PURPOSE. This chapter establishes the policies and responsibilities for performing Information Technology (IT) Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) processes throughout the Indian Health Service (IHS). The Information Technology Investment Review Board (ITIRB) is established to oversee and facilitate the review of major IT investments to ensure they are achieving defined performance goals that support the Agency mission and are compliant with the standards defined in the IHS IT Architecture (ITA) plan.
 

BACKGROUND. Investments in IT can dramatically enhance organizational performance. When carefully managed, IT enables improved business processes, makes information widely available to those who can benefit from it, and reduces the cost of providing essential Government services. As IT rapidly evolves, the challenge of realizing its potential benefits also increases.

Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have clearly stated that each executive agency must actively manage its IT program to ensure technology expenditures are necessary and will result in demonstrated improvements in mission effectiveness and customer service. The Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) legislatively mandates the prudent management of IT investments.

One key goal of the CCA is for agencies to develop policies and processes that will result in the implementation of systems at acceptable costs, within reasonable and expected time frames, and that contribute to tangible, observable mission performance. These processes must be institutionalized throughout the organization, must ensure compliance with the IHS ITA, and be used for all IT-related decisions.
 

SCOPE. This chapter applies to all IHS organizational components including but not limited to Headquarters, Area Offices, and service units conducting business for and on behalf of the IHS through contractual relationships when using IHS IT resources. The policies contained in this chapter apply to all IHS IT activities including the equipment, procedures, and technologies that are employed in managing these activities. The policy includes teleworking, travel, other off-site locations, and all IHS office locations. Agency officials shall apply this chapter to contractor personnel, interns, externs, and other non-Government employees by incorporating such reference in contracts or memorandums of agreement as conditions for using Government-provided IT resources.
 

AUTHORITY. 
 

Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996, "CCA, Division E, Public Law (P.L.) 104-106
 

Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, P.L. 101-576
 

Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, P.L. 103-355
 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, P.L. 103-62
 

Department of Health and Human Services IRM Policies:
 

"Capital Planning and Investment Control," HHS-IRM-2000-0001, January 8, 2001
 

"Conducting IT Alternatives Analysis," HHS-IRM-2000-0002, January 8, 2001
 

Internal Revenue Service Model IT Privacy Impact Assessment
 

Joint Financial Management Improvement Program
 

The following OMB Circulars:
 

Circular A-11, Part 1, “Preparation and Submission of Budget Estimates,” Part 2, “Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans and Annual Performance Reports,” Part 3, “Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets,’’ and the supplement to Part 3, “Capital Programming Guide”
 

Circular A-76, “Performance of Commercial Activities”
 

Circular A-94, “Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs”
 

Circular A-127, “Financial Management Systems”
 

Circular No. A-130, “Management of Federal Resources”
 

Memorandum 97-02, “Funding Information Systems Investments”
 

“Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,”P.L. 104-13
 

“Rehabilitation Act of 1998,” 29 United States Code (U.S.C.) 794d, as amended by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2001, “Appropriation for Military Construction,” P.L. 106-246, July 13,2000 http://www.section508.gov
 

ACRONYMS.
 

BPR  Business Process Re-engineering
 

CCA  Clinger-Cohen Act
 

CFO  Chief Financial Officer
 

CIO  Chief Information Officer
 

COTS  Commercial-Off-The-Shelf
 

CPIC  Capital Planning and Investment Control
 

DIR  Division of Information Resources
 

FIP  Federal Information Processing
 

FY  Fiscal Year
 

HHS  Department of Health and Human Services
 

IEEE  Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
 

IHS  Indian Health Service
 

IRM  Information Resources Management
 

IT  Information Technology
 

ITA  Information Technology Architecture
 

ITIRB  Information Technology Investment Review Board
 

IV&V  Independent Verification and Validation
 

OMB  Office of Management and Budget
 

OMS  Office of Management Support
 

OPDIV  Operating Division
 

P.L.  Public Law
 

RFP  Request for Proposal
 

U.S.C.  United States Code
 

DEFINITIONS 
 

Activity. The activity identifies what needs to be done to achieve a stated mission or purpose, without addressing how it is to be accomplished.
 

Alternative Analysis. An alternative analysis is an evaluation of scenarios and design paths for meeting a general set of system design requirements described in a specific technical/architectural issue or a Business Need Document. This evaluation presents alternatives, which include assessments of current system functionality and design that may satisfy some of the requirements as well as the functionality that may impact the interfaces with other systems. A set of evaluation criteria is used to weigh the various alternatives against each other and provide a recommendation for the analysis.
 

