement to the quality of services delivered by state government and
to the management of state agencies. We are proud that the implementation of the recommendations
contained in our report will save state taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
To achieve the cost saVings recommended in this report, state government also must wholeheartedly
adopt Total Quality Management. It must become committed to continuous Improvement in the
I" espcr: sh/ eness and quality of service delt..-& ry. Total Quality Management must be linked with the
diagnostics of Project SUM in a continuing commitment to improvement and excellence In Arizona's
government.
It has been difficult but gratifying to oversee and guide Project SUM for you, the Legislature and
the citizens of Arizona. The Steering Committee commends you for initiating this ambitious project and the
Legislature for providing the resources to undertake it.
The Honorable Fife Symington
Governor of Arizona
Arizona Capitol Complex
1700 West Washington
Phoen~, Artzona 85004
Dear Governor Symington:
FIFE SYMiNGTON
Govt:: rnor
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Honorable Fife Symington
Governor of Arizona
Page 2
Project SUM is unique. It is the first time any state has attempted a comprehensive diagnostic
review of its major agencies using a combination of state employees and professional consultants. It
focused on improving processes, services and organizational effectiveness, not just reducing costs.
In completing this process, the Project SUM teams worked with agency employees at all levels and
used extensive operational data. The teams interviewed 2,200 employees on the front line with an eye
toward service delivery and management practices. They spent considerable time with staff, managerial or
supervisory personnel, and Ultimately with the agency director to discuss and present their findings. Their
reports, and the more than 300 recommendations that accompany them, represent hundreds of thousands
of hours of work. We applaud the cooperation of nearly all with whom we have had contact throughout this
exhaustive project.
The State of Arizona must maintain this process by building a core of employees well schooled in
Project SUM's diagnostic and implementation approach who can train others and eventually reduce the
need for outside consultants.
Project SUM's review identified 1,523 filled P? sitions that can be eliminated. This resulted from
recommendations for improving service In every instance. Equitable treatment of employees was foremost
on the Steering Committee's agenda. Our redeployment recommendations can help minimize layoffs.
The findings revealed in this report represent either significant savings, avoided costs or cost- neutral
suggestions designed solely to improve service delivery. There are recommendations for reinvesting some
recovered monies. The teams sought to avoid policy issues and concentrated on improving agency
management and service delivery to the taxpayer.
Full implementation of the Project SUM recommendations will save approximately $ 166 million in
cost avoidance and direct cost savings. Approximately $ 4 million will be an immediate one- time savings,
while the $ 162 million will, If implemented, accumulate to more than $ 800 million in benefits over five years.
The Steering Committee is convinced that this final report represents only a beginning. Proper
implementation of these recommendations is the next critical phase of this process. Furthermore, we
recommend that, with the cooperation of the Legislature and other elected state officials, the process
continue to all appropriated and unappropriated budgets, Including the Department of Education, the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Honorable Fife Symington
Governor of Arizona
Page 3
Universities, the Courts, the Legislature, Offices of the Attorney General and State Treasurer, and other
entities not covered during Phase I.
Enclosed with this report are the Special Studies recommendations.
KEY ISSUES
The Steering Committee identified key issues which have great significance if Project SUM's goals
are to be realized. These have been gathered into the following sub- sections: The Future, Implementation,
Tota! Quality Management ( TQM), Recruitment/ Retention and Further Study Suggestions.
The Future
• Opportunities exist for the consolidation of state agencies, bureaus and/ or departments and
a comprehensive study should be conducted. The Project SUM diagnostic approach
reviewed each department separately. Further study and the subsequent consolidation may
produce additional savings and improve management efficiency and delivery of service,
particUlarly in the grouping of agencies to be covered in the next diagnostic phase
• Total Ouality Management must be institutionalized within all state agencies, bureaus, and
departments. Oualified TOM state employee trainers should train all levels of agency
employees in TOM
• Implementation of Project SUM recommendations and TOM within the agency shall be the
responsibility of an agency- appointed committee consisting of managers and employees.
