GAO releases report on FGDC Role and Geospatial Information

Blog post
edited by
Wiki Admin

GAO release report on us of geospatial information with title “OMB and Agencies Can Reduce Duplication by Making Coordination a Priority”. Readers Digest – focus on integrating data. 

Click to download PDF

We tend to agree. FGDC is currently very focused on a service enabling management model (Geoplatform) to accomplish this. It is bold, but if their role of being a service provisioner can directly or indirectly get them in the game to address the real problem of data lifecycle management, they will have a chance to address this. 

Point being, FGDC knows its role is not to be in IT Operations as its direct goal. But, they also saw that being a sideline judge with no carrot or stick role would not garner the direction and recommendations that GAO suggests. They are getting on the playing field, taking advantage of the open service provider role, being that broker, and using that role to move IT costs down, and also enabling those shifts in monies to then focus on the data issues cited. Its bold, and a unique approach, and there are many questions can a traditionally non-operational group develop that culture to be effective. Proof will show over the next 2 years.

Below find our summary of strategic direction for FGDC’s geoplatform.

The challenges and recommendation sections are:

  1. FGDC Had Not Made Fully Implementing Key Activities for Coordinating Geospatial Data a Priority
  2. Departments Had Not Fully Implemented Important Activities for Coordinating and Managing Geospatial Data
  3. Theme-lead Agencies Had Not Fully Implemented Important Activities for Coordinating and Managing Geospatial Data
  4. OMB Did Not Have Complete and Reliable Information to Identify Duplicative Geospatial Investments

Our review of Background – then and now

The foundation the FGDC has put in place. The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) has always been a catalyst and leader enabling the adoption and use of geospatial information.

The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) has been successfully creating the geospatial building blocks for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) and empowering users to exploit the value of geospatial information.  The FGDC has been leading the development of the NSDI by creating the standards and tools to organize the asset inventory, enhance data and system interoperability and increase the use of national geospatial assets. The FGDC has successfully created policy, metadata, data and lifecycle standards, clearinghouses, catalogs, segment architectures and platforms that broaden the types and number of geospatial users while increasing the reuse of geospatial assets. [1] 

What is next? The Geospatial Platform and NGDA portfolio will be the mechanism for adoption of shared geospatial services to create customer value

Recently, the FGDC and its’ partners, have expanded their vision to include the management and development of a shared services platform and a National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA)portfolio.  The goals are to “develop National Shared Services Capabilities, Ensure Accountability and Effective Development and Management of Federal Geospatial Resources, and Convene Leadership of the National Geospatial Community benefitting the communities of interest with cost savings, improved process and decision making”.[2]

As the FGDC continues on the road to establish a world class geospatial data, application and service infrastructure, it will face significant challenges “where the Managing Partner, along with a growing partner network, will move from start‐up and proof‐of‐concept to an operational Geospatial Platform”.[3]

Xentity has reviewed the FGDC’s current strategy, business plan and policies and identified the following critical issues that need to be solved to attain the goals:

  • Building and maintaining a federated, “tagged”[4] standards-based NGDA and an open interoperable Geospatial platform. The assets need to provide sufficient data quantity and quality with service performance to attract and sustain partner and customer engagement[5]
  • Developing a customer base with enough critical mass to justify the FGDC portfolio and provide an “Increased return on existing geospatial investments by promoting the reuse of data application, web sites, and tools, executed through the Geospatial Platform” [6]
  • Improving Service Management and customer-partner relationship capabilities to accelerate the  adoption of interoperable “shared services” vision and satisfy customers [7]
  • Executing simple, transparent and responsive Task Order and Requirements management processes that result in standards based interoperable solutions.  [8]

The Big Challenges

Establish the financial value and business impact of the FGDC’s Portfolio!

The Geospatial Platform and NGDA will provide valuable cost saving opportunities for its adopters.  It will save employee’s time; avoid redundant data acquisition and management costs, and improve decision making and business processes.  The financial impact to government and commercial communities could be staggering. It is a big and unknown figure.