Architecture. The architecture is the organizational structure o f a system or component [Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) 90].
 

Baseline. The baseline is a specification or product that has been formally reviewed and agreed upon; that thereafter it serves as the basis for firther development and can be changed only through formal change control authority.
 

Business Case. A business case is a structured proposal for a business need that serves as an investment decision package to improve business operations. It consists o f a business need and a technical evaluation.
 

Business Need. A business need is any request at a high or low level to improve, change, update, or add new systems that facilitate the Agency’s mission, goals, and objectives.
 

Business Need Document. This document, submitted by an individual or an organization, describes a request for a system change, system improvement, or a new system and provides the information required by the engineering community to develop the change or new system.
 

Capital Planning. Capital planning is a discipline used by management to reduce the risk and increase the return associated with making investments of capital assets.
 

Change Request. A change request is an instrument used to identify changes affecting the functional baselines and cost, schedule, and contractual data associated with information systems baselines. Change requests may also be used to identify changes from subordinate configurations that impact baselines outside their authority.
 

Enterprise.  Enterprise means the entire Agency and/or its components.
 

Firmware. Firmware is the Read-Only-Memory (R0M)-based software that controls a computer between the time it is turned on and the time the primary operating system takes control of the machine. Firmware's responsibilities include testing and initializing the hardware, determining the hardware configuration, loading (or booting) the operating system, and providing interactive debugging facilities in case of faulty hardware or software.
 

Impact Assessment. An impact assessment is an analysis to determine the effect of a change to a current or new developmental system in order to evaluate how the proposed change affects the targeted technical cost and schedule.
 

Information System. An information system is a discrete set of IT, data, and related resources, such as personnel, hardware, software, and associated IT services, organized for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination, or disposition of information.
 

Information Technology. This is any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission or reception of data or information by the Agency. IT includes computers, ancillary equipment, software, firmware and similar procedures, services (including support services), and related resources. It does not include any equipment that is acquired by a Federal contractor incidental to a Federal contract. For purposes of this definition, equipment is "used" by the IHS whether the IHS uses the equipment directly or it is used by a contractor under a contract with the IHS that:
 

requires the use of such equipment; or
 

requires the use, to a significant extent, of such equipment in the performance of a service or the furnishing of a product.
 

Investment Control. Investment control involves management investment oversight activities to monitor projects under development and operational systems to ensure the cost, risk, and performance criteria used to select the investments are being achieved. Project-continuation decisions and corrective actions are made based on periodic monitoring.
 

Infrastructure. The infrastructure is a substructure or underlying foundation and includes the basic installations and facilities on which information systems depend (i.e., hardware platform, operating system, telecommunications).
 

Maintenance. Maintenance involves the set of activities which result in changes to the originally accepted baseline product set in order to keep the system functioning in an evolving, expanding user and operational environment.
 

Major IT System. A major IT system is one that requires special management attention because of its importance to an agency mission; its high development, operating, or maintenance costs; or its significant role in the administration of agency programs, finances, property, or other resources. Large infrastructure investments (e.g., major purchases of personal computers or Local Area Network improvements) should also be evaluated against these criteria.
 

Middleware. Middleware is software that connects end-user applications with diverse data and applications. Key tasks performed by middleware include: interfaces between disparate information systems; searching out desired bits of information; performing translation between data formats; wrapping legacy systems; and handling issues such as data synchronization and verification. Middleware supports multi-tiered servers (e.g., application, database, and Web servers) in an Intranet or Internet environment.
 

Performance. Performance is the degree to which a system or component accomplishes its designated functions within given constraints such as speed, accuracy, or memory usage (IEEE 90).
 

Phase.  A level of the system life cycle that generally specifies major activities, products, reviews and organizations, and roles and responsibilities; and that establishes the level of detail and product accountability.
 

Process.  A process is an organized set of activities with defined inputs and outputs, and performed to achieve a stated purpose.
 

Return on Investment.  Return on Investment of the project shows how much the project benefits the organization in comparison to cost savings or cost avoidance.
 

Review.  A review is a formal evaluation procedure issued to determine the correctness of the products developed during a system life cycle phase.
 

Stakeholders.  Stakeholders are individuals, organizations, review boards, and committees with a vested interest in the result of a decision, process, review, or activity.
 