These Steering Committees shall define the agency's mission with regard to providing
quality service, develop goals and action plans, Implement quality and productivity
improvements and engage in long- term planning for quality
• An Office of Management and Service Excellence should be created with a gubernatorial
appointee as director. The director should be of c~ binet level and will oversee the
continuing process of diagnostic and implementation, and the TOM efforts throughout the
State
The Honorable Fife Symington
Governor of Arizona
Page 4
• Create a Governor's Advisory Committee to assist and support the Office of Management
and Service Excellence. Membership shall be drawn from qualified members of the private
sector, legislative appropriation committee members, agency heads or cabinet members
( on a rotating basis) and the director of OMSE
• The Governor's Award for Quality in state government should be established immediately.
Recognition of team and agency achievement of quality results is integral to success. This
award should be presented annually with the facilitation of the Governor's Advisory Council
on Quality.
Implementation
• Agency directors, in all cases, recognize the SUM reports as a baseline for restructuring.
Some differences of opinion remain among the agencies, but the committee expects those
to be resolved in the best interests of the taxpayers during the implementation process
• Implementation of 44 of the recommendations will require statutory or regulatory change.
One recommendation requires a constitutional amendment
• Cost savings and/ or cost avoidance will only come about through implementation and over
time. Some recommendations will produce immediate savings, but their implementation
may be linked, through phases, to the implementation of other recommendations which will
produce savings or cost avoidance only over time
• Immediate reinvestment of some savings is required in order to increase efficiency of
management and delivery of services. The success of several recommendations depends
on judicious reinvestment in technology, capital equipment and improved training of
personnel
• The implementation of some recommendations may reduce the amount of federally
matched funding, but the State of Arizona should vigorously pursue its share of federal
funds in other areas. All government funding, regardless of source, represents taxpayer
dollars
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Honorable Fife Symington
Governor of Arizona
Page 5
• Information Resources Management ( IRM) requires immediate restructuring and control.
Independent, uncoordinated operations result in an annual expenditure of more than $ 100
million with a proliferation of equipment and people. End user customer needs must be
paramount In procuring and providing technology- based services
• Some issues impact future county and state funding. Cooperation between these bodies
is essential to achieve the goal of becoming the lowest total- cost service provider
regardless of funding source. It will be necessary for state and county employees to work
In teams to reach the overall objectives.
Total Quality Management
• Proper utilization of the TOM process can and will improve service while reducing costs
and enhancing customer user satisfaction. This represents a revolutionary concept in
government. Education and training must accompany it
• Total Quality Management ( TOM) is a process that creates new managerial relationships
and greater empowerment at all levels of hierarchical Institutions. It reqUires training at all
levels, beginning with the most senior levels. The acquisition of new TQM leadership skills
creates a more service- orlented culture and Increases the effectiveness of management
without an erosion of authority
• Total Quality Management requires management to seek information about · customer
satisfaction" and quantify the results. The taxpayer of Arizona deserves service that Is
responsive and highly regarded for the quality of its results
• The executive branch, agency directors and senior officials must take activeTQM leadership
roles. Employees must understand a top- down commitment exists for continuous
improvement and accountability in all governmental processes
• Strategic planning is essential to continuous improvement. DeVeloping a vision and current
mission for each agency and major activity within the agency and defining the quality
expectations for those activities are the first steps to be taken
The Honorable Fife Symington
Governor of Arizona
Page 6
• Performance measures are required for all major activities. Total quality performance
measures Identity three major functions: 1) achievement of quality goals; 2) needs for
additional individual training; 3) need to re- design processes to eliminate unnecessary steps
and procedures
• BUdget accountability should be delegated to the unit manager level. TQM empowerment
gives unit managers both greater authority to make decisions and the responsibility to
manage within budgeted amounts
• To be empowered, employees at all levels must be kept informed. Good communications
is essential to good management and Total Quality Management. A statewide
communications program should be established at the earliest possible date. Employees
must share information such as goals, strategies, budgets and agency performance
attainment.
