The Reorganized Desktop Support Function Has Not Yet Achieved Planned Goals

 

January 2004

 

Reference Number:  2004-20-041

 

 

This report has cleared the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure review process and information determined to be restricted from public release has been redacted from this document.

 

January 20, 2004

 

 

MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

 

FROM:     Gordon C. Milbourn III /s/ Gordon C. Milbourn III

                 Acting Deputy Inspector General for Audit

 

SUBJECT:     Final Audit Report - The Reorganized Desktop Support Function Has Not Yet Achieved Planned Goals  (Audit # 200320037)

 

This report presents the results of our review of the Desktop Support Function.  The overall objective of this review was to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness with which the End User Equipment and Services (EUES) organization provides desktop support. 

Over a period of 18 months, the Modernization and Information Technology Services (MITS) organization analyzed the organization, services, and needs of customers to develop a reorganization strategy to provide superior customer service and increase employee satisfaction.  A key component of the reorganization was the establishment of the EUES organization to serve as a single point of accountability and ownership for all end user support activities including desktop support.  The desktop support function provides customer support for desktop and laptop users. 

In summary, the desktop support function has done an effective job monitoring and managing the high-priority workload to ensure timely customer support.  Management monitors daily and monthly reports and has weekly meetings to discuss the problem ticket workload.  As a result, the desktop support function is approaching its Master Service Level Agreement (MSLA) goal to resolve 80 percent of the high-priority tickets within the established time period.  Additional actions could further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the EUES organization to provide desktop support.

Placement of employees into the new EUES organization has proved difficult.  As of August 8, 2003, 110 desktop support function employees could not be placed into the new organization because their skills, grade level, and post-of-duty did not match the new organization’s needs.  However, as a result of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) management decision, these 110 employees became permanent employees in their current positions and posts-of-duty effective August 10, 2003.  As of November 4, 2003, 86 of these 110 employees continued to work in the desktop support function.  The placement of these employees in the EUES organization will affect the efficiency of the desktop support program, as the IRS will spend approximately $5.6 million on desktop support function employees that do not fully satisfy the needs of the new organization.

Several new service delivery models (SDM) have not been completely deployed.  Many of the Rapid Fix and Delivery (RFD) sites have not been implemented because additional resource requirements such as space, equipment, and funding have not been secured.  As a result, some of the most efficient and “customer-friendly” SDMs planned in the reorganization have not been implemented.  Also, as of July 31, 2003, the Contractor SDM was largely unused because the selection of a contract to obtain support was not made until June 2003, over 6 months after stand-up of the desktop support function.  As a result, employees were inefficiently sent from one office to another to fix problems that were supposed to be resolved by contractors.

Operating assumptions used in the reorganization design of the desktop support function have not been fulfilled by other functions within the EUES organization.  For example, funding cuts in the Hardware Refreshment Program (HRP) resulted in unanticipated hardware maintenance work for the desktop support function, service level improvements expected from the Enterprise Service Desk (ESD) have not been realized because Subject Matter Experts (SME) have not been employed, and the Tivoli® remote control capability is not functioning.  In addition, the Tivoli® rollout did not achieve anticipated benefits in areas such as automated application distribution and computer inventory management.  As a result, desktop support function employees must manually assist in new application implementation and equipment inventorying rather than resolve problem tickets.

Lastly, although management collects performance results for the desktop support function, they do not report results specific to desktop support groups.  Without reporting specific results, the desktop support function may not identify opportunities for improving performance and optimization of resources.  In addition, without measuring satisfaction with the desktop support function’s products and services, management has no assurance that they are timely and effectively meeting the needs of their customers.

We recommended that the Chief Information Officer reassess the desktop support function’s staffing needs from an efficiency perspective and take appropriate personnel actions, complete all site-specific implementation plans and assess and obtain the resources needed to complete implementation of the RFD SDM, and take actions to help the desktop support program accomplish its goals and resolve program dependency issues.  In addition, the Director, EUES, should assess the problem ticket workload by site and adjust the SDM and/or staffing accordingly, ensure the MSLA performance results summarize data for each group that provides support, enhance the customer satisfaction survey process to measure customer satisfaction with the products and services, and require the completion of data fields used to evaluate SDM use.  

