Advertisement
*
Reproduction permitted for personal use only. For reprints and reprint permission, contact reprints@wistechnology.com.

State alters schedule for server consolidation

Madison, Wis. - In what many in state government consider a bow to reality, the state has adjusted the schedule for the consolidation of computer servers in state government, but the impact on promised savings is unknown at this point, according to State CIO Matt Miszewski.

The revised timetable calls for the state to complete server consolidation in two large agencies, the Department of Corrections and the Department of Natural Resources, by the end of this calendar year. The remaining schedule would be influenced by the experience with the Departments of Corrections and Natural Resources.

In May of 2004, the state had planned to have the consolidation completed in all executive branch agencies in a two-year time frame, and that was later amended to July of 2007. The original plan was to consolidate approximately 2,400 servers into 1,900, and the original savings projection, outlined by Gov. Jim Doyle as part of his Accountability, Consolidation, and Efficiency (ACE) Initiative, was $3.7 million over the first two years of the project. Almost $9 million a year was to be saved once the project was fully implemented.

Miszewski acknowledged that some savings would be delayed but noted that as the project progressed, the eventual number of end-state servers got lower and lower, and now is pegged at 1,300. “As time goes on, that number will continue to get lower and lower,” he predicted.

As for the projected savings, Miszewski said a lower number of servers would help, but he acknowledged that the schedule change is not insignificant in scope. “The assumptions on those [original projections] are not the same,”’ he said. “I don’t know how much the savings will change.”
Advertisement
Getting real

Information technology personnel in state agencies have been urging a more realistic timetable for what is officially known as the Statewide Enterprise Server Consolidation. According to Miszewski, the schedule was changed after the Business Steering Team, a multi-agency group established to consult with the Division of Enterprise Technology, expressed concern about the speed and the calendar of the project.

Miszewski said they also expressed reservations about the negotiating stance the state found itself in with the Crowe Chizek Co., LLC, the Chicago-based consulting and accounting firm that had been advising DET on the server consolidation project. At the time it contracted with the state in April of 2004, Crowe Chizek was the eighth largest accounting and consulting firm in the United States, and it had worked on large-scale enterprise upgrades in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio.

The state and Crowe Chizek have been discussing a possible extension of its original contract, which has expired. “The IT people, as well as my staff, expressed concern that we were in negotiations with Crowe, and that added to the risk of the project, Miszewski said.

Minutes from a 2004 Technology Leadership Council meeting indicate that despite Miszewski’s confidence in Crowe Chizek, the company got off to a slow start. On May 26 of that year, members of the council were told that the general impression of Crowe Chizek among state employees represented at a prior Deskop Domain Subcommittee meeting was that “they [Crowe Chizek] are disorganized.”

Asked about the apparent unhappiness with Crowe Chizek, Miszewski downplayed any disenchantment. “Whenever you’re in negotiations with any partner,” he reiterated, “the risk level is raised on the project.”

The state’s contract with Crowe Chizek was not a time-and-materials contract, and was based on meeting milestones, Miszewski said. The minutes of a March 11, 2004 meeting of the Business Leadership Council for Information Technology indicate that DOA was planning to bring in approximately 25 Crow Chizek staff members, but Miszewski said the number of people working on the project changed as time went on. He said an average of eight to 10 Crowe Chizek employees were here at any given time, and now only one company employee remains in Madison to work on the project.

As IT projects go, the server consolidation is immense. All cabinet level agencies are to be part of consolidation – 24 in all. Only the Department of Justice, the Office of the State Public Defender, and the State Legislature are not part of the server consolidation.

According to a November 2004 survey conducted by Crowe Chizek, there were 35,000 computer-using employees, not counting the UW System, in state government. A total of 2,430 computer servers supported these employees, and 1,184 full- and part-time employees were performing IT-related functions.

The consultant’s own cost-benefit analysis estimated that the state would have a net benefit of $13.2 million from consolidation over a five-year period, and that 80 to 90 percent of the savings would be generated though a reduction in personnel required to manage servers and IT networks. Additional savings were to result from fewer servers being purchased and maintained, and from a reduced reliance on contractors.

Thus far, the state has allocated tens of millions of dollars to the server consolidation project, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. In a June 2005 paper, the bureau reported that the Governor was to provide $19.9 million and 58 positions in 2005-06 and $17.9 million and 47.5 positions in 2006-07 to consolidate the state IT server and network support services from 24 state agencies.

Within the Department of Administration, the Governor was to reallocate $71,900 in 2005-06 and $340,000 in 2006-07 in material and services to state agencies. In addition, another $37,800 in general purpose revenue was to be reallocated, and a part-time staff position was to be eliminated in 2006-07 under the DOA’s general program operations appropriation.

In the 24 state agencies, just over $10 million was to be reallocated and 110 positions were to be eliminated in 2006-07 in association with server consolidation.

Related stories

State CIO wants to unify electronic government

Wisconsin introduces new state IT plan

Oracle out, Microsoft in for state e-mail project

Miszewski touts benefits of IT integration

State IT failures are not inevitable

Comments

LiberatedStateEmployee responded 2 years ago: #1

The typical State of Wisconsin IT Project; adjust the scope,
change the timeline, ignore the costs, and declare success.