Recruitment/ Retention
• The pay disparity between the State and the private sector and other governmental entities
may significantly reduce the State's ability to recruit and retain qualified professionals in
certain areas. A salary plan competitive with other pUblic and private sector entitles must
be implemented
• The State must increase pay in selected non- professional areas in order to combat high
turnover rates
• Employee turnover is costly, creates inefficiencies, and reduces productivity. Its reduction
must be an extremely high priority within each State agency
• Development of an effective, quantifiable exit Interview system and the analysis of data
collected from such a system will help to facilitate planning to lower turnover rates.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AGENCY REPQRTS
The Honorable Fife Symington
Governor of Arizona
Page 7
Dramatic improvements In service can result from the implementation of some recommendations.
These include: issuing driver licenses in 6 days rather than 19; issuing vehicle titles in one visit rather than
a week later in the mail; reducing time to issue some environmental permIts by sO< months to a year; and
reducing the number of office visits for many who receive welfare from three to two, while Improving the
screening of applicants to facilitate appropriating apprOXimately $ 16 million more federal dollars for Arizona.
Process improvements enhance internal services, reduce the cost of government and yet maintain
or improve external services. Significant recommendations include: controlling state vehicles, their
maintenance and fuel consumption; Improving practices for leasing agency office space; Inspecting
agriCUltural shipments more thoroughly where they are unloaded; and restructuring organizations to Increase
the management span of control and reduce the total number of management layers.
DOA
ADA
AHCCCS
ADC
DES
DEQ
SLD
ADOT
DWR
DTYR
Department of Administration
Arizona Department of Agriculture
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System
Arizona Department of Corrections
Department of Economic Security
Department of Environmental Quality
State Land Department
Arizona Department of Transportation
Department of Water Resources
Department of Youth Treatment & Rehabilitation
Twelve agencies were reviewed dUring Project SUM by eight teams of approximately 30 state
employees and 10 Coopers & Lybrand consultants. Steering Committee members oversaw and reviewed
the process in each agency. The teams interviewed approximately 2,200 people and Identified 319 detailed
recommendations wtth total potential annual benefIts of approximately $ 142 million. These benefrts are
summarized by agency in Exhibit 1, Project SUM Summary Of Benefrts, and listed in detail by agency in
Exhibtt 2, Project SUM Summary Of Titles & Benefits. The agencies and the abbreviations usually used to
describe them are:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Honorable Fife Symington
Governor of Arizona
Page 8
Other recommendations improve cash flows for the state, including: reducing expenses for
purchased items; reducing county and local taxes incorrectly paid for services; reducing the cost of
providing certain types of health care; and increasing the land available for the State to lease to others.
Major recommendations for each agency are fully described in the executive summary of each
agency's final report which is included in this final report. Details for all 319 recommendations appear in
the 2,700 pages of the individual agency reports.
Some recommendations have been made before, including closing border inspection stations,
closing state facilities at Coolidge and Tucson, and reducing the DPS aircraft fleet. But SUM
recommendations are backed by detailed findings and include specific, practical ways to implement the
recommendations.
CONCWSIONS
Project SUM is the beginning of a culture change to empower state employees to make a difference
in the quality of delivered services and containment of the cost of government. The magnitude of the
potential benefits demonstrates the capability to reinvest significant dollars in state employees and programs
while providing taxpayers with a stable or reduced tax burden.
Our challenge now is to demonstrate with actions our commitment to improve services and reduce
cost simultaneously. ADOT's Motor Vehicle Division has already started and plans to implement the new
driver's license issuing procedures over the next two weeks. Apache Junction has been selected as the
prototype office for combined title and drivers license issuing at one window.