Management’s Response:  IRS management agreed with the recommendations presented in this report.  Planned corrective actions include conducting workload and staffing analyses of the desktop support function and modifying the SDM and/or staffing accordingly, completing implementation plans and obtaining the necessary resources to complete implementation of the RFD SDM, and working within budgetary guidelines to ensure that the HRP is carried out and that the ESD fills SME positions and has Tivoli® remote access capabilities.  Management also plans to enhance the customer satisfaction survey process and modify the Information Technology and Asset Management System so that the Primary and Resolution SDM fields are required data elements.  Management’s complete response to the draft report is included as Appendix VIII.

Office of Audit Comment:  Management took exception to the measurable impact that our recommended corrective actions will have on tax administration of approximately $5.6 million in inefficient use of resources.  We recognize there may have been budgetary circumstances that limited management’s ability to take the appropriate personnel actions; however, our review is reporting the cost of the inefficiency in operations at the time.

Copies of this report are also being sent to the IRS managers who are affected by the report recommendations.  Please contact me at (202) 622-6510 if you have questions or Margaret E. Begg, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Information Systems Programs), at (202) 622-8510.

 

Table of Contents

Background

Management of High-Priority Problem Ticket Inventories Has Improved

Staffing and Resource Issues Are Affecting Program Delivery

Recommendations 1 and 2:

Recommendation 3:

Dependencies on Other Programs Are Affecting the Desktop Support Program

Recommendation 4:

Collection of Management Information Is Improving, Although It Needs to Be More Complete

Recommendation 5:

Recommendations 6 and 7:

Appendix I – Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Appendix II – Major Contributors to This Report

Appendix III – Report Distribution List

Appendix IV – Outcome Measures

Appendix V – Service Delivery Models

Appendix VI – Helpdesk Ticket Priority Codes

Appendix VII – Problem Ticket Resolution Timeliness Details

Appendix VIII – Management’s Response to the Draft Report

 

Background

Over a period of 18 months, the Modernization and Information Technology Services (MITS) organization analyzed the organization, services, and needs of customers to develop a reorganization strategy to provide superior customer service and increase employee satisfaction.  A key component of the reorganization was the establishment of the End User Equipment and Services (EUES) organization within the Information Technology Services (ITS) organization, to serve as a single point of accountability and ownership for all end user support activities including desktop support. 

In July 2002, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that the MITS reorganization had been approved.  The structure and staffing level for the EUES organization was determined by the EUES Re-Tune (Reorganization) Study, which was completed in August 2002.  According to the Study, the recommended EUES reorganization model was based on a top-down analysis and modeled after a large enterprise Information Technology (IT) organization structure.  The approach taken by the Re-Tune Study consisted of establishing the customer base, developing customer segments and delivery models, and designing the organization. 

Although the new EUES organization began operations on October 20, 2002, the new desktop support program was not implemented until December 29, 2002.  The desktop support function includes customer support for desktop and laptop users, such as acquisition, installation and repair of hardware and software, configuration management and version control, antivirus activity, and software back-ups.

Under the reorganization, the five Area Offices were reduced to three, campus and field IT offices were combined, and seven Territory Offices were established in each of the Area Offices.  Several desktop support function groups have been established in each Territory Office.  The Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 budget for the EUES organization is $370 million for 3,171 employees, 1,061 of whom staff the desktop support function.

The reorganization also included the establishment of the Enterprise Service Desk (ESD), which consolidated 18 helpdesks into 6 physical locations under an Eastern and a Western Service Desk manager.  The objective of the ESD is to improve the quality, consistency, and efficiency of service to all IRS customers.  The ESD provides the initial level of support to those customers.  Customer problems that the ESD cannot resolve are forwarded to the desktop support function for resolution.

Seven service delivery models (SDM) were developed to provide desktop support to IRS employees.  The SDMs include:

• Appointment with ITS – ITS onsite support staff has a specific appointment at an IRS site or a taxpayer site (e.g., large corporation office where the IRS is conducting an examination) to provide customer support.

·        Contractor – Customer support will be provided by a contractor instead of an ITS employee.

• Dispatch – ITS onsite support staff will go to an IRS site within 25 miles of their sites to provide customer support.
• Drop Ship – Replacement or loaner equipment will be shipped to customers who cannot receive in-person support due to location or other circumstances such as contract arrangements with vendors.  Equipment installation support is provided by telephone.