System Life Cycle. A system life cycle is a structured development approach with defined activities, phases, products, and reviews providing a standard to support the development of systems from the identification of a business need through implementation, operation, maintenance, and eventual retirement.
 

Technical Evaluation. A technical evaluation includes activities to appraise the technical solutions, and associated costs and schedules presented by a customer. The major activities include a technical analysis of the proposed solutions with the cost and schedule, an architecture impact analysis to determine the solution's impact, and a presentation of the technical evaluation to stakeholders for approval.
 

CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER’S ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES. The IHS Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for providing advice and assistance to the Director, IHS, and other senior management personnel to ensure that IT is acquired and information resources are managed for the IHS in a manner that implements CCA policies and procedures. The CIO is also responsible for developing, maintaining, and facilitating the implementation of a sound and integrated ITA, and promoting the effective and efficient design and operation of all major IRM procedures and processes for the Agency. This includes improvements to work processes of the IHS.
 

The CIO chairs the IHS ITIRB and is the final approval authority for the IHS ITIRB.
 

The CIO shall ensure that IHS IT investments satisfy the CCA effectively and efficiently, support mission requirements, meet strict efficiency and performance criteria, and conform to the IHS architecture.
 

The CIO’s staff will serve as the ITIRB’s Executive Secretariat by preparing agendas, scheduling meetings, and taking notes and minutes of the proceedings for distribution to ITIRB members, sponsoring program offices, and senior IHS management officials.
 

The CIO formulates and issues policy, requirements, and procedural guidance for IHS use in conducting IHS investment reviews and in preparing for IHS ITIRB evaluations, reviews, documentation of status, and investments in IHS mission-critical systems.
 

The CIO formulates the IHS IT goals and strategies for defining measures of success in assessing and evaluating IT use and reporting the status of the IHS IT programs.
 

The IHS CIO shall be responsible for performing CPIC for the IHS consistent with current legislation and IHS policy, including the establishment of the IHS ITIRB.
 

The IHS CIO is a member of the HHS ITIRB.
 

The IHS CIO shall provide material to support system justification to the and HHS ITIRB members in advance of an ITIRB meeting.
 

The IHS CIO shall provide and certify an annual inventory of all current and future initiatives that contain an IT component.
 

The IHS CIO is the focal point for working with sponsoring program offices on critical IT issues throughout the system life cycle. These issues include initiatives such as a single IHS ITA, security, systems development activities, CPIC processes, and Independent Verification and Validation.
 

The IHS CIO shall request and receive documentation from IHS program offices for their designated IT investments. The CIO’s staff shall analyze the material provided to support the business case for the system and make recommendations to the CIO for action.
 

The CIO and his/her staff are responsible for reviewing IT-related documents, OMB Form 300,and OMB Exhibit 53.
 

GENERAL POLICY. The IHS is required to conform with the CCA of 1996 to which this policy conforms, and specifically to Section 5 122 of the CCA, “Capital Planning and Investment Control.”
 

Design of Process. In fulfilling the responsibilities assigned under Section 3506(h) of Title 44, U.S.C., the head of each executive agency shall design and implement in the executive agency a process for maximizing the value and assessing and managing the risks of the IT acquisitions of the executive agency.
 

Content of Process. The process of an executive agency shall include the following:
 

Provide for the selection of IT investments to be made by the executive agency, the management of such investments, and the evaluation of the results of such investments.

Be integrated with the processes for making budget, financial, and program management decisions within the executive agency.
 

Include minimum criteria to be applied in considering whether to undertake a particular investment in information systems. This includes criteria related to the quantitatively expressed projected net, risk-adjusted return on investment, and specific quantitative and qualitative criteria for comparing and prioritizing alternative information systems investment projects.
 

Identify information systems investments that would result in shared benefits or costs for other Federal agencies or State or local governments.
 

Identify for a proposed investment quantifiable measurements for determining the net benefits and risks of the investment.
 

Provide the means for senior management personnel of the executive agency to obtain timely information regarding the progress of an investment in an information system. This includes a system of milestones for measuring the progress in terms of cost, the capability of the system to meet specified requirements, timeliness, and quality.
 

Annual IT Review. The CCA requires that capital investments related to IT must be reviewed on an annual basis by the IHS CIO. To accomplish this, the IHS shall establish an ITIRB and an ITIRB process in accordance with this policy. All IHS expenditures, regardless of the size, complexity, risk, or cost, shall follow the same process defined in Section 8-4.1M, "ITIRB Process." However, depending on the size, complexity, risk, cost and phase of the IT investment, the details of the IT investment review, analysis, and documentation will vary. The highest priority IT investments will he further reviewed by the IHS CIO to ensure CCA compliance and ensure the IHS is effectively managing its IT costs and risks associated with the IHS mission and infrastructure. For investments and expenditures that exceed the criteria below, Department-level reviews shall be required.
 