The Geospatial Platform by definition and design is a powerful efficient technology with the capacity to generate a significant return on investment.  It is a community investment and requires community participation to realize the return.  The solution will need to assist the communities with the creation and sharing of return on investment information, cost modeling, case studies, funding strategies, tools, references and continue to build the investment justification.  The solution will need to optimize funding enhancement and be responsive to shorter term “spot” or within current budget opportunities while always positioning for long term sustainability.  The FGDC Geospatial Platform Strategic Plan suggests a truly efficient capability could create powerful streamlined channels between much broader stakeholder communities including citizens, private sector, or other government-to-government interfaces. Similar to the market and business impacts of GPS, DOQ, satellite imaging technology, the platform could in turn promote more citizen satisfaction, private sector growth, or multiplier effects on engaged lines of business.

To get a big return, it will demand continuous creative thinking to develop investment, funding, management and communication approaches to realize and calculate the value.  It is a complex national challenge involving many organizations, geospatial policy, conflicting requirements, interests and intended uses.

The key is demonstrable successes.  Successes become the premise for investment strategy and cost savings for the customers.  Offering “a suite of well‐managed, highly available, and trusted geospatial data, services, and application, web site for use by Federal agencies—and their State, local, Tribal, and regional partners” [9] is the means to create the big value.  

”A successful model of enterprise service delivery will create an even greater business demand for these assets while reducing their incremental service delivery costs.” [10]

FGDC has to create and tell a compelling “geospatial” value proposition story

To successfully implement the FGDC’s vision, it will demand a robust set of outreach and marketing capabilities.  The solution will need to help construct the platforms value proposition and marketing story to build and inform the community.  The objective is to ensure longer term sustainable funding and community participation.  The solution will need to bring geospatial community awareness, incentive modeling, financial evaluation tools, multi-channel communication and funding development experience to the FGDC.  The solution will need to have transparently developed and implemented communication and marketing strategies that have led to growth in customer base, alternative portfolio funding models and shared services environments for the geospatial communities.  The solution will need to have an approach that will be transparent, engage the customer and partners and continuously build the community.

This is a challenging time to obtain needed capital and win customers even for efficient economic engines like shared geospatial data and services.  The solution will need to approach the community outreach is impactful, trusted and will tell the story of efficiencies, cost savings, and higher quality information.  The platform and NGDA must impact the customer program objectives. Figure 1 – FGDC Performance and Value framework shows how the platform’s value chain aligns with the types of performance benefits that can be realized throughout its inherent processes. The supporting team’s understanding of this model will need to organize the “Story” to convince the customer and partners that the platform can:

  • Provide decision makers with content that they can use with confidence to support daily functions and important issues,
  • Provide consistency of base maps and services that can be used by multiple organizations to address complex issues,
  • Eliminate the need to choose from redundant geospatial resources by providing access to preferred data, maps and services[11] 

As the approach is implemented, the FGDC, its partners and the Communities of Interest will have successfully accelerated the adoption and use of location based information.  Uses will recognize the value offering and reap the benefits to their operations and bottom line.   The benefits will be measurable and support the following FGDC business case objectives:

  • Increasing Return on Existing Investments, Government Efficiency, Service Delivery
  • Reducing (unintentional) Redundancy and Development and Management Costs
  • Increasing Quality and Usability[12]

Our Suggested Solution

FGDC’s challenges requires PMO, integrated lifecycle management, partner focus, and blend experience with an integrated approach and single voice designed to meet the FGDC’s strategic objectives and provide a world-class service shared services and data portfolio.  Doing this, they can integrate organizations, data, and service provision.

A solution like this would provide the program, partner and customer relationship management, communications, development and operational capabilities required to successfully implement the FGDC’s vision and business plan. The focus will need to 

  1. Coordinate cross-agency tasks, portfolio needs in agile prgoram management coordination with a single voice,
  2. implement an understanding of critical lifecycle processes to manage and operate the data, technology, capital assets and development projects for a secure cloud-based platform
  3. have communications and outreach focused on communities for partner and customer engagement in the lifecycle decisions
  4. Finally, make sure secretariat staff and team has rotating collective experience with representatives and contractors who hav esuccessfully performed at this scale across all functional areas with domain knowledge in Geospatial, technology, program, service, development and operations.