·        Onsite support – ITS support staff will be located in IRS sites with more than 100 employees.

·        Rapid Fix and Delivery (RFD) – Employees bring equipment to a specialized site for service, replacement, or upgrade.

·        Scheduled Visit – ITS onsite support staff travel on a regular schedule to IRS sites more than 25 miles from their sites with more than 50 and fewer than 100 employees.

The IRS studied its operations and determined which SDM would most effectively serve IRS employees at each site.  EUES organization management is overseeing efforts to implement the SDMs by October 2004.

Audit work was conducted at the EUES Headquarters in New Carrollton, Maryland; the EUES offices in Atlanta, Georgia; San Francisco, California; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Memphis IRS Campus in Memphis, Tennessee, from February 2003 to October 2003.  The audit was conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.  Detailed information on our audit objective, scope, and methodology is presented in Appendix I.  Major contributors to the report are listed in Appendix II.

Management of High-Priority Problem Ticket Inventories Has Improved

The Department of the Treasury Directive (TD) 40-04, Treasury Internal (Management) Control Program, states that the Congress, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and General Accounting Office have directed attention to the need for agencies to establish and maintain sound management control systems as a primary means of providing greater accountability, effectiveness, and efficiency in achieving program goals and objectives and in preventing fraud, waste, and mismanagement. 

The Draft Internal Revenue Manual, Corporate Problem Management Standards, establishes that the workflow tool for reporting and tracking all MITS organization customer problems and service requests (via problem tickets) is the Information Technology and Asset Management System (ITAMS).  It also states that each reported problem will be given a priority code (i.e., Priority Codes 1 through 5) according to the severity of the problem and the time period within which the problem should be resolved according to the Master Service Level Agreement (MSLA).  Problem tickets that are not resolved within the time period associated with the priority code are considered aged or past due. 

Overall, the desktop support function has done an effective job monitoring and managing the high-priority workload to ensure timely customer support.  The desktop support function emphasizes the monitoring of Priority Codes 1 and 2 problem tickets as the ITAMS generates daily alert notices, and management is informed about the status of the tickets until they are closed.  EUES organization management uses daily inventory reports to monitor the problem ticket workload, uses monthly reports to identify the number of aged tickets, and participates in weekly meetings to discuss the entire problem ticket inventory.

The EUES organization is currently implementing a quality assurance process to ensure accuracy and consistency in the data recorded in the problem tickets.  The process will focus on performing quality reviews of ticket contents as well as identifying both systemic and procedural processes affecting efficiency or effectiveness of the EUES workflow management and making recommendations for proposed modifications.

Our analysis of the nationwide ITAMS problem ticket inventory for the months January through August 2003 determined that the desktop support function received a total of 188,000 problem tickets, with 859 of the tickets representing Priority Codes 1 and 2 tickets (i.e., those involving mission critical work stoppages).  Table 1 provides a summary of the timely resolution rates for Priority Codes 1 and 2 over the first 8 months of 2003.

Table 1:  High-Priority Problem Ticket Resolution Timeliness

January – August 2003

                                                                                                                 Source:  The ITAMS.   

EUES organization management efforts since reorganization have resulted in continued improvements in the timely resolution of high-priority problem tickets and the desktop support function approaching its goal to resolve 80 percent of the high-priority tickets within the time period established in the MSLA.

Staffing and Resource Issues Are Affecting Program Delivery

The Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (also called the Clinger-Cohen Act) requires executive agencies to promote the effective and efficient operation of major information resources.  OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, states that agencies should seek opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal Government programs through work process redesign and the judicious application of information technology.

The Modernization, Information Technology, and Security Services Strategy and Program Plan FY 2003-2004 presents a strategy to significantly improve its customer care capability and delivery for all IRS locations and end users.  This strategy includes implementing a reorganized customer support field structure that includes rapid fix and deployment capabilities that will reduce the time end users are nonproductive due to equipment failure or loss.  The MITS organization plans to accomplish this strategy by designing and delivering a new SDM and reorganizing and training its service delivery team.

While the reorganized desktop support program was implemented on December 29, 2002, the program’s efficiency and effectiveness have been significantly affected by several factors.