The Project SUM final report is a road map for restructuring state government, but It Is only the
beginning. Never before has a state attempted so comprehensive a seif- evaJuatlon, nor had the potential
to achieve such dramatic results. We urge you and the Legislature to continue this work until Arizona Is the
low- cost provider of quality services to our citizens and the benchmark for other state governments.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Honorable Fife Symington
Governor of Arizona
Page 9
We, the Steering Committee, applaud this demonstration of commitment to Project SLIM and benefits
for Arizona. Your dedicated support to the project has made this effort different from all attempts which
have gone before, and your commitment to implementation will achieve benefits that have eluded Arizona
in the past. The entire Steering Committee believes in this process, has learned from the experience, has
applied the principles of continuous improvement to the process itself, and unanimously recommends your
acceptance of this report as the foundation for State Long- term Improved Management.
AR: ifi~ L
Donald Reck, Chairman
Project SLIM Steering Committee
PROJECT SUM
SPEOAL STUDIES RECOMMENDATIONS
The Steering Committee embarked upon several Special Studies, consisting of in- depth analyses
of functions which cross agencies. These studies cover Human Resources Administration, Training &
Development, Redeployment, Compensation and Benefits, and Information Resource Management ( IRM).
The Steering Committee reviewed and recommended specific actions to be taken in each. Some
recommendations will require reinvestment of savings. The committee's recommendations, which appear
below, result directly from the reports themselves and from its conclusions based on additional discussion.
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION
The analysis of the human resources administration system of State government revealed several
areas of concern. These areas are broadly titled Management Philosophy, Measurement Systems,
Employment and Performance Appraisal. Central to all human resources discussions lies the philosophy
that all employees of the State of Arizona deserve to be treated fairly and with respect. Their concerns must
be responded to in a reasonable timely manner. Changes in management approach and personnel
measurements at both the Department of Administration ( DOA) and agency personnel levels are necessary
to make Arizona's human resources administration productive and effective.
Management PhUosophy
• Management must adopt a perspective that the employee is essential to the achievement
of goals and objectives. Too often the employee is considered an accounting item in the
budgetary process
• Central to TOM are the team concept and the empowerment of the front line employee. All
human resources administration must recognize and encourage these new criteria
• Human resources accountability must be shared by the DOA personnel office and the
agencies. Effective leadership and good management depend on clear lines of
communication in making personnel programs a high priority.
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
Measurement System
• Meaningful measurement systems of personnel issues and data must be created if the State
is to maintain a successful employee relations program. The State's personnel department
must design measurement instruments to determine and compare employee trends and
make those available to management in a timely manner.
Employment
• The average amount of time to hire an employee, over 60 days, greatly diminishes the
State's ability to compete for quality workers. This time lag can be reduced by a
coordinated TaM assessment and greater cooperation between DOA and the agencies
• Job descriptions are too often inaccurate. All jobs must be reviewed and minimum
qualifications and training requirements revised, including TaM standards, on a regular
basis. Accountability must be assigned to ensure completion
• Automated employment processes should be implemented immediately to expedite filling
vacancies from within and from outside state government. This recommendation may carry
considerable cost initially but should prove cost effective and " people effective" in a short
time
• Short and long- term planning for human relations requirements must be developed and
implemented.
Performance Appraisal
• Management should be held accountable for applying fairly and consistently the State's
employee appraisal process. Agency directors must ensure all employees receive annual,
meaningful performance reviews
• Re- evaluation of the Reduction in Force ( RIF) Rules should be undertaken. Performance
and seniority must become more equal in determining retention of individual employees
11
• Re- evaluation of the personnel system disciplinary procedures should be undertaken to
ensure that remedial action for non- performance can be expedited in an equitable manner.
• Where organized labor is a participant, advice and counsel should be sought in concert
with creating a fair appraisal system.
TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
Central to the productive operation of any entity is its training and development program. The State
of Arizona should lead the nation in its commitment to providing the taxpayer with the most highly trained,
competent workforce possible. The continuing education and training of employees should become
required steps in the development and advancement of employees throughout each agency statewide. The
types of training for state employees should reflect the future needs of Arizona and the employee. The
delivery of such training should involve the latest technologies and techniques.