The strategy and collective experience and techniques will enable FGDC to provide a single voice from all management domains (PMO, Development, Operations and Service Management) for customer engagement. The approach will be need to be integrated with the existing FGDC operating model creating a sum value greater than that of its individual parts. This approach will help create the relationship to develop trusted partner relations services. 


[1]  (page 7 – Geospatial –Platform-Business-Plan-Redacted-Final)

[2]  (page 2 – Draft NSDI –Strategic Plan 2014-2016 V2)

[3]  (page 28 – Geospatial –Platform-Business-Plan-Redacted-Final)

[4]  (page 11 – Ibid )

[5]  (page 9 – Ibid)

[6]  (page 26 – Ibid)

[7]  (page 4 – Ibid)

[8]  (page 6 – Ibid)

[9]  (page 2 – Geospatial –Platform-Business-Plan-Redacted-Final)

[10]  (DOI Geospatial Services Blueprint – 2007)

[11]  (page 13 – Geospatial –Platform-Business-Plan-Redacted-Final)

[12]  (Appendix A – Geospatial –Platform-Business-Plan-Redacted-Final)

[13]  (Page 12 – OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental Guidance)

[14]  (page 12 – Geospatial –Platform-Business-Plan-Redacted-Final)

[15]  (page 36 – Ibid)

[16]  (ITSM – Service Operations V3.0)

[17]  (page 26 – Ibid) 


Xentity awarded IT IDIQ from State of Colorado

Blog post
edited by
Wiki Admin

The State of Colorado’s Governor’s Office of Information Technology (OIT) has awarded to Xentity an IDIQ Master Agreement for business services

This master task order contract (MATOC) is a result of an award under RFP-001-JG-14 for Computer Programming, Consulting Services, and Business Services involving Cloud Solutions. 

In the Fall of 2013, The State of Colorado’s Governor’s Office of Information Technology (OIT) sought proposals to identify Implementation Services (“Implementers”) for business services involving cloud solutions by Salesforce.com, Google, and Perceptive Software (Perceptive), and other emerging technologies. 

  • The award is for an Enterprise Agreement, as a multi-contract award IDIQ
  • base period of 5 years and 5 consecutive 1-year renewal options
  • an initial $10 million maximum contract amount/ceiling.  
  • Task orders can be issued by multiple sponsoring state agencies.

Xentity has previously won and supported contracts for the State of Colorado with the Department of State and has worked closely with the Office of Information Technology.

Xentity’s Services can be ordered from any of the Colorado Agencies via this contract

Scope Include:

  • Task Order Technical Management
  • Agile Project Management
  • Solution Architecture
  • Architecture & Governance Support
  • Cloud Solution Development / Database Support
  • Portal & Development/Database Support
  • Application Development Support
  • Quality Assurance / Customer Support
  • Transition Support
  • Disaster Recovery/COOP Participation
  • Best Practice Group Support/Participation
  • Outreach Strategy and Support

Positions include: Project Manager, Technical Consultants, Architects, Architecture Analysts, Management Analysts, Solution Architects, Enterprise Architects, and Communications specialists for Branding, communications, design, and strategy 

More to come on how to access Xentity services off this contract.

 

Piling On HealthCare.gov

Blog post
edited by
Matt Tricomi

Washington just can’t catch a break, eh?. Debt Ceiling. Sequester. Shutdown. And now an epic fail of a single portal solution that provides the primary access to the new healthcare access law.
Love it or hate the law, the model for the electronic access provision is definitely an epic fail of a rollout.
What else is an architect to do if we can’t pile on the fiasco, offer opinion, while at same time, we are hoping to catch someone’s attention or get some sense someone is thinking about it from the design point of view, as it appears the media, hearings, and threads are not hitting on, at least, where we were hoping the discusion would land. Its a bad design. I’m not commenting on the policy part – the pundits do enough of that. I’m commenting on the architecture itself. It appears a poor design.
The following captures our internet sleuthing, colleague discussions, and our current deductions.
This is an evolving blog, as its more of a case study than a daily diary. Its a bit in draft form, but a way to begin to pin the story together. Apologies for the language typos and pre-publish ready state, but figured this is so fast moving and important, that I wanted to add to the dialog, and not simply leech after with 20/20 hindsight.