The EUES organization has employees without the required skills, at the wrong grade level, and in the wrong locations

The EUES reorganization defined the positions and skills needed to accomplish the anticipated workload in the new desktop support function.  Employees from the original desktop support function whose skills, grade level, and post-of-duty matched the new organization’s needs were placed in the new organization.  However, completing the placement of employees into the new organization has proven difficult.

As of August 8, 2003, 110 desktop support function employees could not be placed into the new organization.  For example, in 1 Territory Office there were 15 former mainframe administrators and operators working in desktop support.  This Territory Office also has several Grade GS-11 technicians performing Grade GS-9 work because they could not be permanently placed in the new organization. 

However, as a result of an IRS management decision, on August 10, 2003, the 110 employees became permanent employees in their current positions and posts-of-duty.  As of November 4, 2003, 86 of the 110 employees continued to work in the desktop support function.  The placement of these employees in the EUES organization will affect the efficiency of the desktop support program.  In addition, the IRS will spend approximately $5.6 million on desktop support function employees that do not fully satisfy the needs of the new organization.  In addition to the 86 employees without the correct combination of skills, grade level, and post-of-duty, the new organization still has 137 vacancies that have been difficult to fill. 

Implementing the reorganization’s staffing structure was difficult because management standardized the grade level for positions across campus and field offices, resulting in some positions being graded at a lower level after the reorganization.  The higher-graded employees formerly in those positions did not get placed in the lower-graded positions.  Also, management changed the job series for some positions, so employees who wanted the positions did not have the backgrounds to qualify for them.  EUES organization management also cited unanticipated volumes of personnel actions and an inefficient placement and hiring process as key contributors to the delays in implementing the reorganization.

Additionally, a current competitive sourcing initiative may significantly affect the future of the EUES ESD and desktop support functions.  The current organization was designed for better customer service through the redeployment of existing resources.  IRS management indicated that the Federal Government’s bid for the competition would emphasize a more efficient organization, which increases the likelihood of additional staffing changes in the future.  On October 6, 2003, the Chief Information Officer (CIO) announced that the current seat management study was being delayed and modified to include evaluating the end-to-end services and a MITS-wide rollout.

New SDMs have not been fully implemented

The EUES reorganization included the implementation of several SDMs, or methods for providing a second level of customer support beyond that provided through the ESD.  Many of the traditional SDMs historically used for support, such as Onsite Support, Dispatch (of support personnel), and Scheduled Visit With ITS (personnel), have been implemented.  However, several new SDMs have not been completely deployed.  For example, many of the RFD sites have not been implemented because additional resource requirements such as space, equipment, and funding have not been secured.  Management has not yet determined the amount of the MITS organization’s $1.6 billion budget that will be needed to complete the RFD SDM implementation.  In addition, while management is currently coordinating with local Agency-Wide Shared Services representatives to secure space for the RFDs, they have not developed all of the site-specific plans for completing the RFD SDM deployment.  As a result, some of the most efficient and “customer-friendly” SDMs planned in the reorganization have not been implemented.

Also, the Contractor SDM is planned to support 333 IRS field sites.  However, as of July 31, 2003, this SDM was largely unused because selection of a specific contract to be used for the Contractor SDM was not made until June 2003, 6 months after stand-up of the desktop support function, and procedures for using the SDM had not been developed.  In the interim, management used personnel slated to provide Onsite Support and Dispatch SDMs to support these sites.  As a result, employees were inefficiently sent from one office to another to fix problems that were supposed to be resolved by contractors.

Additionally, dispatched desktop support function employees are unavailable to resolve tickets in their assigned offices while providing support in the field offices, resulting in problem tickets not being timely resolved.  Table 2 provides a summary of the timely resolution rates for problem tickets with Priority Codes 3, 4, and 5 (i.e., a work stoppage for 1 customer, a noncritical problem, or a request for nonproduction-related services) over the first 8 months of 2003.

Table 2:  Problem Ticket Resolution Timeliness

January – August 2003

Source:  The ITAMS.

During the first 8 months of the new program, the desktop support program did not meet the overall resolution timeliness standard of 80 percent, as established in the MSLA, for its Priority Code 3, 4, and 5 problem tickets. 

