1.

Office of Financial Management Enterprise Data Definitions/Chart of Accounts

Summary of Unmet Enterprise Information Needs for Asset Management

of 16

1. Business Process Cycle Asset Management

Unmet enterprise information need

Facility procurement and management information • Need to identify and assess space needs • Need to analyze costs and benefits of buying versus

leasing. What are the enterprise business drivers? Why would we do this?

• Stewardship of state resources • Management of state assets

What is the business value?

• Better info on usage and costs for projections may result in better lease/buy decisions

• Eliminate duplication in reporting that results because numerous agencies often inhabit the same building. If the roles and responsibilities are clearly defined about who reports for which buildings, it will eliminate duplication in reporting. An example was that if a standard building ID # is used, it will limit the duplication.

Is this value enterprise? • Yes, since virtually all state agencies own or lease buildings

Potential standard data elements

• State Facility • Lease # • Building ID # • Facility control record (FCR) – this is used by WSDOT • Lease Site / Facility • Geographic Location / Area (Legislative District, etc.) • Type of facility (e.g., laundry facility, equipment storage

facility, etc.) Roadblocks • Each agency has their own facilities management systems

and methodologies • Accumulating enterprise data is difficult (Work is

underway on accumulating data from agencies for the Facility Oversight Plan)

• Agencies do not use a common coding structure for facilities management

• Agencies need guidance and direction on common definitions such as what should be included in a facility management system.

• There is no standard for a full Condition Assessment with specific detail.

• Data needs to relate to value- there are standards about how you analyze data (JLARC life cycle cost model)



of 16

Participant Comments:

• Common questions: o What is the building being used for? o How many buildings do we own? o How much is invested in our buildings? o What are the buildings worth today? (Current value) o How many people are in the building? o Who is in the building (agencies, what projects, programs, etc.)? o Is the sq ft. being effectively and efficiently used? (vacancy rate) o Are employees co-locating spaces when possible? o Where is the building located? o How much does it cost to operate the building(s)? o What is the condition of the building? o What is the square footage of the building, and of the land (property) that

the building is located? o How much is included in the leases (e.g. parking, utilities, etc.)? o How much of each building does a specific agency use? o Where are we leasing facilities? o How much money have we spent on renovating leased facilities?

• Executive Order 05-01 mandated LEED (Leadership Energy and Environmental Design) for buildings that are in the pre-design phase during the 2005-07 Biennium and thereafter. This Executive Order mandated agencies to track how sustainable and green their buildings/facilities are and set specific goals and thresholds.

• GA felt that a main purchasing principle is to aggregate to get the costs down. There was concern that we are mixing up principles between property management and program management. Some guidelines need to be decided about where the data is collected, and where the data is located? Where does it make sense to gather the data? Where is it most economical for the state to manage? What principle is a priority?

• Comments from UW:

1) The UW has been thinking about how to merge financial info (asset balances, etc.) with space (usage of the areas (which is critical to us in the development of our federal indirect cost rate for our research) along with qualitative data (condition of building). It's definitely a challenge but certainly an ideal. One of the keys I think is to have the information flow directly from the accounting system into the fixed asset/space database, otherwise, it's dual entry. 2) In general, with our current system, providing additional levels of detail (assuming we maintain our current system) will be somewhat difficult due to the fact that changes to our system are quite time-consuming.



of 16

• Comments from DSHS:

Our facility management is done through our Lease Model, which is an internal DSHS system. It is used as a budget tool and used by facilities staff for their leased facilities tracking tool. One critical aspect of managing leased facilities is the shifting demographics of our clients. We must project client needs and the number of clients to determine space needs. Our administrations are creating their own spreadsheets that contain the following information for leased facilities: square footage, # of FTE’s, # of clients, cost per employee, cost per client, etc. Can lease costs be projected? For example, if a lease is up in one year, how can we know how much the market rates will be for a lease in 12 months? In a building occupied by more than one administration, how are the costs distributed? What if the cost of the square footage is more expensive for one administration because of the way they use the building? Is this considered when the lease is negotiated? In addition to identifying the cost of a facility by SF, the type of space and the type of usage needs to be identified also. Need to be able to account for Work in Process (WIP) and depreciation.



of 16

2. Business Process Cycle Asset Management Unmet enterprise information need

Facility condition and maintenance • Need to know the facility condition • Need to know what is spent maintaining each facility to

help with remodel vs. rebuild decisions What are the enterprise business drivers? Why would we do this?