Central Coordination
• A centralized training authority should be established in partnership with agency goals and
objectives. to set statewide training policies, coordinate programs. and be accountable for
the quality of statewide training
The centralized training authority would be responsible for training, planning, and delivery
of TaM and job related programs common to more than one agency
• The central training authority would develop and implement cost effective advancement
training for supervisor and managerial positions. Such training in management skills and
employee relations would be mandatory for state employees in pursuit of advancement.
FacUities and Technologies
• Determine the feasibility of establishing a centralized training facility and the utilization of
existing facilities in outlying areas as training centers to achieve cost savings
• The State should utilize alternate training media, I. e., satellite classrooms, computer- guided
classes and teleconferencing to deliver training.
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Education Partnerships
• The State should vigorously pursue partnerships for training in order to remain current and
to facilitate delivery. These partnerships may include private sector, academic institutions,
or represent interagency agreements
• Shared training courses with the pUblic and the business community on a tuition basis can
help the State recover some fixed training costs.
REDEPLOYMENT
A primary goal of Project SLIM is to maintain an atmosphere of dignity and respect in the midst of
the inevitability of downsizing. The Steering Committee sought to avoid " across the board" cuts occurring
in other states, and to develop a redeployment plan to allow employees affected by reductions to explore
other employment options in State government. The following recommendations are now before the
legislature in draft legislation form. Given current vacancies and turnover rates, it is likely that many
employees placed in the redeployment pool can end the twelve- month process with a job offer in state
government
• The redeployment plan calls for employees to be placed in a pool from which vacant
positions in other areas of State government will be filled. DOA will oversee, coordinate,
and manage the redeployment program
• The redeployment process will be limited to 12 months from the time the employee has
been informed of the abolishment of his/ her position. This year will give the employee time
to weigh options and to seek additional training if he/ she does not currently meet minimum
qualifications for a vacant position
• Employees who opt not to enter the redeployment pool may choose a Service Credit
Buyout. This buyout would provide the employee with one week of pay for every year of
service to a maximum of 12 weeks of pay
• Relocation expenses ( up to $ 1,000) will be paid to employees impacted by abolishment of
a position It a new position causes a move in excess of 75 nliies from their work IOi" Qtion.
13
COMPENSATION AND BENEATS
Compensation and benefit represents the largest single cost of operating state government. Project
SLIM's duration was insufficient to adequately review all major concerns in depth. While State employee
pay in most job categories is non- competitive with other entities, the benefits program is above average as
a total package, and employment security is less of an issue in government service than in the private
sector.
Job Oassifieation System
• Overhaul the existing job classification system. Immediate action is reqUired. Agency
directors can begin by analyzing and culling unneeded classifications, resulting in a DOA­revised
and streamlined classification system. A full study must be conducted at a later
date.
Benefits
• Restructure benefit programs so they are equitable to all state employees. A review of
current programs should be conducted by a joint executive branch/ agency/ legislature task
force
• Salary and benefits represent a total compensation package to state employees. The
quality and value of employee benefits must be added to salary in explaining and
comparing the State's total compensation program
• Employees require meaningful information, updated regularly, to understand and utilize the
best options for themselves and their families. An ongoing education program, particularly
on pre- natal care, is needed.
INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Information Resources Management is one of the State's most critical operations. It maintains and
processes the information on which government makes decisions. It must be centrally organized and
operated to eliminate major duplications of effort in cost, equipment and people.
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IR Department
• Establish an Information Resource Department to implement goals, policies and procedures
reflecting the State's IRM plan. The department will manage and operate consolidated data
centers and telecommunications functions. In order to effectively manage costs and
capabilities, the IR Department will be responsible for reviewing and recommending all
agency technology budgets, strategic and operational IR plans and applications that span
agencies.