In addition, the deployment of the SDMs may need to be adjusted because the anticipated workload and current staffing levels may not be consistent with the assumptions used in initial planning.  For example, management stated that in one Territory Office, one support group receives as many problem tickets as the four other support groups combined, but the staffing level for all five groups is basically the same, resulting in inconsistent customer service.

Overall, the IRS has not yet achieved the benefits expected from the reorganization of its desktop support function.  Although ticket volumes have increased, the rate of timely resolutions for Priority Codes 3 and 4 problem tickets has not significantly improved since the stand-up of the new organization in December 2002.  By not effectively anticipating the reorganization’s impact on staffing and ensuring the availability of required space, equipment, and funding for the deployment of SDMs to support the reorganization, the IRS has used less-efficient work processes that have not significantly improved the timely resolution of customer problems.

Management Actions:  During the audit, procedures were developed and provided to Area and Territory management for obtaining services via the Contractor SDM. 

In June 2003, EUES management also implemented a web site that can be used to track the problem ticket inventory and resolution activity by territory.  The web site and its functionality have continued to evolve based on feedback from desktop support users.  Specific improvements have been made in the timeliness calculations by excluding holidays and weekends and adjusting for current desktop support hours.

Recommendations

The Director, EUES, should:

1.      Assess the problem ticket workload by site and adjust the SDM(s) and/or staffing accordingly.

Management’s Response:  The Director, EUES, will ensure that the Area Directors conduct a workload analysis of the problem ticket activity and adjust the SDM and/or staffing accordingly, based on the outcome and resource availability.

The CIO should:

2.      Reassess the desktop support function’s staffing needs from an efficiency perspective and take appropriate personnel actions.

Management’s Response:  The Director, EUES, will ensure that the Area Directors conduct a staffing analysis of the desktop support function to ensure efficiency.  Based on resource availability and staffing guidelines, hiring actions and other adjustments will be initiated.

Office of Audit Comment:  Management took exception to the measurable impact that our recommended corrective actions will have on tax administration of approximately $5.6 million in inefficient use of resources.  We recognize there may have been budgetary circumstances that limited management’s ability to take the appropriate personnel actions; however, our review is reporting the cost of the inefficiency in operations at the time. 

3.      Complete all site-specific implementation plans and assess and obtain the resources (i.e., space, equipment, and funding) needed to complete implementation of the RFD SDM.

Management’s Response:  The Director, EUES, will ensure that the Area Directors develop, adjust, and/or complete plans to identify and obtain the necessary resources to complete implementation of the RFD SDM.

Dependencies on Other Programs Are Affecting the Desktop Support Program

The Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 requires executive agencies to promote the effective and efficient operation of major information resources.  OMB Circular A-130 states that agencies should seek opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal Government programs through work process redesign and the judicious application of information technology.

Operating assumptions used in the reorganization design of the desktop support function have not been fulfilled by other functions within the EUES organization, resulting in inefficient problem resolution practices and increased workload for the desktop support function. 

Hardware Refreshment Program (HRP)

Funding cuts of $31.5 million in the HRP resulted in unanticipated hardware maintenance work for the desktop support function.  Vendor warranties for new hardware were expected to cover such work.  Without the hardware replacement, the desktop support function workload is expected to increase as resources are applied to maintain aged or obsolete hardware that business customers expect to run increasingly sophisticated software.   

In September 2002 we reported, “Lengthening the [3-year] replacement process to 4 to 5 years was shown to have significant cost impacts.  For example, the additional tangible costs for repairs and upgrades were projected to exceed $74 million under the 4-year scenario and

$100 million under the 5-year scenario.”  Another impact noted in the report was an increase in user downtime resulting from equipment failures.

ESD

The target rate for first call resolution (i.e., resolution of the customer’s problem on the initial contact) through the ESD was established at 60 percent after October 2002.  The target rate was set after management considered customer demand for password reset assistance.  While the ESD has met the 60 percent first contact resolution rate when including password resets, more difficult nonpassword reset calls are not being resolved at the 60 percent rate.  Consequently, significant improvements in the resolution of other problem types on first contact have not occurred.  The target rate for first call resolution in FY 2004 is 85 percent.