• Stewardship of state resources • Management of state assets • Agencies would be able to differentiate between the cost

to maintain a building, versus operate the building • Compliance with GASB 34 • Compliance with GASB 49. Right now agencies are

trying to comply and track the data independent of an enterprise approach. If there were an enterprise solution to capturing facility condition and maintenance, it would assist agency compliance with this requirement.


• Comprehensive information about the condition of facilities leads to better choices, including budgeting, capital upgrades, and property sales/purchases

• Would enable the state to determine if the building is still functioning as it was intended

• An enterprise approach would allow for a performance evaluation report card for facilities. This would provide the lease owner feedback, hold the landlords more accountable, and allow better decisions about whether to continue leasing, relocate, and/or renegotiating the lease. This would mirror the oversight currently used for contracts.

• The state does a good job at capital planning. An enterprise approach would allow for more maintenance planning.

• Would allow tracking & oversight of condition and maintenance related to historical buildings that have a social and political value.

• Allow comprehensive analysis of the economic life of a facility

Is this value enterprise? • Yes, since all buildings incur maintenance. Potential standard data elements

• Project • State Facility • Building Id # • Location • FTE and staff in facility (caution should be exercised with

this data element because not all buildings are based on



of 16

FTE/staff – e.g., equipment storage) • Rent or debt services* • Facilities and Services costs* • Energy type (electricity, natural gas*) • Janitorial* • Utilities (Water, Sewer, Garbage)* • Security* • Taxes and Assessments* • Amortized Tenant Improvements* • Additional Parking* • Recycle* • Other* *Expenditure data identified and used by the Facility Inventory System team

Roadblocks • Within the existing facility inventory, facility expenditure and maintenance costs are not captured. (A project is underway to define requirements for facility inventory system.)

• No set standard for facilities (e.g., cubicle or office size) is mandated. Government needs are politically driven and standards would help reinforce value and keep balance. Standards would help define and enhance value.

Participant Comments: • A Condition Assessment of sites would be beneficial. It could rank how facilities are

conditioned (e.g., good, fair, poor). It could also assist in the prioritization of state dollars, improving sites, could help with the implementation of GASB 34 requirements, and answering questions such as why we would put a $15K roof on a building purchased for $10K.

• Each year agencies must report FIS (Facilities Inventory System) data. One of the reporting aspects is the condition and last date of rehabilitation. The last date of rehabilitation is difficult to determine because OB2 has been under construction for 5 biennia, but not 100% rehabilitated yet. Data that is requested does not tell the full story of the building.

• Condition assessments – Can you assess the condition of the building? There is a difference between best practice and industry standard for condition assessment.

• Facility Condition – Olympic College completes a biennial facility condition assessment

• Information is requested not only on owned buildings, but also on leased facilities. Agencies and government are working the operating and capital budget sides together to get a complete picture because the data is not held and maintained at the enterprise level.



of 16

• Maintenance costs and preventative maintenance costs are needed in addition to a condition assessment in order to prioritize projects and manage facilities properly

• Information on facilities that are being leased should be captured. There is a lot of emphasis on this, and not a lot of information that is easily accessible.

• Because we do not have accurate and complete data, we continue to extend facility leases even though the buildings are old, and there is a need to look at other options.

• In the private sector there is a value to adapt technology, and space to meet program needs. In government it’s harder to define value, because there are political influences and it is not just the economic bottom line.

• There is a new facility oversight for both owned and leased facilities. This is required for statutory compliance. This encompasses a new capital facilities planning process every six years that will feed into the capital budget. This will include all agencies, including higher ed. The January 2009 report is limited in scope and will incorporate approximately 3,000 of an estimated 14,000 facilities in state government. This report will go to landlords.

• Facilities Oversight information is located at: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/facilityoversight.asp

• A substantial amount of resources are required to participate in 6 year facility planning effort. The state needs to be mindful of cost versus the benefit. Some agencies already do a good job of managing leases.

• There isn’t a security standards plan/standard for owned or leased facilities. This leads agencies to create their own security requirements, plans, and standards.

• Some departments have Preventative Maintenance and Asset Management programs that they are using. It would be good if these programs could upload and report to a master system. A lot of data is being collected at a facility level now. If this information could roll up vs. collected again, that would be good.

• For buildings that are located on the capital campus (and perhaps other “campus” locations such as institutions or higher ed. facilities), it is difficult or impossible to document how much it costs to operate a building or a set of buildings. This problem occurs when all of the buildings are lumped together in a central operational unit and cannot differentiate operational costs such as electricity, water usage, garbage, and recycling. The operational costs for these buildings are allocated based upon square footage. This does not represent the real numbers and real costs to tenants. This also prevents accurate negotiation for rents. In addition, agencies cannot present their business case because they do not have real numbers. For buildings on the capital campus, there is a statutory road block.

