Performance audit. Georgia Technology Authority, GeorgiaNet (State government's Internet/Web presence)

Performance Audit
Prepared For The Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee

Georgia Technology Authority
GeorgiaNet
(State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

November 2003

Russell W. Hinton, State Auditor Performance Audit Operations Division 254 Washington St. S.W.

Department of Audits and Accounts

Atlanta, GA 30334-8400

In 1990, the GeorgiaNet Authority was created to provide for the centralized marketing, provision, sale, and leasing of certain public information maintained by the state in electronic format. The GeorgiaNet Authority was also responsible for maintaining the State of Georgia website and developing internet based e-commerce applications for state agencies. The Authority was funded by the income resulting from the sale of public information. In 2000, the Georgia Technology Authority (GTA) was created as a result of the need to have a strong centralized organizational structure that could address all of the state's technology requirements. In addition to assuming the responsibilities of the old GeorgiaNet Authority, the GTA also operates the state's data center and telecommunications network, coordinates the state's purchase of technology resources, oversees the state's IT projects costing more than $1 million, and reviews and analyzes the state's IT budgets and strategic plans.
GTA's GeorgiaNet Division is the unit that is primarily responsible for managing the state's web presence. The mission of the GeorgiaNet Division is to enhance the constituent (the public's) experience with government through the application of innovative enterprise (statewide) technology, and best practices.
State Government's Web Presence
GTA's GeorgiaNet Division manages the state's web presence through a "portal" concept (www.georgia.gov), which was launched on July 1, 2002. Prior to the introduction of the portal, state agencies with a web presence had "links" on the Georgia home page (www.state.ga.us). The agency websites reflected each agency's organizational structure and the majority of websites had limited information.
To improve on Georgia's web presence, GTA chose to develop an Enterprise Portal/ Interoperability Architecture (EPIA), which provides more features than provided with a basic portal. A basic portal is a universal access point (in this case to state government), which helps users find public services and information. A basic portal involves a group of websites linked on a portal home page that look similar to each other in that they use similar colors and design structure. A portal server organizes and manages the linked websites, but does not foster sophisticated collaboration and data sharing between agencies and other entities.

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 1

Georgia's EPIA provides interoperability and a collaborative platform that goes beyond simply achieving a common look and feel. The EPIA was developed to provide improvements in the following areas:
Improved Access To Information The EPIA uses web applications and systems to collect data from different computer systems in state government thereby providing access to more information. The EPIA also makes it easier to find information. The EPIA incorporates new menus with subjects such as "Family and Health" and "Transportation" to guide users to frequently accessed services. Other new menus such as "I want to..." and "How do I..." were also developed to help users quickly and easily find information on topics such as filing taxes online and checking on road conditions. The EPIA also added a "Natural Language Search" capability which enables users to search for information using typed-in questions and a "Speech Recognition" component to provide more access to citizens that don't have computers.
Improved Performance The EPIA uses new up-to-date hardware and software to handle the anticipated large increases in use of the portal that would result as citizens grow to appreciate the portal's increased capabilities. The hardware and software also have the capability to be easily expanded as demand continues to grow.
Improved Collaboration Standardization of software and the improvements in systems to transfer data between agencies makes it easier for agencies to coordinate their efforts.
Improved Efficiency In Software Development The EPIA's software is designed using component parts that can be reused in the future. For example, the credit card payment engine is used in several applications to process online credit card payments. When changes to an application are needed in the future, the changes can be made within the components, avoiding the need for wholesale revision of an application. Software is also available to make it easier for agencies to make changes in the content of their websites without needing programming assistance.
Improved Controls Over Agency Websites The EPIA has more centralized oversight by individuals with expertise in web operations which improves controls over websites. As a result, security is improved with better protection from intrusion from "hackers," better control over access to systems, and better protection of the privacy of users of the state's websites. A new Contact Center which was created to quickly field inquires related to the state's websites should result in faster resolution of problems.
In addition, several applications were developed during the implementation phase of the EPIA that were designed to take advantage of the EPIA's capabilities. The development of these applications as pilot projects allowed GTA to thoroughly test the portal's operation while also developing the needed applications. The "Online Driver's License Renewal" web application enables drivers to renew their license online, by phone or through the mail to help alleviate long lines at Department of Motor Vehicle Safety Offices. The "Where's My Child's Check?" web application enables parents to check the status of child support payments online to reduce the number of telephone inquiries to Child Support Enforcement Offices. The "Online Business Registration" web application enables business owners to obtain a state sales tax identification number and a Federal Employer Identification Number online which coordinated the state and federal activities and reduced the time required to complete the process.

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 2

GeorgiaNet Functions
When GTA was created in July 2000, the GeorgiaNet functions that were formerly performed by the GeorgiaNet Authority were divided between several different units in GTA. Exhibit 1 identifies major GeorgiaNet functions and the GTA Units that are responsible for those functions.

Exhibit 1
GTA Units Responsible For Various GeorgiaNet Functions

Responsible GTA Unit

GeorgiaNet Functions
provides technical support for the bulk sale of state data such as motor vehicle records (MVR) to qualified customers (insurance companies, companies that resell data to other organizations, etc.)