Service level improvements for nonpassword reset calls expected from the IRS’ reorganization of its helpdesk function have not been realized for several reasons.  For example, ESD assistors are not yet able to employ remote tools to access desktop equipment (discussed below) and resolve problems.  In addition, Subject Matter Experts (SME) have not been employed for problem tickets because management has been addressing other reorganization staffing issues.  The SMEs are envisioned as another means of problem resolution prior to the routing of those tickets to desktop support function personnel.  As a result of the less-than-anticipated service levels from the ESD, the desktop support function has worked tickets that were planned to be resolved by SMEs and remote tools.

Tivoli® implementation

The rollout of Tivoli® has not produced anticipated functionality and benefits.  Tivoli® was to provide the capability for an ESD assistor to remotely control a customer’s computer and enhance problem diagnosis and resolution on first contact.  Tivoli® was also expected to facilitate both the inventorying of IRS hardware and rollout of new software applications.  As of July 2003, those anticipated benefits of the Tivoli® project had not been completely fulfilled.  As a result, desktop support function employees must manually assist in new application implementation and the equipment inventory process rather than resolve problem tickets.

We reported on the IRS’ Tivoli® implementation in July 2003, stating:

The IRS uses the term “endpoint health” to gauge whether Tivoli® can successfully communicate with computing devices.  The low percentage of endpoint health, combined with staff not being assigned the responsibility to resolve endpoint health and software distribution problems, have resulted in unrealized efficiencies ranging from approximately $5.5 million to $7.6 million.

However, endpoint health has improved since the issuance of the prior audit report.  In addition, EUES organization management indicated that an 80 percent success rate was achieved on a recent software distribution.

Although EUES organization management recognizes the impact of these dependencies on the efficiency and effectiveness of the new organization, program adjustments have not been made to address the changes that have occurred since establishing the new organization.

Recommendation

The CIO should:

4.      Take actions to help the desktop support program accomplish its goals and resolve program dependency issues by ensuring that:

a.       The HRP is adequately funded.

b.      The ESD fills the SME positions in order to resolve more customer requests without the assistance of desktop support function technicians.

c.       Tivoli® provides planned remote access capabilities to improve the first contact resolution rates.

Management’s Response:  The Director, EUES, will ensure that the Area Directors work within appropriate budgetary guidelines to ensure that the HRP is carried out and that the ESD fills the SME positions and has Tivoli® remote access capabilities.

Collection of Management Information Is Improving, Although It Needs to Be More Complete

The Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) was enacted by the Congress to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal Government programs by establishing a system to set goals for program performance and to measure results.  OMB Circular A-123, Management Accountability and Control, states that management is responsible for ensuring the programs achieve their intended results and that the use of resources is consistent with the agency’s mission.  Managers at all levels should review performance reports, measure results against targets, and analyze trends.  In addition, the Code of Federal Regulations recommends the use of questionnaires and surveys in determining the customer satisfaction levels and accomplishments of the operating units within the IRS. 

The EUES organization measures the desktop support program via the MITS organization user support business results measure (Percent Tickets Resolved on Time), the ESD Satisfaction Survey, and any complaints/accolades received from customers.  The Percent Tickets Resolved on Time measure uses ITAMS data to determine the amount of time between a problem ticket opening and closing to assess compliance with the IRS’ MSLA.

These measures are consistent with those identified in industry best practices.  However, the IRS Level 2 support program includes the Desktop, Telecommunications, Operations, and Integrated Equipment Support groups, and the ticket data currently gathered and reported for this measure cover all Level 2 support categories.  Specific desktop support group results are not reported.

The MITS organization sends the ESD Satisfaction Survey to random customers recently receiving services from the ESD.  However, the Survey measures overall customer satisfaction with the EUES organization.  Management has no assurance that the survey sample includes a relative number of desktop support function customers or determines actual desktop support function customer satisfaction results.  Generally, EUES organization management has not established a formal process to measure customer satisfaction with the products and services specifically provided by the desktop support function, its employees, and contractors supporting the Contractor SDM.  

Also, management has not established a quality assurance process for assessing SDM use and validation of the reorganization plans.  The ITAMS tickets include data fields for identifying the SDM that should be used (Primary SDM) and the SDM that was actually used to resolve the ticket (Resolution SDM), but management does not require completion of these fields.  As a result, information regarding the use of the SDMs cannot be derived from closed ITAMS tickets, and management cannot determine if adjustments are needed to the planned type of support provided to customers.