REQUIREMENTS FOR IHS ITIRB REVIEW. All IHS expenditures that meet any of the criteria in Section 8-4.1.M, "The ITIRB Process," shall submit a CPIC Project Proposal (see Manual Exhibit 8-4-A, "IT Project Proposal Form") to the IHS CIO for review. This proposal is based on the results of documentation from required CPIC planning. The IHS CIO shall review the proposal, and based on size, complexity, cost and risk factors, the CIO shall determine if the documentation is sufficient or an IHS ITIRB review is required. Wherever possible, existing documentation shall be used to meet the requirement for providing documentation to the IHS ITIRB and the HHS ITIRB. In making this assessment, the IHS CIO may request the respective IHS organization to provide additional documentation. In addition, the IHS CIO shall provide and certify annually an inventory of all current and future initiatives that contain an IT component.
 

CRITERIA FOR IHS ITIRB REVIEW. All IT expenditures meeting either of the criteria below shall be presented to the IHS ITIRB:
 

Crosscutting systems and technology that may affect more than one Operating Division (OPDIV) at any level of resources.
 

Systems that meet the OMB definition of "major information system," which means an "information system that requires special management attention because of its importance to an agency mission; its high development, operating or maintenance costs; or its significant role in the administration of agency programs, finances, property, or other resources."

The Department CIO or DASIRM retains the discretion to direct that any specific system be brought to the HHS ITIRB. 

For further information on HHS CPIC requirements, refer to the "HHS IRM Policy for CPIC," dated January 8,2001, as amended.
 

CAPITAL PLANNING AND INVESTMENT CONTROL/ITIRB REQUIREMENTS. The IHS shall establish and manage CPIC processes and ITIRB review structures in a manner consistent with the requirements of this policy Requirements:
 

Compliance with the IHS Enterprise ITA.
 

Coordination of IT investment reviews with IHS budget time lines and documentation requirements.
 

Ensuring that investments adhere to legislative requirements and best practices for security and privacy protection, including privacy impact assessments.

Obtaining approval by the IHS ITIRB of investments prior to approval of budgets by the Service and Supply Fund Board.

Obtaining IHS ITIRB approval prior to the obligation of funds for development of new IT systems meeting the criteria in Section 8-4.1L(2), "Phase IT' (a), "Apply Screening Criteria."
 

Submission of an OMB Exhibit 53, "Agency IT Investment Portfolio" and any necessary OMB Circular A-11 300, "Capital Asset Plan and Justification" forms for the next available budget cycle submission.
 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT REVIEW BOARD CHARGE. Superseded by Circular 07-04
 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT REVIEW BOARD PROCESS. The ITIRB process is an integrated approach to managing IT investments that provides for the continuous identification, selection, control, life-cycle management, and evaluation of IT investments. This structured process provides a systematic method for agencies to minimize risks while maximizing the return on IT investments.

The IHS has developed its ITIRB process to become more accountable for the economic and efficient management of IT and to implement a sound and integrated ITA plan. This process is consistent with HHS policies requiring an investment and review process at tbe Department and Agency levels, as well as with relevant legislation such as the CCA and the Government Performance and Results Act. The central goal of the ITIRB is to assess IHS IT investments with regard to the technical soundness of the investment, the consistency of the IT solution with the IHS ITA, and the potential redundancy of the investment with other IHS efforts.

Investments in IT can have a significant impact on an organization’s performance. Well-managed IT investments that are carefully selected and focused on meeting mission needs can propel an organization forward, considerably improving performance while lowering costs. Likewise, poor investments, inadequately justified or with poorly managed costs, risks, and benefits, can hinder an organization’s performance.

There are three phases included in the HHS IT investment management process: Selection, Control, and Evaluation. The ITIRB process addresses IT project selection. The goal of the selection phase is to assess and prioritize current and proposed IT initiatives, and to create an optimal portfolio of IT initiatives. Participants in the ITlRB process make selections and prioritize decisions based on a consistent set of decision criteria that compare costs, benefits, risks, potential returns, and impact on the IHS mission. This phase helps ensure that the organization selects IT projects that will best support mission and IT requirements, and identifies and analyzes a project’s risks and returns before the expenditure of project funds.