GeorgiaNet Division

provides support for legacy applications, which are not on the portal (were created before the portal was established)

responsible for the development and administration of the portal, software applications and architecture, and reusable software components
responsible for the development and administration of the
process for joining the web portal

Portal Contact Center1 provides assistance to portal users via telephone and e-mail

Information Resource Management Division1

runs the data center, which houses the servers for both the
portal and legacy environments

Office of External Affairs
and Business Development1

responsible for the centralized marketing and sale of public
information maintained by any state agency in electronic format

Financial Division1

bills for data sales, manages accounts receivable, collects
credit card receipts and remits receipts to the proper agency or the Treasury

Executive Director's Office1

provides guidance and ultimate approval for georgia.gov
(portal) policy and directions, and, through oversight sets fiscal year priorities for georgia.gov

General Counsel1

provides advice on internet law and policy issues that impact
the portal or doing business on the portal

1 Units also have other non-GeorgiaNet responsibilities

Source: GTA Records and Interviews with Agency Personnel

Statutory Requirements Relating to the State's Web Presence
Georgia law outlines the following statutory requirements for GTA that are related to the state's web presence:
Fixing and collecting fees for data maintained in electronic format;
Facilitating and encouraging the conduct of business on the Internet;

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 3

Providing for the distribution in electronic format of the legislative information provided by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives; and
Publication of the Georgia Register, which includes information related to various executive, legislative, judicial, and agency matters.

Financial Information
The cost to the state of providing GeorgiaNet functions was relatively easy to identify when all the functions were performed by the old GeorgiaNet Authority. However, after the GeorgiaNet functions were absorbed into various GTA units, the total cost associated with these functions could no longer be isolated. Except for GTA's GeorgiaNet Division, all the other units in GTA that assumed responsibility for GeorgiaNet functions were also responsible for other functions that were not related to GeorgiaNet. For example, the Information Resources Management (IRM) Division houses and monitors the servers for the portal; however, IRM also supports state systems such as personnel, payroll, and purchasing, which are not related to the portal. While cost information after the creation of GTA in fiscal year 2001 only includes costs for the GeorgiaNet Division, Exhibit 2 provides an indication of the trend in revenue and expenditures for GeorgiaNet functions since fiscal year 1999.

Exhibit 2 GeorgiaNet Function Revenue and Expense Trend

GaNet Authority

GaNet Division GTA

$25 $20 $15 $10
$5

$20.9 Million

$20.7 Million

$20.9 Million

$22.1 Million

$23.2 Million

$20.6 Million

$11.6 Million Start-up

$6.9 Million Start-up

$4.1 Million
Operations

$5.8 Million
Operations

$6.5 Million
Operations

$10.4 Million
Operations

$10.0 Million
Operations

$11.5 Million
Operations

1999
Actual

2000
Actual

2001
Actual

2002
Actual

2003
Actual

2004
Budget

Revenues Expenses

Sources: GeorgiaNet Authority Audits, GeorgiaNet Division Financial Records and Reviews of GTA Financial Records to Identify Portal Start-up Costs.

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 4

The GeorgiaNet Division of GTA was operated basically in the same manner as the old GeorgiaNet Authority until November 2000, when the focus shifted to developing a strategy to move the state's web presence to a portal and GTA decided to move away from the use of contractors to support the state's web presence. During fiscal year 2001, the number of staff in the GeorgiaNet Division increased from 15 to 22 and expenditures increased to $6.5 million.
In fiscal year 2002, the GeorgiaNet Division increased the number of its staff to 67 in order to implement a new organizational structure and develop the portal for launch in July 2002. During fiscal year 2002, the GeorgiaNet Division developed and implemented the Online Driver's License Renewal application to run as the first application on the portal and contracted for constituent research to test the portal concept. Expenditures in fiscal year 2002 increased to $22 million, of which $10.4 million was for GeorgiaNet Division operations and $11.6 million was for costs associated with portal start-up. Finding No. 1 (on page 7) provides additional information on the costs associated with implementation of the portal concept.
In fiscal year 2003, the GeorgiaNet Division continued implementation of the portal, adding new applications and features, including voice recognition and natural language search capability. Budgeted expenditures totaled $16.5 million, with $10.0 million in expenditures for GeorgiaNet Division operations and $6.5 million for portal start-up costs.
For fiscal year 2004, GTA has budgeted $11.5 million for GeorgiaNet Division operations and no funds are budgeted for portal start-up costs.
As shown in Exhibit 2, GeorgiaNet-related revenue has been fairly steady. Most revenues are related to the sale of driver records. For example, in fiscal year 2002, GTA received $22.1 million in revenue from GeorgiaNet data sales and services, of which $21.6 million (98%) was derived from the sale of driver record information to insurance agencies or companies that resell data. (See Appendix A for a schedule of data sales by type of item for fiscal year 2002.) It should be noted that the budgeted revenue for fiscal year 2004 is a conservative estimate and GTA personnel do not anticipate actual reductions from fiscal year 2003 revenue levels.
While GeorgiaNet-related revenue was limited to funding GeorgiaNet-related expenditures under the old GeorgiaNet Authority, GTA is authorized to use GeorgiaNet-related revenue to fund any GTA operations. (Comparisons of GeorgiaNet-related revenues and expenditures during several fiscal years are shown in Exhibit 2.) The GeorgiaNet Authority returned $16.5 million of unexpended data sales income to the state treasury in fiscal year 1999 and $14.6 million in fiscal year 2000. Since it assumed the GeorgiaNet functions in fiscal year 2001, GTA has only returned approximately $7.7 million to the state treasury (in fiscal year 2003). (See Finding No. 1 on page 7 for more information on the use of GeorgiaNet-related revenue to fund portal startup costs.)
Audit Scope and Methodology
This audit was conducted at the request of the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee (BROC) in compliance with O.C.G.A. 28-5-5(h). The audit was performed in accordance with generally accepted governmental auditing standards for performance audits. The scope of the audit focused on the following issues:
Evaluate the GeorgiaNet Division's progress toward putting state agencies and applications on the state's web portal.
Evaluate GTA's compliance with GeorgiaNet statutory responsibilities.