• WSDOT explained that even though their building only houses WSDOT, and they aren’t considered part of the capital campus, they cannot break down the resources that are paid for water, recycling, trash, electricity, etc.) WSDOT is not under the same statutory authority as GA for the capital campus buildings and the building referenced in this conversation is located in the Mottman Maintenance Area in Tumwater.

• Once a building came on the statewide inventory, it never left. This results in the state incurring costs for long term use. There is a need for accurate conditions across



of 16

all facilities. The roadblocks are a lack of common definitions, and an oversight of the data that is reported. There was concern about knowing the data is accurate so that you know it is a value. It was mentioned that if agencies knew that this information was going to be used in budgeting, it would ensure that the data is accurate and allow for better funding opportunities.

• Common questions asked are: o For owned buildings, Are we deferring maintenance & now required to

expend a lot of money to play catch up? o For owned buildings, Are we keeping up with preventative maintenance?

• Business Value: o Security vs. accessibility to data


This would be helpful for leased facilities also. It might answer the question “Why do we have to upgrade the building?” Maybe GA isn’t negotiating the best leases for us.

It would be useful so that routine maintenance can be scheduled. It would also keep a history of completed maintenance (the dates last performed) and the costs. It could keep track of the conditions of wiring for computers, communications, telephones, and data ports. It could help identify safety issues (protecting the safety of employees and clients) for such things as broken sidewalks, old buildings, etc. It could help to negotiate leases if we knew the condition of our state-owned buildings. It could identify the condition of our infrastructure. It could track maintenance projects in neighboring buildings so as to piggyback on the project and get better rates. This would be more “green” because it would save gas and products. It would help determine if a facility should remain open. It could help with risk management, especially at the DSHS institutions.



of 16

• This is the scope of the Facilities Oversight Project:

Space Type Definition Leased Owned

Office A facility where service delivery or administrative business is conducted X X

Warehouse

A facility for the storage of goods or merchandise or archiving of files, where business is also conducted. This type of facility may include shipping and receiving functions. X X

Educational Facility A facility in which instruction is given to students, state employees or the public X --

Hospital An institution providing medical care and treatment for the sick or injured -- --

Laboratory A facility equipped for scientific research X X1[1] Land Property with no structures -- --

Laundry Facility A facility with commercial-sized capacity used to clean garments, sheets, etc. X X

Library A facility in which literary materials are kept for reference or reading X --

Maintenance/Shop A manufacturing or repair facility X --

Other/Miscellaneous

A facility that does not meet one of the other definitions provided. Examples include: aircraft hangars, hatcheries, communication sites and boat moorages. -- --

Parking An area for parking motor vehicles X --

Prison An institution for confining people convicted of crimes -- --

Residential A facility in which one or more people live -- --

Retail A facility used for the sale of goods to consumers -- --

Storage

A facility for the storage of goods or merchandise only, where no business is conducted X --

1[1] Scope excludes on-campus laboratory facilities



of 16


Land management • Need to track parcels owned, sold, leased, or restricted for

special use (habitat) What are the enterprise business drivers? Why would we do this?

• Stewardship of state resources • Management of state assets • Compliance with GASB 51- Intangible Assets (mineral

rights, water rights, easements) What is the business value?

• Quality land management information helps agencies maximize the public's return (monetary and otherwise) on its investment in land.

Is this value enterprise? • Yes, state land resources are managed throughout the state in many agencies.


• Land parcel • Geographic location (Perhaps use the GIS [Geographic

Information System] location?) • Environmental condition (wetland, protected, forested,

habitat) • Geographic Information Position (GIP) location for items

such as traffic lights, traffic circles, signs, etc.) Roadblocks • There is no statewide land management system that has

elements for which questions are asked (how much state land is currently leased, what are lease terms, etc.). (This may be included in the facility inventory system project currently underway.)


• Common questions: Why did you get the land What is the purpose of this land?

• DNR uses the GIS system to meet business needs (was given authority by OFM) to track timber, wildlife, parks, vegetation, insects and disease management, etc. For future systems, DNR would like the ability to export data to an enterprise system, so it isn’t maintained in two different places.

• There are revenues associated with trust properties. All of this information cannot be managed in one system

• Agencies have a need to document unconstructed rights of way, and facilities purchased. These are maintained as uneconomic remainders. Should these be available to lease, or available to purchase?

• Agencies hold auctions for surplus purchasing. HB 1940 (RCW 47.13) required agencies to give local jurisdictions notification of disposal. The



of 16

specific statutory requirement did not state how the notification was to be made.