This structured ITIRB process provides a systematic method for IHS to review proposed IT projects in order to make sound business investment decisions. In addition, it will enable IHS to satisfy Departmental capital planning requirements.

The IHS ITIRB process applies to projects that propose changes to existing systems as well as projects that propose totally new systems. All proposed IT projects will pass through four phases during the IHS ITIRB Project Selection process:
 

Submit IT Project Proposal. The normal channel for introducing an IT project into the ITIRB process is the annual Area Budget Work Sessions that typically occur in February/March. During these sessions, all funding proposals are submitted for initial inclusion in the IHS budget. Ideas for IT projects are forwarded to the DIR where CIO staff will work with the Project Sponsor (the person who takes responsibility for overseeing the development of the IT idea into an IT project) to complete the IT Project Proposal form.
 

Interaction. In general, any IT project that interacts with the IHS IT system, directly or indirectly, should be submitted for ITIRB review. An IT project is one that involves any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information by the IHS whether the equipment is used by the IHS directly or by a contractor under a contract with the IHS that:
 

requires the use of such equipment, or
 

requires the use, to a significant extent, of such equipment in the performance of a service or the furnishing of a product.
 

Note: This also includes computers, ancillary equipment, software, firmware, and similar procedures, services (including support services), and related resources.
 

Roles and Responsibilities. The project sponsor will complete the proposal form. The CIO’s office (Le., the DIR) will provide technical assistance to the project sponsor in completing the proposal form.
 

Information Requirements for Phase I.  See “IT Project Proposal Form” (Manual Exhibit 8-4-A) and instructions in the Appendix.
 

Phase II.

Screening Criteria. A member of the CIO’S office will review the information provided by the project sponsor on the “IT Project Proposal Form’’ (Manual Exhibit 8-4-A). The reviewer will enter the results of the review on the “IT Project Proposal Screening Information Form” (Manual Exhibit 8-4-B) according to the instructions that come with the form. Screening is based on the initial threshold, or acceptance requirements, listed below. These requirements are based on OMB Memorandum 97-02 (Raines’ Rules) and HHS guidance. In general, proposed projects are expected to satisfy these requirements to be accepted into the IHS ITIRB process.

The reviewer’s remarks are intended to provide an initial indication of a project’s ability to succeed in the ITIRB process. In this way, the project sponsor can get important feedback on the proposed IT project without expending a large amount of resources. Phase II is expected to precede the formal Request for Proposal (RFP) process and the information required in the ITIRB forms will help guide what information is requested from prospective vendors as the RFP is developed.
 

Initial Acceptance Requirements.  The proposed project must meet the following initial requirements:
 

Support a mission or function that needs to be performed by the Federal Government.
 

Provide a service that must he performed by the IHS because no alternative private-sector or governmental source can do it better or more efficiently.
 

Support work processes that have been simplified or otherwise redesigned to reduce costs, make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technology, and improve effectiveness.
 

Clearly support the mission and strategic objectives of the IHS.
 

Major Proposals. Major proposals require the detailed review of the whole ITIRB process in order to he selected for funding.
 

Minor Proposals. Minor proposals do not require the full ITIRB review, may be selected for funding by the IHS CIO, and are entered into the IHS IT inventory for recordkeeping purposes. The CIO also has the discretion to refer minor proposals to the ITIRB for full review.
 

Major vs. Minor Proposal Criteria. Proposals that pass the initial acceptance requirements are also screened by the reviewer to determine if they are major or minor proposals based on the criteria listed below. "Yes" answers to the criteria questions suggest that the proposed project is a major proposal.
 

Do the benefits associated with this project extend throughout the IHS system?
 

Are the expected costs significantly above $1 million?
 

Will the proposed project require a significant change to the IHS ITA plan?
 

Phase II Objectives. The objectives are to determine which proposals satisfy the initial acceptance requirements and which require a detailed IHS ITIRB review (ix., determine if the project proposal is a major proposal or a minor proposal); and to determine which minor project proposals should be funded.
 

Roles and Responsibilities. A representative from the IHS CIOs office is responsible for screening the completed IT project proposal forms to determine if the proposals satisfy the initial acceptance requirements. If the proposal does not, it will be sent back to the project sponsor with comments explaining the reasons why the proposal does not satisfy the requirements. If there is insufficient information for the reviewer to make a recommendation, the proposal will also be sent back to the sponsor. The reviewer will also apply the screening criteria to the proposal to determine if it is a major or a minor proposal. Major proposals receive ITIRB review and proceed to Phase RI. Minor proposals selected for funding are entered into the IHS IT inventory for recordkeeping purposes. All actions on proposals will be reported to the ITIRB by the CIO’s office in a Summary of Activities memo.
 