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 5

Determine if the income derived from sales of data is maximized and if cost recovery charges to state agencies for GeorgiaNet services are fair and equitable.
Evaluate the extent to which the GeorgiaNet Division uses Results-Based Budgeting programs and goals.
Determine the level of customer (state agency, commercial purchasers of data and the public) satisfaction with GeorgiaNet services.
Determine how GeorgiaNet operations compare to similar operations in other states.
The audit team reviewed GTA records going back to when it assumed responsibility for the GeorgiaNet functions in fiscal year 2001 and GeorgiaNet Authority financial records for fiscal years 1999 and 2000. The team interviewed GTA personnel and personnel with the largest commercial purchaser of electronic data. The audit team also surveyed 99 state agencies for information on their satisfaction with GeorgiaNet services. Information was also solicited from four states that were identified as having exemplary e-government operations. The states were chosen based their average rankings on The Digital State Survey (a national evaluation of the "progress made by state governments in the adoption and utilization of digital technologies to improve the delivery of government services to their citizens") for 2001 and 2002. Three states (Arizona, Washington, Michigan) responded to our survey questions.
The entire report was discussed with appropriate personnel at GTA. Personnel from GTA were invited to provide a written response to the report, and GTA was also invited to indicate areas in which it planned to take corrective action. Pertinent responses from GTA are reflected in the report as appropriate.

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 6

Finding No. 1 The costs associated with implementation of the new portal concept were difficult to identify because GTA did not maintain cost information in their project plans and the limited budget information provided to the General Assembly was not updated as costs changed. Reviews by the audit team of contracts, expenditure requests, purchase orders and other financial records identified approximately $18.5 million in portal start-up costs. In addition, during fiscal years 2001 2003 the operating costs of the GeorgiaNet Division of GTA were approximately $9.5 million more than the cost pattern exhibited by the GeorgiaNet Authority prior to implementation of the new portal. It was beyond the scope of this review to determine if alternative implementation methods might have been more cost effective.

Portal Cost Information in Project Plans GTA's Technology Project Management Standards require that state agencies utilize a project management process that includes cost estimate information; however, GTA's project management plans for implementation of the new portal concept did not include cost information. GTA had an overall Project Management Plan and three project schedules for the portal implementation. The overall Project Management Plan had a section for cost information; however, only the cost for implementation of one portion of the portal (approximately $5.6 million for Integration Services including the on-line driver's license pilot project) was identified in the plan's cost information. The three project schedules were all capable of monitoring cost information; however, that capability was not used.

Portal Cost Information in Budgets The Governor's Amended Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Report indicated that GTA requested $2 million of appropriated state funds and approval to use another $12 million of agency funds for "Interoperability, Customer Resource Management [later called Customer Relationship Management] and Security/Digital Signature". The Governor's Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Report indicated that GTA requested another $4 million of appropriated state funds and approval to use another $5 million of agency funds for the same purposes. A GTA document indicated that the total $23 million in these requests consisted of $10 million for security (which was not related to the portal) and $13 million for interoperability/customer relationship management (which was the portal concept). The General Assembly appropriated $1.7 million of the $2 million requested in the fiscal year 2001 amended budget and $3.5 million of the $4 million requested in fiscal year 2002 budget.
In fiscal year 2002 GTA also requested another $8.7 million of state appropriations to add six DHR functions (Child Support, Eligibility for Food Stamps, Child Care, Vital Records, Aging Services, and Child Abuse, Foster Care and Adoption Information) to the portal. This cost was not considered to be part of the portal's start-up costs since it was for adding new applications to the existing portal. The request indicated that the total anticipated cost associated with adding these applications was $29.5 million with $17.1 million to come from federal matching funds and $3.7 million from GTA's Empowerment Fund. The General Assembly appropriated $8 million of the $8.7 million that was requested.
The portal start-up costs were significantly greater than the initial estimate reflected in the budget requests. GTA personnel indicated that since they were already authorized to use income from

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 7

data sales to fund GeorgiaNet related operations, it was not necessary for them to seek additional legislative approval to use additional agency funds to pay for the higher than anticipated costs associated with implementation of the portal.
In its written response to the audit, GTA noted that it monitored and managed portal cost estimates outside of the EPIA project plans. Modifications to estimates were discussed at weekly project review meetings and GTA management was aware of, and officially approved, all expenditures. GTA developed the EPIA and validated the approach with third-party industry experts (i.e., Gartner Group) and GTA maintained an on-line repository that documented the elements of the EPIA project.

Determination of Portal Start-up Costs The portal implementation evolved over time involving several contracts, numerous revisions to contracts and additional purchases through requests for bids. The Director of GeorgiaNet Division kept an informal spreadsheet that included cost information on most of the items involved with implementation of the portal; however GTA was not able to readily provide the audit team with information on the total start-up costs associated with portal implementation. The audit team's reviews of available cost information (contracts, contract change orders, requests for expenditures, purchase orders, responses to invitations for bids, etc.) identified approximately $18.5 million of start-up costs for the portal. (See Exhibit 3 for more detail on portal start-up costs).