1+1=3 responded 2 years ago: #2

"$9 million a year was to be saved". Just where did that $9 million come from? Looking at the math of the numbers, the main ingrediant comes from one major calculation. Crowe and DOA took the total number of servers (2400) and divided it by total number of server support staff and came up with: 26 servers per support staff. Then they projected that they could create an organization that could do 35 servers per support staff. In one of their first iterations, they used the number 40, but later reduced it to 35 to be "more conservative". So just where did the number 35 come from? Gartner lists a range of numbers. The number 35 was just pulled out of the air from that range. They then thought, say, we probably could also reduce the numbers of servers by 20%. So, (.8 x 2400) / 35 resulted in a 55 staff needed to support servers. Of course the original environment required (2400/26): 92 staff. Quite a savings. A staff support cost was estimated at $80K to $100K for support staff and management staff: salary + fringe. Wow. 80% to 90% of the cost savings was predicated on this one calculation because they extrapolated that savings percentage and applied it across the board for all computer operators, network staff, dba administrators, and consultants. You ended up saving a whooping $4.5 million for all support staff, $2 million for consultants, $1.7 for email consolidation, and $.8 million for reduced server hardware costs = $9 million per year. $8.2 million is based on this number: 35 servers per support staff. There is however a tremendous flaw in this number. For purposes of illustration, say a large agency has 70 servers and 2 support staff. The ratio for that is 35 servers per support staff. Lets say a small agency has 2 servers and 1 support staff. Combine the two and suddenly you have 24 servers per support staff. That's right, mathematically, whenever the number of servers for a single agency is less then the ratio you compute, there is a significant downward skewing affect. In fact, the large agencies complained that their ratio was already 35 or greater servers per support staff. And now after the fact, in using published rates, large agencies in fact see exactly the same costs: just exactly what you would expect to see. Most of the small agencies had less then 35 servers so were skewing the numbers significantly downwards. The major flaw in consolidating the small agencies was that in some cases, small agencies lost all of their IT staff and could not contribute their fair share according to the calculation: yes, their savings in staff had to come from the large agencies. 1+1=3. Can't happen. The math does not support the original consolidation. But now, they are finding out that a large number of servers can not be consolidated, so they went from 2400 to 1300 and less is to follow. Too bad they already spend the savings on a new data center.

paine pasquinade responded 2 years ago: #3

There have been so many numbers out of DOA, I doubt anyone knows what this project has and will cost or whether it eventually actually will save anything. A recent rumor has claims of hundreds now working on the project, which, if true, could amount to $20-30 million or more annually in staff costs alone and this thing still is years from completion. As for the prospects for cost recovery given the pace of change in the IT world, best to check the odds of this happening in Vegas for a true look at the realities (although Miszewski has been quoted widely in trade press articles as claiming $40 million has been saved already). All of which speaks volumes for the quality of the management oversight this project has had.

What seems clear is that inexperienced and/or inept leadership led to a number of poor, key decisions on EMail (Oracle's OCS), the consultant used, an incredibly ambitious, ludicrous schedule, and the premature elimination of agency positions leaving many agencies in a precarious position due to a lack of technical and other support. If the state manages to get through this without serious, adverse impacts on the capacities of agencies to operate and provide the services the public expects, arguments for divine intervention will gain credibility.

That is not to say that consolidation necessarily is a bad idea. But, the manner in which this one was planned <sic> bears no resemblance to best practice or common sense. Instead, it is a classic case of gross mismanagement. I only hope that the damage is less than I fear it could be before the project concludes or otherwise ends.

Anonymous Coward responded 2 years ago: #4

"Too bad they already spendt the savings on a new data center."

Too bad the new data center is flawed to the extent of a huge cost over-run due to improper (or a lack of) wiring specifications.

Anonymous Coward: responded 2 years ago: #5

Another issue related to the new data center surfaced this weekend when the air conditioning went out and temperatures went over 100 degrees F. The building evidently wasn't designed with redundant HVAC as will be necessary to run a production environment with hundreds and hundreds of servers, yet Miszewski and company claim they are on target for conversion of DNR and DOC data services by the end of the calendar year.

it futures responded 2 years ago: #6

Another aspect of consolidation is the career implications for younger technology workers. Those workers will have only one agency to work for in their state career, they can't transfer to another agency. I think many bright young workers will shun the state if they really think about their future and the limited opportunities found at DET.

-Add Your Comment

Name:
E-mail:

Comment Policy: WTN News accepts comments that are on-topic and do not contain advertisements, profanity or personal attacks. Comments represent the views of the individuals who post them and do not necessarily represent the views of WTN Media or our partners, advertisers, or sources.

WTN Media cannot accept liability for the content of comments posted here or verify their accuracy. If you believe this comment section is being abused, contact edit@wistechnology.com.

Advertisement
Advertisement

-More Stories

WTN Media Presents