UX and Web Design is fine – Its not the front end

Now much fanfare has gone to the “web site” glitches. It was written about back in June by Alex Howard in the AtlanticI had the pleasure of connecting with Alex during data.gov work back in 2010 and off and on, we correspond on social media occasionally. I have a respect for his writing, what he follows, and have found generally that he is spot on with bringing collaboration across traditional boundaries into the world of information and technology. That said, I may be a bit biased. 

Here are just a handful of articles done on the healthcare.gov performance:

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/healthcare-gov-analysis/

http://apmblog.compuware.com/2013/11/04/diagnosing-obamacare-website-heathcare-gov-still-lacks-basic-optimizations-before-it-can-mature/

http://www.mardesco.com/blog/website-optimization-and-healthcare-gov/

http://www.conversionmax.com/healthcaregov-what-went-wrong/

Its the same thing as above – minify, compress, order your scripts/CSS, cache. Yep, the same things back in 1999, just a MUCH more powerful scripting and style processing capability. 

Point being, this client-side tweaking is all REALLY good practice, especially for large sites with large traffic. Every little bit of debris cleanup helps. But, whatever fix is done, there needs to be a balance of the true timeline issues. It appears that the problem is primarily a server-side architecture problem . There were/are definitely several issues with the front-end performance as the above articles suggest. Its easy for the web technophiles to do, since most of the web processing is on the client side – in your browser and tools (i.e. hit F12 on a PC in Chrome or do  YSlow plugin for Firefox) are easy to use or websites like what Google Analytics does can analyze performance, content safety, usage statistics and so much more. Point being, are you going to put more resources to fix the leaky faucet or the gushing, gaping hole in the water main first?

Now, Alex only reported on the developments of the front end and UX component. There is deserved high praise on Prose.io, Jekyll, open source concepts, garage organizations breaking beltway development stereotypes, and persona development as a way to develop the navigation for this brand new pattern.

But, the point is, the UX and web design part is fine and and dandy. Alex was right in June and still is. Its the same architecture I did for united.com back in ’99, just different tech. Have a CMS, cache it, distributed over 4 servers west/east. When 9/11 hit, my site was only airline site (check internetwayback machine) and call center that stayed up. So, this model for hc.gov is fine. The UX caching is fine. 

He didn’t report on the back-end part. Mind you, this part is under reported and the complexities of the iceberg under the water has been mis-understood. A lot of folks have joined the form of internet bashing snarkiness and bashed Alex’s journalism and attacked his integrity as a bandit of sorts. In other articles, I did see some purist nerd talk on some of poorly grouped javascript or heavy, some bad code, added some extra callbacks, and wasn’t as static as it should have been, it was quick to determine that was minor. 

I felt pretty bad for him on the article, and generally as a citizen, embarrassed, so like many of us architect weenies, I dug into it as many other colleagues have. Hey, regardless of politics, we all want a working country. 

Why the logic for real-time data aggregation architecture?

Just like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge didn’t fall because the construction contractor failed, it was the architecture forgot one piece of logic – the wind in this river was very strong. There was nothing to dampen the flow, and when the wind force blew, it blew the bridge passed and near its natural frequency (think rubbing your finger on a wine glass), those vibrations shattered the bridge. It was built to specification by the contractors, but the design was horrible because it had flawed logic.
OK, where is the parallel. So if its the back-end problem for healthcare.gov, where is it? My background and recent work on “hero” architecture was also excited to hope it was a minor performance issues that could be fixed by some horizontal scaling of servers. They did that, no major fix. Maybe it could be some technical server or software tuning – no luck. That only leaves bad logic.