Chief Information Officer
• Appoint a Chief Information Officer ( CIO) at the eartlest possible time. As the senior
information technology executive for the State, the CIO will oversee and implement
statewide IRM planning goals and strategy. The CIO will gUide standardization of necessary
technologies to provide economies of scale while, at the same time, ensure quality service.
IR Advisory Board
• Maintaining state- of- the- art knowledge and " best- of- breed" information can be achieved
through a high- level advisory board. Consisting of agency, private sector and legislative
members, the board will review and recommend statewide IR goals and strategic plans, and
evaluate agency performance in attaining them.
Data Center Consolidation and Tefecommunications Consolidation
• Consolidation of some of the five major data centers and, perhaps, some other smaller
centers, should be expedited. Significant savings of at least $ 20 million should be
achievable by eliminating redundant computers, software, maintenance, facilities and
personnel. A third party study should begin now.
15
• Consolidation of multiple, redundant telecommunications networks should start immediately.
Savings of up to $ 4 million are achievable.
End User Requirements
• The needs of the end user ( customer) must be the first priority for all technology providers.
Agreed- to service levels between the technology provider and the customer must be
established and adhered to. Quality of services delivered, not the technology employed,
must be the standard of performance measurement.
ProcurementfLie Cyde Systems
• A balanced procurement process must be established. Applying a uniform analysis of total
cost of technology over its useful life for the original procurement should become practice.
Guidelines, required for the anticipated productivity gains, cost reductions and quality
improvements to be achieved need to be established.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------
Amounts In $ 000
PROJECT SLIM SUMMARY OF BENEFITS EXHIBIT 1
FEDERAL FUNDS
ADMIN. AGRI. AHCCCS COR- ECONOMIC ENVIRON.
RECTlONS SECURITY QUALITY
LAND PUBLIC REVENUE TRANS- WATER YOUTH
SAFElY PORTATION TREATMENT
TOTAL
-
FTE 0 0 32 0 310 38 0 0 0 0 4 0 384
Vacant FTE 0 0 2 0 35 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 61
Rev. Enhance 0 0 ( 16,000) 0 ( 1,168) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 17,168)
Cost Avoid 0 0 0 0 4,864 841 27 0 0 0 0 0 5,733
Cost Save 0 0 16,682 0 6,271 493 0 0 0 0 155 0 23,603
One TIme Cost 0
One TIme Save 0
AnnualBeneftt8: ............ tI 882 0 .. 9.968 . 1._ · 2: 1 u } · · · · · · · · · ) 0 155 0 12.161
STATE FUNDS
FTE 58 60 38 17 611
Vacant FTE 11 2 3 1 49
Rev. Enhance 0 0 16,000 1,302 1,168
Cost Avoid 261 61 285 8,333 6,763
CostSave 15,099 1,675 11, nO 1,383 11,765
One TIme Cost 0 0 0 ( 1,202) 0
One TIme Save 0 0 0 0 3,025
Public Savings 0 0 0 0 0
Armua1••~.)/ · . · .}~$~ ••. 1; ttt ......•••••.•' f. iJii.•.. · · . · ) 11.( nS •• · .. · · · · · · · · 19•• · )
76
42
o
1,365
1,331
oo
34
" 2: 731
12 212 4 220 7 43 1,357
2 72 1 9 7 7 205
5,000 723 6,131 1,490 0 0 31,814
54 6,835 0 337 282 144 24,720
493 9,805 288 5,502 364 1,369 60,844
o ( 1,420) ( 76) 0 0 0 ( 2,698)
o 3,998 0 0 0 0 7,023
o 0 0 1,257 0 0 1,292
_ · - · · · · · · · SJM1 · · Wlfrses. · · . · · · · . · . · . · · $~~ 09 •••••••••••••.....&$ 86•..•........... ..••..•••• fi6 ••••<••• · H'I$ 1a <••• · · <. 1 · ' I8.66i
OTHER FUNDS
FTE 0 1 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 106
Vacant FTE 0 0 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 58
Rev. Enhance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cost Avoid 0 0 0 0 0 1,901 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,901
CostSave 0 48 7,382 0 0 1,732 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,162
One TIme Cost 0
One Tlme Save 0
· ~. f_:.. · . · . · ., ij~ · .:: · r: · :. · . · ,:~~. · . · ~ a1" r j1~ 01' · H.*~. · : .. t* iitf •••• • · ••• · •• i.$ l. · / jt.. · • · . · ji,,,: · . · · j..../ · ai$.,.$ j~< . · iJiJl6O
ANNUAL BENEFITS TOTAL:
ONE TIME BENEFITS - NET:
IRM SPECIAL STUDY BENEFITS:
$ 141,900
$ 4,325
$ 20,000
ONE TIME SAVINGS:
ONE TIME COSTS:
ONE TIME BENEFITS - NET:
$ 7,023
($ 2,698)
$ 4,325
ifQmAQ: · ~ It-$ ij. M · sENemT$ i · . · · :.:: · :: · : · ::' 11l~.!