Exhibit 3

Implementation (Start-up) Costs for Portal

Fiscal Years 2002 - 2003

Description

Vendor

Portal Software and Integration Services

Phase I

Phase II (Including Driver's License Pilot Application)

Sun EZ Gov

Change Orders to Contract

(Hardware, Software and Consulting Services)

System Integration (Interoperability Software)

Webmethods

Content Management Software

Vignette

(Facilitate Changes to Websites by User Agencies)

Hardware for Portal

Sun

Natural Language Search Capabilities

Verity

RJL Consulting

Consulting and Training

North Highland Strategic Technologies

Preliminary Implementation of Portal for DHR

Business Process Solutions

Misc. Equipment (Purchased through Statewide Contracts)

Dell Logical Choice

TOTAL

Source: Reviews of GTA Financial Records

Amount
$ 472,397 5,873,716 2,292,596 2,846,250 888,472 4,607,536 400,000
429,779
149,406 519,292 $ 18,479,444

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 8

Operating Cost Increases In addition to the start-up costs associated with implementation of the portal the operating costs of GTA's GeorgiaNet Division have significantly increased from the cost pattern exhibited by the GeorgiaNet Authority. For fiscal year 2000, (the year before creation of the GTA's GeorgiaNet Division) the GeorgiaNet Authority had expenses of approximately $5.8 million. The GeorgiaNet Division had expenses of $6.5 million in fiscal year 2001, $10.4 million in fiscal year 2002 and $10.0 million in fiscal year 2003. For these three years the GeorgiaNet Division had expenses that were approximately $9.5 million greater than the expense pattern exhibited by the GeorgiaNet Authority. In its written response to the audit, GTA noted that the increase in operating expenses was due mostly to the move from the old state web presence to the EPIA. Factors influencing this increase included: increases in staff to develop and support the more capable and complex infrastructure in addition to both maintaining existing applications and developing new applications; the merger of part of DOAS's programming staff; and more credit card processing fees due to an increased volume of transactions processed by GeorgiaNet. GTA also noted that it had to stabilize and secure the existing deteriorating Web infrastructure while it was migrating to the new portal concept and that the number of applications on the old web environment grew from 106 in calendar year 2000 to 192 in calendar year 2002.
Cost Effectiveness of Portal Implementation There are many ways portals can be designed using different hardware and software configurations. An expert in these hardware and software systems would need to be hired to evaluate the advantages, disadvantages and cost effectiveness of the different possible configurations. It was beyond the scope of this review to determine if alternative implementation methods might have been more cost effective.
To get an idea of how the cost of Georgia's portal compared to portals in other states, the audit team contacted the three states identified as having exemplary e-government operations to identify their cost experience in establishing their state's portals. Detailed review of the capabilities and configurations of each of the portals would be necessary to determine how the portal's costs and capabilities compared to Georgia's portal. However, an informal survey on the functional areas offered on the various portals that was conducted by the audit team indicated that Georgia's portal had more features than the other state portals. Of 20 functional areas available on Georgia's portal, Michigan provided 13, Washington provided eight, and Arizona provided six. (See Appendix B for more detailed information on the functional area survey.) While more detailed analysis would be needed to determine how the capabilities of the various portals impacted their costs, Michigan reported that their portal start-up costs were $24 million (over two years); Arizona reported that its start-up costs were approximately $3.4 million and Washington did not provide information on its start-up costs.
In its written response to the audit, GTA noted that it chose its portal implementation approach to support the previous administration's objective of making all appropriate state services available to constituents via the internet within a relatively short period of time. To achieve this goal required implementation of the entire infrastructure at once instead of an incremental approach. GTA reported that it is continuing to monitor and mold the EPIA infrastructure to meet current and future growth needs and it has a continuous evaluation process to make the infrastructure more efficient and cost-effective.
GTA also noted that Georgian's are using the portal to gain access to government information and services without visits to state offices. In the portal's first year of operation page visits

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 9

increased from 1.4 million to 2.5 million per month. More than 60,000 Georgian's renewed their driver's licenses on-line and by phone without going to a state office. Parents use the portal more than 2,000 times each day to check the status of child support payments which allows state employees to spend more time collecting support payments and less time on the telephone.
GTA's project management process on major implementation projects needs to maintain cost information as required by GTA's Technology Project Management Standards. Detailed budget information that is updated for changes should also be maintained on major implementation projects.
In its written response to the audit, GTA agreed that it should maintain project cost information in accordance with its technology project management standards. GTA reported that it now requires project plans and budgets for all projects for more than $50,000.
Issue: Evaluate the GeorgiaNet Division's progress toward putting state agencies and
applications on the state's web portal.
Finding No. 2
GTA needs to develop a plan for putting state agencies and applications on the state's web portal. Until recently GTA's GeorgiaNet Division has focused its efforts on developing the new web portal concept. It is too early to tell how quickly state agencies will adopt the portal; however, Georgia appears to be at a similar stage in its conversion to the portal concept as the three states identified as having exemplary e-government operations. The GeorgiaNet Division may need to more proactively encourage agencies to join the portal if agencies and applications are not added to the portal as quickly as anticipated by the Division's goals for fiscal year 2004.
Until recently GTA's GeorgiaNet Division has concentrated on getting the portal infrastructure in place and not on soliciting or incorporating agency websites and applications on the new portal. The Division has provided a connection between the new portal and existing state government websites and applications by providing links on the portal which provide summary information for each agency and a link to the agency's website (if available). As of May 2003, 116 state agencies/entities had these links on the portal (four of these agencies only had an address identified since they did not have a website).
As shown in Exhibit 4, as of June 2003, there were only four state agency sites (with website content, such as the Department of Human Resources' web page) and four applications (agency services, such as Online Driver's License Renewal) that fully utilized all the capabilities of the portal. GeorgiaNet has not developed a comprehensive list of all the potential agencies and applications that may need to be added to the portal; however, the GeorgiaNet Division supports 59 agency sites for 34 agencies and 144 applications, which could eventually need to be redesigned to be fully incorporated into the portal. An unknown number of additional agency sites and applications that have not yet been identified could also eventually need to be incorporated into the portal. As of June 2003, GeorgiaNet had received formal requests to add two agency sites and sixteen applications to the portal, and an informal request to add one application to the portal. The GeorgiaNet Division does not have a long-term plan for adding agency sites and applications to the portal. The Division's immediate goal is to have 18 agencies and 20 applications on the portal by the end of fiscal year 2004.