Now it appears possibly the contractor did have faulty construction in that their wasn’t enough foresight to do more parallel testing, load testing, integration testing and the “7 steps of doneness“. The architects came out and said it today. Though that sounds a little passive aggressive now, as an architect of a building, would you say that after the bridge collapsed? Sounds like either buckpassing or gag order or droopy dog, no on is listening to me. 

But even that would have been able to be reported out by now. So, aside from the obvious lack of discipline for engineering failures which is the civil engineering equivalent to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, what logic am I talking about.

I believe it comes down to the architecture logic in this case, likely multiple areas. They treated the architecture like a controlled real-time MIS distributed system on data that has not been standardized or proven to be easily integrated through the test of time
 

Bad Logic: It appears they are responding to business rules that ask for real-time queries?


Why are they doing this? Is Healthcare.gov is following the KAYAK.com or Orbitz.com data aggregation model? In airlines, rates could change any minute, airlines have proven APIs over a decade of time-tested improvements, and those smaller airlines get screenscraped and KAYAK spends dollars keeping those scrapers up to date – just like when mainframes used to be scraped for client-server integration. Airline is a huge industry, they put their paper ticket to eticket on the line and it took a decade to get to this model. Then again, USA Today put out an article noting that Healthcare.gov is not alone on high-tech blunders:

United, Continental merge computer systems

March and August 2012

United Airlines had problems with its reservations system in early March after it switched to Continental’s computer system as the two airlines merged operations. Passengers complained as United struggled for several days to fix problems. In late August, the airline’s computer system and website went down causing problems with reservations, ticketing and check-ins.

This of course made me smile a little bit since they took down my architecture I did for united.com since they decided to move to Continental’s toolsets mostly because United needed to get out of Apollo mainframe (so says word on the street). So when they through [my] proverbial baby, then 12 years old and still well respected and award-winning out, with that, it did make me smile. But, point being, even big moves in private industry will happen in this type of architecture.


While I appreciate the importance of up-to-date comparisons, cant this stuff be pre-loaded? Why are we bucket brigading this information? Did they do this because they got caught up with the fanfare of the neat front-end – which again is slick, but its a small part of the project. Its the book on the cover that gets people there and comfortable and to have a good interior design user experience. But if you cant get a cup of coffee in Starbucks, does that matter?
I wonder if it needed to be this way.  When I heard about the queries real-time crossing statelines, which meant that all the quality validation would require quality handshake, in real-time from each source where each time a different provider, state, or other governing data source, that would require a whole different set of rule base to validate. Each state, provider, etc. operates differently and to expect that real-time is quite an aggressive and bold feat.
At same time, is that required? Imagine doing a bucket brigade through 10 points for one bucket to put out a fire, some water will be spilled, but if you simply put more people/power in between, the spillage doesnt matter. That is why it works for normal web service models which has made Twitter, facebook, and many other Services used in other apps work so well. Its a simple single source of data.
Now, pretend there are 50 different types of twitter imitators, all with different approaches to tweeting, different data about the user or the tweet (aka metadata), different ways they setup the service call, and under different state laws to share that information. This is healthcare.gov.
My idea here isnt overaly novel. Check out gov.uk and MongoDB’s article – Reinventing Data Management for Government Websites which discusses just this theory:
HealthCare.gov faces challenges like aggregating volumes of data and building an efficient system to meet citizens’ needs. An agile database like MongoDB could have helped HealthCare.gov to scale, remove redundancy, and potentially reduce the cost (estimated to be at $292 million so far) (WaPo article) of both creating the site and dealing with the fallout of its failure.
I haven’t reached a point of validation yet, but it sure seems like the separately developed service handshaking across these disparate sources would cause integrating data that was created, formed, provided, and published under such different bucket brigade handlers, that it would be like having a bucket bridge coming out of a lake and an ocean, and expect only fresh water and the extra salt water magically goes away.