• There is a common need to use that property as trade agreement for acquisition.

• Agencies have difficulty determining what property do we have that can be exchanged for developed property in a different location. This is an integral part of the planning process. Use GIS to find better properties.

• Agencies receive requests from public for information. Equal value exchanges – maintenance site no longer used traded. How many sections in a township was issue in new IRA system.


DSHS owns some trust lands – It could show the land restrictions (show the accounting for the restrictions). It could track the revenues from the leased lands. It could show income generated vs. expenses incurred. DSHS has some valuable timber lands – it could show the timber values.



of 16


Information Technology Equipment & Intangible Asset Management • Need information to manage IT equipment & intangible

assets more effectively What are the enterprise business drivers? Why would we do this?

• Accurate IT equipment inventory and management would allow accurate property management insurance for risk management.

• Keeping up to date with operations by upgrading technology, security, disaster recovery, licensing, and increased security needs

• Compliance with GASB 51 – Intangible Assets (internally developed applications)

• Compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley • Agencies are required to document IT assets in portfolios

managed by information managers and report to DIS. DIS then reports this to the Legislature.


• Better management/standardization of IT resources • Would allow the state to have a physical inventory of all IT

assets (tangible and intangible). • Would ensure the equipment is properly insured at each

specific location/site. • Would allow timelier reporting of IT assets in portfolios if

encompassed in one enterprise system. • Would allow agencies to see internal systems developed at

other agencies and configure for other agency usage. This would limit the number of new applications developed and save money.

Is this value enterprise? • Yes, all agencies maintain and must account for IT equipment


• Location

Roadblocks • Many agencies have their own unique system for managing IT equipment and inventories

• Accessing the data and standard formatting is not adhered to for reporting to DIS

• No common definitions for defining “site” • Agencies have developed their own internal systems for

tracking and inventorying IT assets



of 16

Participant Comments: • It would be nice if there was automatic detection of the physical location of each asset

(e.g., IT equipment) DOT explained that for IT equipment that is connected to the server, they have a system that detects the equipment and inventories it each year. This inventory method was approved by OFM.

• DIS is developing the new portfolio management system. This group should be looking to see what is being included in that (data elements, reporting requirements, etc.). Subject matter experts would have helped this process.

o There is a need to track radio licenses for radio bandwidth. Agencies are required to renew licenses on a regular basis and there isn’t one place to track licenses and renewals. The radio bandwidth licenses are a hot commodity and the state loses a valuable intangible asset when renewals are not made.

o There is not a system that tracks software licenses within the state. This will preclude software licensing infractions, and also allow oversight of required upgrades in equipment or licenses related to software.



of 16

5. Business Process Cycle Asset Management; Cost Accounting, Procure to Pay Unmet enterprise information need

Consumable inventory management • Need information to manage consumable inventory more

effectively • Need information to make better purchasing decisions

What are the enterprise business drivers? Why would we do this?

• Leverage purchasing opportunities • Cost savings, cost recovery, and tracking • Reduce inventory levels (JIT - Just In Time) • Compliance with federal certification for federal money • There would be more accurate information in the financial

system and could drive an inventory system. • Requirements for Disaster Recovery mandate that a certain

level of inventory is on hand at all times (depending upon the agencies business). A consumable inventory management system could help agencies manage that inventory and ensure adequate quantities are maintained at all times.

• Statewide visibility on consumable inventory required for an agency to perform it’s business, and meeting needs during a disaster

• Supports modern inventory management “best practices” and tools


• Better consumable inventory information will help minimize costs of doing state business

• Improved business controls such as robust systems security, online approvals, and an auto-trail tracking of user activity

• Accurate information will give agencies the ability to make real time decisions about purchases (savings in staff time and cost of goods)

• Enhanced and accessible access to consumable inventory information will help agencies realize cost savings through inventory turnover rates (better cash flow)

• Access to accurate consumable inventory information will help agencies track expiration of chemical and food commodities, lot numbers, and storage requirements

• Better information leads to improved service delivery (having inventory available when and where needed)

• Enhanced information will help agencies reduce overstocked materials

• Access to information leads to improved project cost tracking • Integration with enterprise data repositories such as vendor,

commodity, contract, organization, and chart of accounts data could provide accurate and complete data for measurement



of 16

and reporting purposes • Could assist agencies with the accuracy of a physical

inventory (WSDOT uses this as a performance measure) • If a disaster occurred, transparency between agencies within

the system would allow agencies to see what other agencies have to share & meet the emergency needs

• Many items are tracked by Bin and Lot numbers and have storage requirements for things that are stored. An enterprise system would allow medical supplies recalled be located and tracked by lot numbers.