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 10

Exhibit 4 Progress on Transition to Portal
As of June 2003

4 Agency Sites

Agency Site 59 Agency Sites 1

Content

(34 Agencies)

78 Agency Sites 2

Unknown Number of Agency Sites

Currently on Portal
Not On Portal But Are Supported By GaNet Or Have "links" On The Portal
Additional Agency Sites (Not Currently Supported By GaNet)

4 Applications

Applications

144 Applications

Unknown Number of Applications

Currently on Portal
Not On Portal But Are Currently Supported By GaNet
Additional Applications (Not Currently Supported By GaNet)

50 100 150

Agency Sites/Applications
1 Sites Currently Supported by GaNet 2 The 78 Agencies have "links" on the portal but their websites are not currently supported by GaNet.
The Agencies may have more than one website.
Source: Program Records

The three states identified as having exemplary e-government operations appear to be at a similar stage in their conversion to the web portal concept as Georgia. As shown in Exhibit 5, all four states reported that they used the portal concept. Michigan and Arizona implemented their portals a year before Georgia and Washington implemented its portal nearly four years before Georgia. Only Michigan requires all state agencies to be fully incorporated into its portal and has over 60 agency sites on its portal. Arizona has links to 138 agencies on its portal, and Washington has links to 160 agencies compared to Georgia which has links to 116 agencies. None of the states requires that all applications be fully incorporated into their portals. Georgia has four applications fully incorporated into its portal, Arizona has six applications and Washington has eight applications (and is working on adding 12 more).

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 11

Exhibit 5 Comparison of Status of Conversion to Portal Concept

Description

Georgia Arizona Michigan Washington

Use Portal Concept

YES

Year Portal Started
All State Agencies Required To Have Websites Fully Incorporated Into State's Portal Number Of State Agency Websites Fully Incorporated Into State's Portal
Number Of State Agency Website "Links" On State's Portal
All Applications Required To Be Designed To Be Fully Incorporated Into State's Portal
Number Of Applications Fully Incorporated Into State's Portal

2002 NO 4 116 NO 4

Source: GTA Records and Survey Interviews of Other States

YES

YES

YES

2001

2001

1998

NO

YES

NO

0

Over 60

0

138

NA

160

NO

NO

NO

6

8

0

GTA needs to develop a plan for putting state agencies and applications on the state's web portal. It is too early to tell how quickly state agencies will adopt use of the portal; however, if agencies and applications are not added to the portal as quickly as anticipated by the Division's goals for fiscal year 2004, the GeorgiaNet Division may need to implement techniques to more proactively encourage agencies to join the portal. GeorgiaNet may need to more actively market the portal by informing state agencies of the advantages of joining and may also need to develop incentives for joining.
In its written response to the audit, GTA noted that it was educating state agencies on the advantages of having a web presence on the portal and offering incentives to agencies for moving their information and services to the portal due to the budgetary climate and concerns about internet security. As an incentive, GTA will not charge agencies to join the portal in fiscal year 2004. GTA is also developing marketing materials for joining the portal.
GTA noted that six agency web sites were on the portal and that four applications were fully incorporated into the portal as of October 2003. In addition GTA was working with DHR to move an additional 7,000 pages of content to its web site over the next six months. GTA was working with two additional agencies to move their web sites to the portal and was actively discussing moving web sites or establishing a new web presence with seven other agencies. GTA also anticipated launching four additional applications during fiscal year 2004 and DHR should have 19 additional interactive applications on the portal by the end of calendar year 2004.

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 12

Issue: Evaluate GTA's compliance with GeorgiaNet statutory responsibilities.
Finding No. 3
GTA is in compliance with state laws regarding selling public information in electronic format, facilitating and encouraging the conduct of business on the Internet; providing for the distribution of legislative information in electronic format; and maintaining a register of waivers and variances to state agency rules.
The GTA has certain responsibilities under state laws in the following four areas that relate to the state's internet/ web presence. GTA's compliance with various provisions of state laws in these areas is discussed below.
Data Sales - State law provides that GTA has the authority to fix and collect fees for data maintained in electronic format. For driver's records, state law also provides that both DMVS and GTA are each authorized to charge reasonable fees to defray costs; however the fee for providing an abstract of a driver's record shall not exceed $10. State law also specifically provides that access to driver's license data for the use of rental car companies shall be provided through GeorgiaNet Division of GTA. GTA is fulfilling these requirements of the law. Most electronic data sales fees are set by GTA (formerly the GeorgiaNet Authority). The fees charged for driver's records were set several years ago by the Department of Public Safety (now DMVS) and GTA has not established any additional fees. The fees set for driver's records are less than the maximum allowed by law. Access to driver record information for rental car companies is provided through the GeorgiaNet Division.
Facilitating and Encouraging Business on the Internet State law provides that GTA has the authority to facilitate and encourage business on the Internet. GTA is fulfilling this requirement of the law. GTA identified 68 applications that it supports that facilitate and encourage online business transactions. GTA specifically noted that on-line College Tuition Payments, on-line County Tag Renewals, and on-line Corporate Annual Registrations all utilized GTA's standardized credit card payment engine. GeorgiaNet intends to expand on use of the payment engine by enabling cities and counties to use the engine within the next year to further encourage and facilitate business on the Internet.
Distribution of Legislative Information State law requires that GTA provide for distribution of legislative information free of charge, post information that may be provided by the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate, and work with the General Assembly to develop a single website for the General Assembly. GTA fulfills this requirement by providing links on the State web portal to the General Assembly's site which includes the information recommended in the law.
Register of Waivers and Variances to State Agency Rules State law requires that a register of requests for variances and waivers and approved variances and waivers to State agency rules be posted on the Georgia Register on GeorgiaNet. The state department granting the waiver or variance is required to maintain its own register. GTA is fulfilling its legal responsibility by providing a specific location on the GeorgiaNet where agencies can post the required information on waivers and variances to state agency rules.
In its written response to the audit, GTA agreed with the finding.