Why not pre-stage the queries?

I guess I’m asking still – why do they need to aggregate real-time? Why can’t they pre-stage the calls? Are they really updated every minute?


You make pre-staged products, where in between each organization, you validate the quality, get it ahead of time, or design-time, so then your run-time call can call the validated source which can be updated every week, day, 15 minutes, etc. and different of each feed. Then when new feeds come in, the separate pre-built maps or indices are auto-updated to make and optimize the comparison experience too, and even setup the possibility to help inform what the comparison mean or simply make matter of fact statements about the comparisons (not advice, but make obvious the differences). Google has proven this model. Its just reading content. And with the knowledge snippets in Google now on the right, you can ask it basic factual questions now. They can compare and its all hitting a local, validated, appropriately up to index that can scale, elastically on the cloud, that is proven fast – Google has proven that.

We recently did this same thing for a must be remained anonymous major Government agency. They had their search calls call the traditional RDBMS which is better at searching on a specific record and returning in simple, non-high computational queries. Instead, we asked, can you move 90% of the search into a NoSQL solution. It can load hundreds of millions of records in minutes, do all the pre-calculations to make for a smarter search – like how google knows what you are typo before you do, it can handle typo, many facets, drilldowns, etc. I believe KAYAK has moved this direction as well, but can’t validate, to optimize its search experience.

This is why the twitter, facebook, and other popular highly used service APIs work. They designed their SiM, and now there is a massive ecosystem of sub-applications, sub-markets, aftermarkets. HC.gov did not do that, it took a YAGP (yet another government portal) architecture technique, parted the scoping out like for a battleship. There wasnt enough consideration for patterns like more design-time pattern integration vs. run-time pattern integration (which is something I recently architecture prototype for NARA adding a NoSQL “index”, if you will, in front, so the query part was fast, but the transaction part got passed to the traditional RDBMS, then if updated, it did a millisecond sync back with NoSQL.

Now for the Blame Game: In contracting, investing in architecture is still not a requirement, so its a liability to bid it that way. 

It was divvied to over 50 contractors, and outside of a PMO, there appears to be no enterprise service integration patterns concepts are part of the leadership team. I saw a PMO, but they usually manage the production, not the architects of what needs to be produced. We can throw CGI Federal under the bus all we want, and whomever did the PMO, but it sure seems like the requirements and team did not have a solution or architecture integrator as one of the roles. Someone(s) overseeing the Service Integration Model – call it Enterprise Service Architect, Sr. Solution Architect, Architecture Review Board/Governance – to advise on design risks, maintain risk weights and let the PMO know where risk is at escalation points. 

I do know in contracts, if you are believing you could win if you could shave 3% off the contract, the first thing to go is usually the higher end rates. Those rates are usually quality focused. Those typically are those on architecture, design, strategy. Typically government contracts do not write that in, or if it is, it is written in a more compliant way. Contracting Officers are not in a position to review whether a subjective concept such as a proposed architecture is better than another and Contracting process review boards for IT have not adopted concepts like in civil engineering architecture concept review boards. Given that, having a higher quality architecture solution component is not seen as differentiator, since it doesnt check a box, typically integrators will drop that high rate position, and wallla, you have just undercut competition by 2-4% on the bid. 

By the way, don’t get hard on the contractors only. The same goes for the writing of the contracts. Contracting Officers do not have a way of knowing if the technical requirements is asking for are sound or the best. And they have stated on occasion they like to leave it open to allow the contractor to come back and tell them “how”. While this is fair to let private industry offer best solutions, there should be architecture principles that are put in the contract to guide how they can answer, and thus less subjectively how they can assure robust architecture, for instance, without just saying “it will be a robust architecture”.


But as we saw, when you don’t buy back the risk up front, and the design changes, the cost balloons, which it did. Today, the reports are saying contractors are blaming the government after a few weeks of government throwing “greedy” contractors under the bus. I say its not greed, but a broken procurement process. We have blogged for years, and built our practice around this principle – We can approach architecture for other implementers . 