By not reporting the performance results for specific desktop support groups, the desktop support function will not be able to identify opportunities for improving performance and optimization of resources.  In addition, without a formal process to measure customer satisfaction with the products and services specifically provided by the desktop support function, management has no assurance that they are timely and effectively meeting the needs of their customers. 

Recommendations

The Director, EUES, should:

5.      Ensure that the MSLA performance results included in the ITAMS reports summarize data for each group function that provides Level 2 support (e.g., Desktop, Telecommunications, Operations, and Integrated Equipment Support).

Management’s Response:  The Director, EUES, will ensure that MSLA performance results included in the ITAMS reports are summarized for each group function that provides Level 2 support.

6.      Enhance the customer satisfaction survey process to measure customer satisfaction with the products and services specifically provided by the desktop support function, its employees, and contractors supporting the Contractor SDM.

Management’s Response:  The Director, EUES, will ensure that the customer satisfaction survey process is enhanced to measure customer satisfaction with products and services provided by the desktop support function, its employees, and SDM contractors.

7.      Require that the Primary and Resolution SDM fields be completed in the ITAMS so that SDM use can be assessed and customer support delivery methods can be adjusted as needed.

Management’s Response:  The Director, EUES, will ensure the ITAMS is modified so that the Primary and Resolution SDM fields are required data elements.

Appendix I

 

Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology

 

The overall objective of this audit was to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness with which the End User Equipment and Services organization provides desktop support.  To accomplish this objective, we:

I.              Determined the resources that have been allocated to the desktop support function for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003.  We identified the number and locations of the desktop support function groups; authorized staffing, including the contractor support and associated costs; and the budgeted Full-Time Equivalents (FTE), labor costs, and nonlabor expenditures. 

II.           Determined the responsibilities and dependencies of the desktop support function via review of the Modernization, Information Technology, and Security Services Strategy and Program Plan FY 2003-2004, desktop support function mission statements, and Master Service Level Agreement (MSLA).

III.         Evaluated the performance measurement program established for the desktop support function and its employees to assess the accomplishment of its mission and objectives.  We interviewed management to identify the performance measures, diagnostic indicators, and quality assurance process established for the desktop support function, its employees, and the new service delivery models (SDM).

IV.        Evaluated management’s efforts to implement the SDMs to ensure acceptable customer service levels.

V.           Assessed management’s efforts to monitor and manage the workload of the desktop support function to ensure timely end user support.

 

Appendix II

 

Major Contributors to This Report

 

Margaret E. Begg, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Information Systems Programs)

Gary Hinkle, Director

Danny Verneuille, Audit Manager

Myron Gulley, Senior Auditor

Anthony Knox, Senior Auditor

Olivia Jasper, Auditor

Kim McManis, Auditor

 

Appendix III

 

Report Distribution List

 

Commissioner  C

Office of the Commissioner – Attn:  Chief of Staff  C

Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support  OS

Chief, Information Technology Services  OS:CIO:I

Director, End User Equipment and Services  OS:CIO:I:EU

Acting Director, Portfolio Management  OS:CIO:R:PM

Chief Counsel  CC

National Taxpayer Advocate  TA

Director, Office of Legislative Affairs  CL:LA

Director, Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis  RAS:O

Office of Management Controls  OS:CFO:AR:M

Audit Liaisons:

        Chief, Information Technology Services  OS:CIO:I

Director, End User Equipment and Services  OS:CIO:I:EU

Manager, Program Oversight and Coordination  OS:CIO:R:PM:PO

 

Appendix IV

 

Outcome Measures

 

This appendix presents detailed information on the measurable impact that our recommended corrective actions will have on tax administration.  This benefit will be incorporated into our Semiannual Report to the Congress.

Type and Value of Outcome Measure:

Inefficient Use of Resources – Actual; $5,577,572  (see page 5).

Methodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:

As of August 8, 2003, 110 desktop support function employees could not be placed into the reorganized End User Equipment and Services (EUES) organization.  However, as a result of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) management decision, on August 10, 2003, the 110 employees became permanent employees in their current positions and posts-of-duty.  As of November 4, 2003, 86 of these employees continued to work in the desktop support function.  We identified the desktop support function employees and their associated grade levels.  To determine the estimated annual desktop support function salary savings, we used the Federal Government base pay chart and calculated the estimated total salaries for these individuals.  Table 1 summarizes the annual employee salaries.