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 13

Finding No. 4
GTA should continue to work with state agencies to reimburse them for their costs related to the sale of electronic data as required by state law.
State law provides that GTA shall reimburse agencies for costs related to the sale of data. GTA reported that it is not reimbursing any agencies for these costs because no agencies had reported any costs and none had requested reimbursement. The audit team contacted the four agencies whose data was sold through GTA in fiscal year 2003 and confirmed that the agencies had never requested reimbursement.
GTA reported that they were already starting to work with agencies to identify the costs related to the sale of data in order to comply with the reimbursement requirement. An agreement had been completed with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation for reimbursing costs related to the new Criminal Records Checks. GTA was also working with the Department of Motor Vehicle Safety (DMVS) (whose driving records generate 99% of GTA's income from data sales) to identify a reimbursement methodology. GTA reported that it would contact the remaining agencies that were involved with data sales during the next year to identify a reimbursement methodology.
GTA should continue to work with state agencies to reimburse them for their costs related to the sale of data as required by state law.
In its written response to the audit, GTA noted that no agencies were reimbursed because no agencies had identified any additional costs in providing GTA access to their data.

Finding No. 5
GTA should start working with agencies to ensure that all requirements for the Georgia Register are met. A review of specific requirements for GTA's publication of the Georgia Register found problems with three of 16 items identified by the audit team.
State law requires that GTA publish a Georgia Register in both electronic and printed format. The purpose of the Register is to distribute certain information on legislation, court-related matters, executive orders, and other information that is made available by state agencies through electronic media. The electronic version of the Georgia Register is located on the GTA website and primarily provides links to other sites where the required information may be found. For example, rather than maintaining an independent database of passed Legislation, the Register provides a link to the General Assembly website where that information is already maintained. It should be noted that state law provides that agencies are not required to provide information to GTA.
The audit team identified 16 items that should be included in the Register according to state law. (See Appendix C for a complete listing of the information that should be included in the Register.) Problems were identified with three of these items as discussed below.
The authority shall publish or cause to be published through printed and electronic media and sell a publication entitled the Georgia Register which shall include information made available by the agencies through electronic media. The Georgia Register is not printed and it is not sold by GTA. GTA personnel noted that they did not feel that it would be cost effective to print the Register since it is available in electronic format and any part of the Register can be easily printed by a user. GTA has not requested that the requirement for printing the register be removed from the law.

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 14

Notice of land acquisitions or transfers with a value of more than $50,000, including a statement of the manner in which more detailed information may be obtained. The Register only provides a link to a website listing the telephone number of the State Property Commission. The State Property Commission indicated that they maintain information on land acquisitions and transfers and estimated that during fiscal year 2003 there were approximately 100 land acquisitions with a value of more than $50,000. The State Property Commission reported that it does not currently have a website; however it is working with GTA to develop a database with this information and would post it on the Internet.
All agency meeting notices showing the time, place, and date of the meeting. The meeting notices should include the text of any new rules proposed for consideration or a reference where the text of the proposed rules is published. The Register provides a page of links to contact information for the agencies that includes either the agency's homepage or telephone number. GTA has not verified that agencies are providing the required information regarding scheduled meetings and rule changes. A review of information available through the Register on meetings for 11 state agencies (selected from the 99 state agencies that were contacted as part of the satisfaction survey conducted by the audit team) identified that two of the agencies had information on their website concerning public meetings and regulations. Further contact with the remaining nine agencies indicated that three had meetings scheduled that should have been posted on the register, while four reported that they had no meetings scheduled. Two agencies did not respond to our inquiries.
GTA should seek to remove the requirement for printing the register from the law or comply with the law and print the Register. GTA agreed that they are responsible along with the agencies that provide the data for maintaining the accuracy and completeness of information required to be on the Georgia Register. GTA indicated that they would begin monitoring the problem areas identified by the audit team and would start working with agencies to ensure that all legal requirements for the Register are met.
In its written response to the audit, GTA agreed with the Finding.

Issue: Determine if the income derived from the sale of data is maximized and if cost
recovery charges to state agencies for GeorgiaNet services are fair and equitable.