For a large majority of consulting companies both design and implement for ALL projects.  Though profitable for many firms, the best design can end up biased towards the agenda of the implementer which may be to sell more components, get more bodies. Now, we have the capability to implement architecture, but our end goal is not to design an architecture that is for us to implement, but an architecture that is implementable. 

Many times, the client knows that the implementer will design with a bias, so the client chooses to or must design blind without considering the maturity of what an implementer can provide. In those cases, we can come in, architect, and be a third party to help do the concept, design, and design the requirements and performance work statement basis.

This approach with these services buy-back risk to your implementation and increase the likelihood of achieving your metrics and goals.


11/1 Note: A colleague forwarded me two WSJ articles that discusses Fixing Procurement Process Is Key to Preventing Blunders Like Healthcare.gov and Procurement Process is Government’s IT Albatross which only adds fuel to the fire. These blogs uses Clay Johson’s Fix Procurement Manifesto as its guide. I agree with many points in Mr. Johnson’s manifesto and his points, but I don’t agree with the author’s understanding. The author boiled it down to make procurement easier to get new tech. That sounds well and good, but as a colleague who was formerly in the OMB said a few weeks back, if you add any tech to a broken process, it will only make it worse. And it did. So, I think it will not only take time to fix Agency Leadership as Johnson notes, and the author cites Former OMB CIO Kundra as a key, but also, the general public understanding of how technology and business transformation works. The author and agency leadership compare healthcare.gov, a solution that involves data exchange, policy oversight, and manages millions of transactions to an Operating System flaw in an iPad which requires fix once, deply many. These are very apples and oranges conversations – one is commodity technology, and other is automating multiple decades of policies on top of policies. Until we can help educate the differences in complexity, we won’t be able to achieve the aspects of Johnson’s manifesto as well as help understand the right architecture to invest in PRIOR to letting a contract.

-mt

USGS executes Option year number one for Architecture IDIQ

Blog post
edited by
Wiki Admin

Today, Xentity was awarded Option year #1 for the U.S. Geological Survery IDIQ for Enterprise and Solution Architecture . This is the 6th year Xentity has provided outstanding Geospatial Integrated Services and Capabilities and Architecture services to the USGS and the results have continue. If interested in leveraging out IDIQ read the background below and review our USGS IDIQ for Enterprise and Solution Architecture

USGS National Geospatial Program Architecture Background

Xentity provides segment architecture development support in Program and Product Planning, Geospatial Data Acquisition and Production Lifecycle Management, Delivery Services, and Resource Management. Xentity also supported analyzing strategic planning and relation to architecture. EA development was based on the defined Federal Segment Architecture Methodology (FSAM).  As well, Xentity supported the transition from development to implementation which included such services as:

  • Blueprint Roadmap Development
  • Governance Formation, Analysis and Consulting
  • Solution Architecture Management Consulting
  • Operational Quality Analysis – Capacity, Availability, Continuity Analysis
  • Business Activity and Role Analysis
  • Planning Support and Consulting
  • Implementation Facilitation Support
  • Change Management and Consulting
  • Service-Level Management Consulting

Additionally, Xentity assisted the USGS in creating a communication product plan. This included:

  • Extraction of the communication products and communication product activities into a singular unified communication product plan.
  • Documented advice and tactics to product and service leads about opportunities unifying and coordinating events for the purpose of (1) increasing presence relating to TNM and USGS brands and (2) making communication product spending more efficient.
  • Documented advice about strategic communication techniques and products, including but not limited to branding rollout, key differentiator message support, Maturity road map support, conducting of customer meetings, and capturing stakeholder positioning statements for products,
  • Training on newer communication concepts such as social media

Xentity Performance:

Xentity has had 100% deliverable acceptance by USGS and were all on-time and on-budget. Of the 4 blueprints, the resulting 200+ milestones are now being implemented under Xentity supported Program Management Office, and are seeing improvements in all areas. Xentity’s support in providing solution architecture patterns are seeing over 100 IT assets are slated to be retired and still have increase usership, but at a lower cost. NGP Director implemented some organizational management improvements, of which some were based on the Xentity supported resource management roadmap. USGS NGP has shifted to a prioritized stakeholder-driven model to help better invest in data, product, and service content and features the users want/need. Operation Centers have taken to using new internal management processes and toolsets such as online document management collaboration and wikis, online issue/task tracking, migration for some NGP products and services to an ITIL Service Desk “triage” model with a much shorter and reasonable response period, and some early adoption of using Agile Project Management techniques to increase output.

