Seal of the City and County of San Francisco

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

Skip to page body

February 14, 2013

Thursday, February 14, 2013
City Hall, Room 305
2:00PM – 4:00PM


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 2:06pm.

2. Roll call:
Brent Lewis
Dale Riley
Thomas DiSanto
Linda Yeung
Tajel Shah
Jeana Pieralde
Jaci Fong
Michelle Geddes
Julia Dawson
Mary Fitzpatrick

Phil Arnold

Mayor’s Office
Chanda Ikeda
Carol Lu

3. Approval of minutes

The minutes of January 17, 2013 were approved.

4. Review of ICT Pan Performance Measures and Metrics

Chanda Ikeda, Mayor’s Budget Office, told the subcommittee that she had updated COIT that all major projects and initiatives featured in the ICT Plan will have performance measures along with descriptions. She mentioned that the Controller’s Office has helped develop these performance measures with departments, and she believes this is an exciting new step. Ms. Ikeda also mentioned that each project that comes before the Planning & Budgeting subcommittee must give a presentation and Ms. Ikeda is recommending that each department include a slide on their project’s performance measures to help aid the Planning & Budgeting subcommittee vet the project and determine if the measures are appropriate.
Ms. Ikeda clarified that the performance measures would not be reviewed in the plan, but rather be the first step towards putting something together to guide review of projects.
Julia Dawson stated that it was fine to use metrics to access outcomes so long as it does not prevent the allocation of funding.
Brent Lewis stated that he wants to see project managers come forward with project scope, schedule, and budget before receiving funding.
Jeana Pieralde mentioned that this subcommittee needed to identify the purpose of IT projects citywide. She said that IT projects will always fall under one of the following categories: growing business, running business, or transforming business.
The subcommittee generally discussed what the performance measures should measure (project outcome; project success while being implemented; project development; hiring; implementation, etc.).
Ms. Pieralde added that there are many reasons why very good projects struggle, and that these are never really discussed.
Ms. Ikeda said she is hoping that this subcommittee could build upon the initial effort and be a place to think about performance measures that impact the review of a project in the future.
Tajel Shah suggested four categories for measurement: procurement, staffing, implementation, go-live.
Ms. Ikeda said that perhaps this subcommittee could discuss the framework for developing and determining performance measures and then present their thoughts to COIT. Ms. Ikeda added that perhaps all projects should come to the Performance & Resources Subcommittee in the first six months of completion or implementation to give a project report.
Ms. Shah suggested that the subcommittee: 1) determine the things it wants to talk to departments about; 2) talk to departments right after funding is awarded (determine if the department is on the right footing, needs more support, etc.); 3) if the department is planning to request more funding (either for the same project or another project), have another meeting (to determine bandwidth and need). Ms. Shah stated that this would create a lifecycle of information and impact.
Linda Yeung mentioned that it will be hard for departments to talk frankly with the subcommittee if the committee is too punitive. She went on to say that she wants this subcommittee to be a place where departments can speak freely and get guidance about realistic timelines and project measures.
Ms. Shah said the subcommittee could look at other past projects to find successes and weaknesses and commonalities across departments to help guide a future project and advise departments.
Ms. Ikeda mentioned that she thinks this subcommittee would be a great place to hold a brown bag to showcase successful projects and discuss the ways they were successful.
Mary Fitzpatrick stated the importance of getting realistic timeframes and estimates for long-term projects. She went on to say that a forced planning and scoping phase should be built into COIT funding.
Ms. Ikeda said that one of the Planning & Budgeting Subcommittee recommendations in the ICT Plan is to invest in critical planning before committing funding.
Ms. Fitzpatrick noted that that is what most major construction projects do.
Ms. Dawson said that departments need to be able to forecast numbers with the expectation/understanding that these numbers will change. She went on to say that departments cannot plan without forecasting, but they also cannot be penalized for the change.
Ms. Ikeda introduced Carol Lu, Mayor’s Budget Office, who put together a few documents about how to use performance metrics data to guide understanding about citywide project completion and implementation.
Subcommittee reviewed the performance metrics information presented by Ms. Lu. There were general comments about the data presented and what it represented.
Ms. Ikeda asked the subcommittee to tell her what types of performance measures they felt comfortable including in the ICT Plan.
Ms. Fitzpatrick said high level performance measures are useful but can also be distorting.
Ms. Ikeda suggested modeling this subcommittee after Capital Planning and having quarterly updates from departments on their project performance. She went on to say that the subcommittee could create a form that departments fill out every quarter.
The subcommittee liked the idea.
Mr. Lewis asked if in the future the subcommittee could receive supporting documents before the day of the meeting.
Ms. Ikeda said she would try to provide supporting documents to the subcommittee 24-48hours in advance of the meeting.

5. Public Comment

There was no public comment.

6. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 3:17pm.
Last updated: 3/18/2013 3:27:57 PM