- -- --------- -------
EXHIBIT 2
1 OF 19 PAGES
PROJECT SLIM SUMMARY OF TITLES & BENEFITS
Agency 1------ Total -------- ------ ------ 1----- ------ Federal ------ ----
Total Rev. Avoid Saved FTE Vac Rev. Avoid Saved FTE Vac
~! Recommendation Title Incr. Cost Cost FTE Incr. Cost Cost FTE
DOA 1 Increase in Bid Ceiling 406 0 0 406 2 0
DOA 2 Delivery of Commodities 3,060 0 0 3,060 0 0
DOA 3 Taxation of Purchases 60 0 0 60 0 0
DOA 4 Procurement Regulations 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 5 Off- Contract Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 6 Procurement Training 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 7 Service Proc'Jrement Notice 4 0 0 4 0 0
DOA 8 Usage Reports 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 9 Delegate DO 1\ Authority 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 10 Loss Thresh(> Id to $ 5,000 238 0 0 238 0 0
DOA 11 Recruitment and Hiring 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 12 Clerical Pool Services 1,044 0 0 1,044 0 0
DOA 13 Open Announcements 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 14 Hiring Lists 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 15 Job Evaluation Timing 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 16 Hire List C and C 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 17 Signatures 01 Hiring Lists 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 18 Eliminate Fm em TC- 50 58 0 0 58 3 0
DOA 19 Prepare 1099 Forms in AFIS II 77 0 28 49 2 0
DOA 20 Discounts and Penalties 381 0 0 381 0 0
DOA 21 State Vehicle Use 2,633 0 0 2,633 0 0
DOA 22 DOA Fleet M, intenance 641 0 0 641 0 0
DOA 23 Molar Vehicle) Fuel Costs 189 0 0 189 0 0
DOA 24 Procurement of Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 25 Print Shops 474 0 0 474 12 0
DOA 26 Centralization Leasing 2,108 0 0 2,108 0 0
DOA 27 Building Inspections 32 0 0 32 1 0
DOA 28 Telecommunications Charges 2,800 0 0 2,800 5 3
DOA 29 DMD Support Center 226 0 114 112 0 0
DOA 30 Computer Development Model 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 31 IRM Acquisition Systems 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 32 Data Management Org. 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 33 DOA Mission 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOA 34 Transfer Capital Police 780 0 119 661 30 8
DOA 35 C. P. Special Assistant 52 0 0 52 1 0
DOA 36 Program Project Specialist 35 0 0 35 1 0
DOA 37 Special Assistant 62 0 0 62 1 0
DOA --------- -------- --------- --------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -_._-
DOA AdministraticnSubtotal ./ 15,360 li/ 0 / 261 15,099 58 > 11
••••••••• 01/ / 0 0 0 .0
EXHIBIT 2
2 OF 19 PAGES
,_____ __ 0_____-
State ----- ---- ----- ----- Other ---- ---- ----- One Time Changes Mon.