Finding No. 6
GTA should conduct research to identify the impact that data price increases may have on the demand for data and the resulting impact on data sales revenue. This information should help GTA make data pricing decisions and recommendations that maximize revenue without negatively impacting the citizens of the state.
Revenue generated from the sale of electronic data is a function of the price charged for data items and the number of data items sold. The following paragraphs discuss GTA's activities regarding maximizing electronic data sales revenues.
Pricing GTA reported that its objective was not to price data at the highest possible level to maximize data sales revenue but to set prices that were comparable to other states. GTA was concerned that the price of data could impact the demand for data (if prices were set too high the reduction in demand for data might actually result in lower revenue than would be obtained from

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 15

lower prices). GTA was also concerned that higher data prices might also have a negative impact on the state's citizens in that insurance companies might respond to higher data prices by increasing insurance rates. GTA had never determined if these concerns were valid or the degree to which changes in the price of data actually impacted the demand for data.
The audit team reviewed the pricing of driving records since this type of data comprised most of GTA data sales revenue. (GTA collected $21.8 million in fiscal year 2002 from data sales, of which $21.6 million (99%) was from the sale of driving records.) State law limits the charge for driving records to a maximum of $10 and allows fees to be set by both the Department of Motor Vehicle Safety and GTA. Our review found that the rates that Georgia is charging for driving records are currently comparable to the rates charged by other states. A review of the maximum prices charged for driving records found that Georgia charged more than 35 states and only eight states charged more than Georgia. (The rate charged by the remaining six states was the same as Georgia's.) (See Appendix D for a list of charges by state.) While Georgia's prices are comparable, raising prices up to the maximum allowed by law and increasing the maximum price allowed by law could result in a significant amount of additional revenue. For example, raising the current highest rate charged for driver record data from $7 to the maximum currently allowed by law of $10 is approximately a 43% increase. Based on fiscal year 2002 driver record sales revenue of $21.6 million, a 43% increase would be $9.3 million.
It should be noted that subsequent to the audit, GTA personnel indicated that DMVS was considering reducing the charge for driver's records data requests that do not result in data being returned. GTA indicated that it was studying the impact that this change might have on data sales revenues.
Identification of new data items - GTA reported that it identifies additional data items that might be sold by researching professional organizations, reviewing publications, conducting online searches, and surveying other states. Based on the information they gathered, GTA is currently planning to add an application that will allow users to search Georgia Crime Information Center data for Georgia felony convictions. The application will charge $15 per record searched and has estimated that this application will generate between $4 and $5 million in additional revenue annually.
The audit team requested information on the types of data items sold by the three states that were identified as having exemplary e-government operations. Only one state reported that it sold any data items that Georgia does not sell. Michigan reported that it sells vehicle title and lien reports and violation notification data (notification that a driver has been charged with some sort of violation). Michigan did not provide any information on the amount of revenue generated from the sale of this type of data that could be used to determine if these sales resulted in any significant revenue. GTA indicated that they did not think that the sale of these items would result in significant additional revenue and that the sale of these items might even result in a reduction in driver record sales and therefore lower total revenue. However, GTA indicated that they would conduct some additional work to evaluate if it would be beneficial for the state to sell this type of data.
GTA should conduct research to identify the impact that data price increases may have on the demand for data and the resulting impact on data sales revenue. This information should help GTA make data pricing decisions and recommendations that maximize revenue without negatively impacting the citizens of the state.
In its written response to the audit, GTA agreed with the Finding.

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 16

Finding No. 7
GTA is working to establish an Activity Based Cost Methodology for tracking and recovering costs for the portal and portal-related activities. However, the methodology could not be evaluated to determine if it is fair and equitable because as of June 2003, it had not been completed.
GTA reported that beginning in fiscal year 2005, it would start charging for web services related to portal activities based on an Activity Based Cost Methodology that it has been developing over the last year. These charges would be in addition to revenue retained by GTA from the sale of electronic data. As of June 11, 2003 the methodology had not been completed and therefore could not be reviewed by the audit team. GTA personnel indicated that they expected to finalize a proposal for the methodology during the fall of 2003 and that the proposal would have to be approved by both the Office of Planning and Budget and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services before it can be put into use.
The technology agencies of the three states with exemplary e-government operations that were contacted by the audit team all charged other state agencies fees to recover the costs of provided services. None of the states allowed their technology agencies to retain revenue from the sale of electronic data in addition to those charges.
In its written response to the audit, GTA noted that it did not expect to charge agencies for moving their content to the portal and using the content management system for the foreseeable future. GTA reported that is was currently finalizing its cost model which will identify if GTA will need to charge agencies for applications on the portal.

Issue: Evaluate the extent to which the GeorgiaNet Division uses Results-Based
Budgeting programs and goals.
Finding No. 8
GTA's GeorgiaNet Division did not have finalized Results-Based Budgeting (RBB) goals, desired results or performance measures at the time of this review. The GeorgiaNet Division submitted its first RBB proposal to the Office of Planning and Budget (OPB) after the due date for submission for the fiscal year 2004 Budget Report. In June 2003, OPB announced that RBB was being incorporated into a new budgeting process called "Prioritized Program Budgeting" beginning with fiscal year 2005 budget requests. OPB expects to complete its review of GTA's fiscal year 2005 results and performance measures during November 2003.
GTA submitted its first proposed RBB goals, desired results and performance measures during the fall of 2002 which was after the due date for submission for the fiscal year 2004 Budget Report. The GeorgiaNet Division's RBB proposal included measures such as the number of visits to the portal, the number of sites and services on the portal, and the results of user surveys regarding satisfaction with Division services. When the audit team showed OPB staff a copy of the Division's RBB proposal the OPB staff indicated that "While the draft was a good start, several modifications would be needed to meet RBB guidelines for results measures."
In June 2003, OPB announced that RBB was being incorporated into a new budgeting process called "Prioritized Program Budgeting" beginning with fiscal year 2005 budget requests. The new budgeting process will still require agencies to develop program results and performance measures for each of their programs and subprograms. GTA's fiscal year 2005 results and