• Use technology to its fullest by automating manual tasks by using barcodes, scanners, etc.

Is this value enterprise? • Yes, several agencies, including higher education institutions, are impacted and the amounts may be material to the state as a whole.


• Commodity Code • Geographical location

Roadblocks • Current DOT system is old and would be costly to replace • Many agencies have their own unique system for managing

consumable inventories • Agency unique systems are old and costly to maintain and

replace • Data conversion/crosswalk from agency unique systems


• There is a need to track all of the elements in the Inventory Management cycle (field order/purchase, receipt, surplus/inventory mgmt. – any elements in the purchasing cycle).

• Vendors should be managed in one place and one system that has the capacity to track/code correct information.

• JIT inventory control does not work for all state agencies and lines of service. DOT is responsible for all guardrails. DOT cannot order guardrails when an emergency arrives. It is essential that public safety (critical) items are stocked to a certain capacity (safety level). This may not need oversight at a state level, but does need to be tracked and measured at the agency level.

• Agencies have used specific vendors believing that they were using an OMWBE vendor, but indeed the vendor was not an OWMBE vendor.

• Common data standards vs. central system. If we had common data standards, wouldn’t that get the state just as far as having a central system?

• Agencies felt that the state should adopt NIGP codes to classify inventory. • An agency had concerns about sharing assets and transparency between

agencies for consumable inventory on hand. The agency felt there was a need to look at model at a higher level for disaster recovery and day-to-day operations.



of 16

• If consumable inventory was tracked by location, it’s risk could be evaluated by the item and it’s location

• Standardization of commodity code helps reduce stock piling. This can also assist in determining if there are contract/performance issues.

• There should be a certification for jobs in the Asset Management field. There were comments that the asset management field is complex and is not at the correct career level and does not get enough emphasis of its importance to agencies and the state.

• Unmet business need: Management of surplus items. Coordination between what a project is doing and the stores. (Where does this go?)

• Some agencies are governed by federal regulations and would not be able to share resources.

• There is difficulty getting the correct information to OFM. There was a concern that AFRS needed to be updated so that it coded vendors properly so agencies don’t get dinged for not using OMWBE vendors. AFRS has a code for OMWBE and a mandatory state used contract, but some of the codes are mutually exclusive, or negate each other so that agencies do not get the benefit if they are meeting numerous criteria.

• State has a different certification system than federal. Many small businesses registered at the federal level, but not at the state level. The local, state, and federal systems don’t talk to each other.

• WEBS captures OMWBE data and may not contain accurate certification information. Business decisions to use certain vendors over another may not be made on correct data. Agencies are trying to be good stewards of money and do business with small operations and OWMBE vendors.

Higher Ed:

• WSU stated they are not sure they would need the enterprise information. They are 320 miles from Olympia and have their own central stores.

• WWU stated they track their own inventory and not sure it needs to go in central system.

• A question was asked about the higher education systems’ use of scientific equipment and management of fleets. It was commented that it could be beneficial across state, including higher ed. data. Buying opportunities and assistance during a disaster could also include higher ed.

UW:

• I'd concur with some of the other respondents in terms of wondering whether consumable inventory is an important enough issue to consolidate info. I can definitely see the value in the case of a disaster, but in general, I think management of the inventory is best at the lower level (aside from the issue of consolidated spend, which I think can be achieved separately from the inventory management). At the UW, we no longer have a central stores



of 16

operation so our only significant area of inventory is at the hospital, which is managed at that level.

Comments from DSHS:

The same inventory system should be able to work for DOT, work for a medical facility, work for a food warehouse, etc? It should have user -friendly receiving and issuing capabilities (BAR codes and scanners). It should be able to handle items for multiple funds. For example, most of DSHS consumable inventory is in Fund 001. However, we have merchandise inventory in Fund 512, and some donated inventory in Fund 800. It should have ease of reporting and accessing the data. Foods - It could be used for menu planning (i.e., based upon what is in the food warehouse, what can be put on the menu for the next week?). It should be able to track donated (no cost) foods from USDA. It should be able to track chemicals and pharmaceuticals by the lot numbers. In the event of a product recall, we need to see which ward or client received the drugs. It should be able to track Medicaid eligible items to the client (produce a client account report for billing purposes). If a chemical or drug is issued, it should provide the receiver with the storage requirements and any Material Safety Data Sheets for that item. Agencies should have the ability to view commodities in other agencies so that in the event of an emergency, they can talk to each other and possibly share the commodities.

1.

Documents

Transcript of 1.