In the area of Communications, Xentity provided the following services to the USGS on this contract even slow adoption of new concepts are yielding large benefits. From supporting a few hundred person inaugural The National Map user conference with a very well received brand treatment and event strategies. Conference support also included pre, during, and post event functions such as A/V coordination, feedback mechanism, last-minute event communication product generation, to seeing new social media accounts and other tools as recommended in the product communication sequence plans. Product Leads have received multiple communication training sessions which concepts included coach Influencing/Sales skills to P&S Leads. Consult on visual ID compliance, Advise and consult with the timing, communication paths, relationships, and critical success factors.

User relevancy is critical as prior to 2008, usage was actually on the decline, Search internet on The National Map User Conference which Xentity directly supported in setting up this inaugural event for May 2011 and results of program usership and product access also was observed as much as 3 times, but generally as 25% uptick in usage. Delivery usage post-conference saw a jump in increased usage, which continues to grow.  Delivery Solutions architecture results has continued to see higher usership and relevance to its users, all while not increasing the IT footprint, and in many places decreasing it while increasing service operation qualities.

Fed Biz Solutions partners with Xentity Corporation

Blog post
edited by
Wiki Admin

Xentity Corporation (Xentity), a Colorado-based 8(a) certified business transformation consulting firm, and Fed Biz Solutions, Inc (FedBiz), a Colorado-based government compliance consulting and advisory firm, signed a partner agreement in November 2012 that enables Xentity to offer FedBiz services to customers

Xentity has integrated FedBiz service capabilities which help customers transform their business operations, alongside Xentity’s existing services that help transform customers’ mission operations. FedBiz now has the ability to offer services to customers under the SBA 8(a) Small Disadvantaged Business program and Xentity has additional trained staff to support FedBiz efforts and provides a greater blend of skilled government business specialists, better customer responsiveness. This also results in a blended price point to customers, without a reduction in quality. 

About Xentity Corporation:

Xentity (ZEN-ti-tee), founded in 2001, receiving 8(a) program status in 2010,  is located at the Golden Signature Centre in Golden, CO, assists commercial and government organizations, large and small helping to create true value via enterprise and solution architecture, planning, analysis and execution support. Xentity is a participant in the Small Business Administration 8(a) program and is a minority-owned disadvantaged small business. Xentity has helped clients achieve their business goals with management consulting and mission-driven architecture, while providing unique communication methods. Xentity has assisted Business and Government, large and small, in the executive trusted advisor role helping clients create true value via enterprise planning and execution support: from shortening emergency response at airports, or reducing college loan application time from months to minutes, to making hidden geospatial data into frontline services, or transforming previous policy information management groups to transformational world leading agencies.
 

About Fed Biz Solutions, Inc:

Fed Biz began operations in 1997 as Sterling Innovations, Inc.  The company has had very good success from the beginning thanks to the many wonderful clients who have shown continual trust in our consulting practices.  In 2011, the decision was made to expand the contract opportunities to include long term, federal Gov’t and large prime contractor contracts to help take the company to ‘the next level’.  One of the steps taken was to change the name to Fed Biz Solutions.  The name change was felt necessary to create a better awareness of the services offered.  Fed Biz Solutions was chosen because of its closeness to FedBizOpps (www.fedbizopps.com), the largest source for finding Federal Government opportunities.   For that reason, on January 1, 2012, the name change took place.  Fed Biz was the first step, but our team knew more than a name change would be needed to make a difference.