Information Requirements for Phase II. The CIO office reviewer needs a completed “IT Project Proposal Form” (Manual Exhibit 8-4-A) from the project sponsor in order to perform the screening. The guidance for the screening is in the instructions accompanying the “IT Project Proposal Screening Information Form” (Manual Exhibit 8-4-B).
 

Phase III.
 

Scoring of IT Funding Proposals. The ITIRB members will score the major IT proposals which have passed Phase II screening. The ITIRB members will receive supporting documentation to enable them to score the IT projects. The supporting documentation consists of all completed forms and analyses associated with the proposals since they entered the ITIRB process.

Project scores will he based on criteria in five areas: support of IHS mission, integration with IHS ITA, financial considerations, implementation risks, and support of IHS operations. These criteria include those suggested in HHS guidance (risk-related criteria, financial criteria, and mission-related criteria). The sub-criteria in the five areas are based on the 15 ISAC IT goals and objectives and the four IHS strategic objectives.

Phase III relies on Expert Choice^TM a decision support tool, to facilitate scoring. As a part of this process, the ITIRB members will participate in rating and weighting these criteria and sub-criteria. They will then rate each proposal against the sub-criteria, and Expert ^ChoiceTM will calculate a score for each proposal. The scores are used to compare the diverse projects submitted for funding consideration against common decision criteria. This method facilitates weighing the relative merits of the projects and developing a prioritized list for use in Phase lV.

Phase III cannot proceed until the project sponsor develops detailed, standardized analyses to support the scoring. Draft templates for the analyses are found in the instructions that accompany the “Major IT Project Proposal Scoring Documentation Form” (Manual Exhibit 8-4-C). Representatives from the IHS CIO’s office will provide technical assistance to project sponsors in developing the analyses and filling out the forms.

Once the forms have been completed, they will be sent to the CIO’s office for review. The technical information included in the forms may he revised or summarized by CIO office staff so that the information is understandable for ITIRB members who lack a technical background, The CIOs office will distribute the completed forms to ITIRB members for review prior to an ITRB proposal scoring meeting. The “Major IT Project Proposal Scoring Form” (Manual Exhibit 8-4-D) is to he filled out by ITRB members prior to the ITIRB meeting to facilitate using the Expert Choice^TM during the scoring sessions. At the end of the ITIRB proposal scoring meeting, each project will have been given a total score, which will be used to develop a prioritized list of all IT project proposals.
 

Phase III Objective. The objective is to prioritize competing IT projects according to common decision criteria in order to facilitate the selection of projects by the ITIRB in Phase IV.
 

Roles and Responsibilities. The project sponsor will develop the detailed analyses according to the directions accompanying the “Major IT Project Proposal Scoring Documentation Form” (Manual Exhibit 8-4-C). The ITIRB members should complete the “Major IT Project Proposal Scoring Form” (Manual Exhibit 8-4-D) prior to the scoring session. A representative from the CIO’s office will review the completed forms to ensure they have been filled out correctly and that the technical information is accessible by people who do not have a technical background.
 

Information Requirements for Phase III. Analyses to support scoring should be written by the project sponsor so that ITIRB hoard members can readily understand the information. The directions for completing the analyses accompany the “Major IT Project Proposal Scoring Documentation Form” (Manual Exhibit 8-4-C).
 

Phase IV.
 

Selection of IT Project Proposals. The ITIRB will hold a project selection meeting to select which IT projects to fund after the proposals have been scored. Selections will be made based on the prioritized list created in Phase III and the availability of IHS funding. The ITIRB members will discuss the rankings and agree on any changes to the list by consensus. These discussions may be based on the supporting documentation or other “global” considerations such as congressional or HHS interest. The list of selected projects will be submitted as the IHS IT budget for use at the IHS National Budget Work Session.
 

Phase IV Objective. The objective is to select a set of IT projects to submit for use at the IHS National Budget Work Session.
 

Roles and Responsibilities. The ITIRB makes the final selections. The CIO or his representative will facilitate the selection meeting.
 

Information Requirements for Phase IV. The requirements include the prioritized list of IT projects from Phase III and supporting documentation for each proposal.