Table 1:  Total Estimated Salaries for 110 Desktop Support Function Employees

Source:  IRS management and the Office of Personnel Management’s 2003  General Schedule (GS) Salary Table.

 

To determine the estimated total salaries and benefits, we added 23 percent for benefits to the total salary cost savings. 

    Total estimated salary costs (from above)                                                            $4,534,611

    23 percent of salaries for benefits ($4,534,611 times .23)                                    $1,042,961

    Total salaries and benefits for 86 desktop support function employees                  $5,577,572

 

Appendix V

 

Service Delivery Models

 

Appointment With Information Technology Services (ITS) 

·        For offsite individuals fewer than 25 miles away from the onsite support staff.

·        Appointments may be scheduled with ITS technicians to provide service at a specified location and time (e.g., Flexi-place employee makes arrangements to meet ITS technician at a dispatch post-of-duty on a specific date and time to provide service).

·        Appointments may be scheduled beyond the normal dispatch distance and may involve an unusual circumstance for which no other delivery method is acceptable. 

• For use in Large Case sites (i.e., large business entities where examinations are conducted onsite) that will necessitate scheduling to ensure access to the sites.

Contractor  

·        For use in sites more than 25 miles from ITS onsite support.

·        For use in sites that are difficult to travel to (e.g., inclement weather, mountainous) that could be fewer than 51 miles away.

·        For use in sites where there are unique circumstances (e.g., low concentration of Full-Time Equivalents (FTE), areas where transportation is difficult).

·        For use in major project rollouts.

·        For use in sites with Special Needs (Section 508) customers.

·        Most customers will also receive contractor support for voice infrastructure services (e.g., cabling).

Dispatch

·        For customers at facilities without onsite ITS staff but close to locations with onsite staff.

·        For use in sites within 25 miles of an ITS onsite support staff.

·        For use at Large Case sites.

Drop Ship 

·        Will expedite shipment of replacement or loaner equipment to customers who cannot receive in-person support due to location or other circumstances such as contract arrangements with vendors.

·        The helpdesk, vendors, or onsite staff can initiate drop shipments.

·        Will be colocated with onsite staff or at an internal Rapid Fix and Delivery location.

Onsite Support 

·        Used in sites where there are more than 100 employees.

·        An exception is for sites with fewer than 100 employees but outside the continental United States (e.g., Anchorage, Honolulu).

Rapid Fix and Delivery (RFD) 

·        Customers bring equipment to a specialized site for service, replacement, or upgrade.

·        RFD sites will be colocated at sites with onsite support where it has been determined that the surrounding population will support this delivery model.

·        It is the intent of the RFD to support offsite and mobile users.

Scheduled Visit 

·        ITS technician provides onsite support during a regularly scheduled visit.

·        For use in sites more than 25 miles away from an onsite ITS location with more than 50 and fewer than 100 employees.

 

Appendix VI

 

Helpdesk Ticket Priority Codes

 

Priority Code Number 1:

Severe mission critical work stoppage.  Impact on vital Internal Revenue Service customer commitments of National or Areas-wide scope, affecting 20 or more users.
(4 hours to resolve)

Priority Code Number 2:

Potential work stoppage.  Issue could have a direct impact on service to taxpayers, or issue’s scope is multi-user and a work-around does not exist.
(8 hours/1 day to resolve)

Priority Code Number 3:

Work stoppage for one customer without a work-around.
(16 hours/2 days to resolve)

Priority Code Number 4: 

A noncritical problem with no work stoppage and a work-around exists.
(32 hours/4 days to resolve)

Priority Code Number 5:

Request for nonproduction-related services.
(160 hours/20 days to resolve)

 

Appendix VII

 

Problem Ticket Resolution Timeliness Details

 

Table 1:  High-Priority Problem Ticket Resolution Timeliness (January – August 2003)

Source:  The Information Technology and Asset Management System (ITAMS).

Table 2:  Problem Ticket Resolution Timeliness (January – August 2003)

Source:  The ITAMS.

Appendix VIII

 

Management’s Response to the Draft Report

 

The response was removed due to its size.  To see the response, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.