Rev. Avoid Saved FTE Vac Rev. Avoid Saved FTE Vac. Public Law IRM
IAgcy IRec I Recommendation Title Incr. Cost Cost FTE Incr. Cost Cost FTE Total Save Cost Rule
DOA 1 Increase in Bid Ceiling 406 2 X 18
DOA 2 Delivery of Commodities 3,060 2
DOA 3 Taxation of Purchases 60 3
DOA 4 Procurement Regulations 3
DOA 5 Off- Contract Purchases 3
DOA 6 Procurement Training 3
DOA 7 Service Procurement Notice 4 X 18
DOA 8 Usage Reports 6
DOA 9 Delegate DOA Authority 3
DOA 10 Loss Threshold to $ 5,000 238 X 18
DOA 11 Recruitment and Hiring 24
DOA 12 Clerical Pool Services 1,044 3 -
DOA 13 Open Announcements 3
DOA 14 Hiring Lists 3
DOA 15 Job Evaluation Timing 2
DOA 16 Hire List C and C 2
DOA 17 Signatures on Hiring Lists 2
DOA 18 Eliminate Forem TC- 50 58 3 X 3
DOA 19 Prepare 1099 Forms in AFIS II 28 49 2 X 5
DOA 20 Discounts and Penalties 381 2
DOA 21 State Vehicle Use 2,633 X 3
DOA 22 DOA Fleet Maintenance 641 X 12
DOA 23 Motor Vehicle Fuel Costs 189 X 12
DOA 24 Procurement of Vehicles X 12
DOA 25 Print Shops 474 12 12
DOA 26 Centralization Leasing 2,108 X 12
DOA 27 Building Inspections 32 1 X 10
DOA 28 Telecommunications Charges 2,800 5 3 18
DOA 29 DMD Support Center 114 112 12
DOA 30 Computer Development Model 2
DOA 31 IRM Acquisition Systems 2
DOA 32 Data Management Org. 6
DOA 33 DOA Mission 9
DOA 34 Transfer Capital Police 119 661 30 8 X 18
DOA 35 C. P. Special Assistant 52 1 2
DOA 36 Program Project Specialist 35 1 2
DOA 37 Special Assistant 62 1 1
DOA ------- --------- --------- ------ ---- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- ------ ----- ----- --- --- --- -----
DOA Administration Subtotal •••••
..... 0 261 15,099 58 11 ........ 0 I. · 0 0 a 0 < 0 0 ....• 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -- --------- - - - - - -- PROJECT SLIM SUMMARY OF TITLES & BENEFITS
EXHIBIT 2
3 OF 19 PAGES
Agency 1------ Total -------- ------ ------ 1----- ------ Federal ------ ----
Total Rev. Avoid Saved FTE Vac Rev. Avoid Saved FTE Vac
IA9CY IReelI Recommendation Title Incr. Cost Cost FTE Incr. Cost Cost FTE
ADA 1 Livestock Inspectors 292 0 37 256 7 1
ADA 2 Closure of Border Stations 1,119 0 0 1,119 45 0
ADA 3 Comb. Plant insp. Reg. Off. 66 0 0 66 2 0
ADA 4 ~ p. Proj. Mgr. Positions 49 0 0 49 1 0
ADA 5 Evaluation Of Prog. Spec. 37 0 0 37 1 0
ADA 6 Native Plant Mgr. Staff 60 0 0 60 2 0
ADA 7 Fruits & Veg. Std. 48 0 0 48 1 0
ADA 8 Insp. rrraining Function 53 0 0 53 1 0
ADA 9 Environ. Serv. Division 61 0 25 37 1 1
ADA 10 Animal to Plant Transfer 0 0 0 0 0 0
ADA --------- -------- --------- --------- ---_._-- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ----
ADA Agricul\ UreSubtotal ••••..