Seal of the City and County of San Francisco

To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

March 14, 2013

Thursday, March 14, 2013
City Hall, Room 288
2:00PM – 3:00PM


Brent Lewis – Chair, Director of Finance and I.T., Dept. of Human Resources
Phil Arnold - Chief Financial Officer, Department of Human Services
Dale Riley - Chief Information Officer, City Attorney
Thomas DiSanto - Chief Administrative Officer, Planning Department
Linda Yeung - Deputy City Administrator, City Administrator's Office
Tajel Shah - Director, Budget & Operations, Treasurer-Tax Collector
Jeana Pieralde - Chief Security Officer, Department of Technology
Jaci Fong - Director, Purchasing Department
Michelle Geddes - Program Manager, Department of Emergency Management
Julia Dawson - Budget Manager, San Francisco International Airport
Mary Fitzpatrick - Director of Systems, Controller

1. Call the meeting to order

The meeting was called to order by Chair Brent Lewis at 2:05pm.

2. Roll call:
Brent Lewis
Dale Riley
Tajel Shah
Jeana Pieralde
Michelle Geddes
Julia Dawson
Linda Yeung (arrived late)

Phil Arnold
Mary Fitzpatrick
Jaci Fong
Thomas DiSanto

Mayor’s Office
Chanda Ikeda

Carol Lu

3. Approval of minutes

With the correction of the spelling of a name, the minutes of February 14, 2013 were approved.

4. Review Citywide Project Performance

Brent Lewis introduced Carol Lu, who presented on Performance Metrics.

Ms. Lu went over the supporting documents and explained the ways she had changed the representation of the data.

Tajel Shah mentioned that when departments list that their project is behind schedule due to staffing issues, it would be helpful to clarify what kind of staffing issues. She suggested classifying staffing issues in two ways: 1) need to hire, or 2) need to reallocate staff.

Mr. Lewis added that there can be contradicting issues contributing to why a project is behind schedule, and that it would be helpful if more specifics about why projects are performing at certain levels were included with the metrics. He suggested including subgroups for further clarification.

Chanda Ikeda asked the group if they felt comfortable with the way Ms. Lu represented project completion. She went on to say that Kate Howard, the Mayor’s Budget Director, wants to present COIT with some citywide performance data to give a preview of what they can expect from the Performance & Standards Subcommittee.

The subcommittee felt comfortable with the data.

With respect to the way projects are evaluated, Julia Dawson asked if there is a way to compare “like” projects (by category) so projects are not evaluated on standards unrelated to the challenges of the particular type of project.

Ms. Shah added that she would like to see milestones with completion dates as a metric.

Dale Riley suggested also representing whether projects citywide are on budget and/or on track.

Michelle Geddes asked Ms. Ikeda to clarify what exactly would be presented to COIT.

Ms. Ikeda said a high level pie chart representing citywide project performance, not department-specific project performance, would be presented to the committee.

Ms. Dawson asked if the goal was to move COIT towards a long-term planning style like the Capital Planning Committee.

Ms. Ikeda said that the ICT Plan is supposed to be a long-term plan.

Ms. Dawson stated that it is a good goal to treat Information Technology the way we treat any other type of capital investment. She went on to say that because of the way the city budgets, IT funding is either an all or nothing deal.

Ms. Ikeda reiterated that the ICT Plan is supposed to set the foundation for this kind of long-term planning and investment. She mentioned the Radio Replacement project and the Financial System Replacement project as two long-term IT investment projects that were strategically addressed in the ICT Plan.

Ms. Dawson wondered if smaller projects could benefit from the long-term planning process as well.

Ms. Ikeda moved on to discuss the project template for project evaluation and went over what the Planning & Budgeting subcommittee requested of departments.

Jeana Pieralde noted that the appropriate expertise is not always on the sub-committee and therefore cannot adequately evaluate whether the project is truly tending towards a certain goal. She spoke specifically about projects that claim to tend toward enhancing security and/or infrastructure.

Ms. Ikeda said that she cannot change the compositions of the subcommittees. It is up to the COIT Chair to make these nominations.

Ms. Ikeda continued to review the project template that will be used for department presentations to the Planning & Budgeting Subcommittee. Ms. Ikeda clarified that this is the same project template as before.

Ms. Ikeda then asked the subcommittee how and in what groupings they would like to review projects in their next few meetings.

Mr. Lewis suggested started with newer projects, but also noted the responsibility of the subcommittee to review on-going projects that are having trouble. Mr. Lewis also stated that maybe not all departments need to come in to meet with the subcommittee, but rather they could fill out the template for the subcommittee to review. He clarified this would apply only to projects that have not yet begun and have not requested additional funding from COIT.

Ms. Shah said it is hard to know what they want to see if they don’t yet know the universe of projects that are out there. She asked if Chanda could provide the subcommittee with a list of all projects, and they would then make recommendations on who they would like to hear from.

Mr. Lewis agreed and said the subcommittee could then review the list in April and have departments come in to present in May.

Ms. Ikeda asked if the subcommittee wanted to only see departments who have projects underway and requested more funding from COIT.

Ms. Shah said she would like to have a reflective look at some long-term projects as well; specifically the data center consolidation and eMerge. She went on to say that this ties back to the idea of the subcommittee being a learning environment where departments can think about what happened and what was challenging. She noted that this should be outside of the outcomes based review of projects.

Ms. Dawson suggested calling a meeting and asking two or so departments to come in and discuss lessons learned as a way to foster communication. She also asked if there should be any public facing information or publication that eventually comes of a process like this.

Ms. Shah mentioned that she envisioned these meetings as internal brown bags.

Ms. Ikeda asked the group if it would be useful to do a brown bag with the Office of Contract Administration to help answer questions.

Mr. Lewis suggested using the subcommittee’s two hour meeting time for a brown bag.

Ms. Dawson asked again whether the subcommittee should create an output or product from these brown bags.

Mr. Lewis suggested summarizing the information that was discussed and shared in the meeting and circulating that to departments.

Ms. Pieralde agreed and said it would be helpful for departments if the subcommittee summarized the pain points that were discussed in the meeting.

5. Public Comment

Todd N. Lloyd stated that he liked the idea of gathering citywide information about current, past, and on-going projects to help guide the success of projects that are having trouble. Mr. Lloyd also stated that it would be nice to see the breakdown of General Fund and non-General Fund projects in the representations of performance metrics. Lastly, Mr. Lloyd suggested that subcommittees participate in the ranking of some projects in addition to the self-ranking that departments do.

6. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 2:58pm.
Last updated: 1/7/2014 10:44:36 AM