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 17

performance measures were submitted to OPB on September 8, 2003. OPB expects to complete its review of GTA's agency results and performance measures during November 2003.
In its written response to the audit, GTA noted that it tracked internal goals and statistics in Fiscal Year 2003. GTA also noted that while it was not required to submit RBBs (since it was an authority), it voluntarily submitted RBBs for fiscal year 2004 in November which was too late for publication. OPB confirmed that GTA was not required to submit RBBs since it was an authority that received "limited appropriated funding."
Issue: Determine the level of customer (the public, state agency, and commercial
purchasers of data) satisfaction with GeorgiaNet services.
Finding No. 9 The public users of GeorgiaNet services appear to be satisfied with the services being provided. GTA monitors several sources of information on constituent (i.e., the general public) satisfaction with the portal in order to ensure that it continues to satisfy the public's expectations.
GTA is conducting an on-line constituent (general public) satisfaction survey for the portal and applications. The GeorgiaNet Division had not completed its analysis of the survey information at the time of this review; however, preliminary analysis of the responses for April and May 2003 indicated that users are satisfied with the portal. Thirteen areas were addressed on the survey. All but two of the 13 areas had average scores indicating that users were "satisfied" or more than satisfied with the provided service. The other two areas had average scores that were very close to the score indicating that users were "satisfied". These survey results are to be reported in the Division's RBB measures starting with the 2005 Budget Report. In addition, the Division would also like to hire an outside vendor to conduct a formal survey of constituents to determine if the portal meets their expectations if funding becomes available in fiscal year 2004.
The Portal Contact Center (PCC) opened on July 1, 2002 to answer constituent questions and to take complaints from the public regarding their use of the state's web portal. For the time period, July 2002 through May 2003, the PCC reported it received 19,281 telephone calls and 6,298 e-mails from constituents. Of these, only 66 were classified as complaints; the remainder of the calls and e-mails related to questions about site navigation, technical issues, and miscellaneous questions or suggestions (e.g., where can passports be obtained, please list county population, please list counties in alphabetical order, etc.).
Another indicator of customer satisfaction is utilization of the portal, which can be measured by the number of "hits" (i.e., the number of web pages that are accessed). From July 2002, when the portal was launched, to May 2003, the number of page hits has increased from 1.44 million to 2.58 million per month.
The Division should continue to monitor the satisfaction of public users with GeorgiaNet services to ensure that these services continue to satisfy the public's expectations.
In its written response to the audit, GTA noted that additional survey results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 show that user satisfaction is increasing.

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 18

Finding No. 10
GTA needs to better monitor state entity satisfaction with the GeorgiaNet services in order to respond to customer concerns and ensure that it continues to satisfy the needs of state entities. Currently, GTA only monitors state entity satisfaction with GeorgiaNet services through informal contacts with representatives of other state entities. A customer satisfaction survey of state agencies conducted by the audit team found that while overall satisfaction was good for most areas of GeorgiaNet service, several areas of concern were also noted.
GTA reported that it receives input on its GeorgiaNet services from personnel in other state entities through the Georgia Enterprise IT Leaders Forum (GEITLF), which has 28 agency members. GEITLF meets monthly to discuss technology standards to promote interoperability and security. GTA personnel indicated that issues and concerns related to GeorgiaNet services are frequently discussed at the meetings; however, no formal records documenting agency satisfaction or concerns are maintained.
The audit team surveyed state agencies, authorities, and commissions to determine their level of satisfaction with GeorgiaNet services. Ninety-nine state entities were surveyed and 86 responded to the survey. Of the 86 responding entities, 51 (59%) reported they used GeorgiaNet services. As shown in Exhibit 6, the survey of state entities found:
Seven (78%) of the nine GeorgiaNet service areas in the survey had at least 70% of the respondents indicating that they were "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with the GeorgiaNet service. The area that had the highest level of satisfaction was the "web portal." It should be noted that while only six agencies had an application and/or content/web site that was fully operating on the portal, 33 entities reported on the survey that they used the portal to some degree and provided a rating of their satisfaction. The areas that had the lowest levels of satisfaction were "electronic payments" and "web applications." GTA personnel reported that they were already taking steps to make improvements in these areas.
The survey also allowed the respondents to provide written comments on their entity's experience with GeorgiaNet services. Of the 86 state entities responding, 81 entities provided written comments. Poor response time was the most common written complaint (17 entities including three entities that reported that they did not use GeorgiaNet) commented that response time to requests for customer support was unsatisfactory. Another 14 entities (including seven that reported that they did not use GeorgiaNet services) commented on the uncertainty involving fees that agencies will be charged in the future for services. Fourteen entities also indicated that they had experienced some type of bad experience in the past with GeorgiaNet such as work being done incorrectly. On the other hand, 12 entities made positive comments about GeorgiaNet services, half of which indicated that their entity had received good customer service.

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 19

Exhibit 6 Survey of State Entity Satisfaction With GeorgiaNet Services
April 2003

% Very Satisfied

% Somewhat Satisfied

% Somewhat Dissatisified

% Not Satisfied

Customer Service (37 Agencies Responding)

37.8%

Technical Assistance (34 Agencies Responding)

38.2%

Web Portal (33 Agencies Responding)

36.4%

Web Hosting (32 Agencies Responding)

43.8%

Training (30 Agencies Responding)
Web Page Development (28 Agencies Responding)

53.5% 39.3%

Web Applications (16 Agencies Responding)
Electronic Rules and Regulations (12 Agencies Responding)
Electronic Payments (9 Agencies Responding)

18.8% 33.3% 44.4%

Source: Audit Team Survey of State Agencies

43.3% 50.0%

16.2%

2.7 %

11.8%

57.6%

6.1%

28.1% 33.3%

21.9%

6.3 %

10%

3.3 %

35.7%

14.3%

10.7%

50.0%

18.8%

12.5%

41.7%

8.3%

16.7%

11.1%

33.3%

11.1%

GTA should take steps to better monitor state agency satisfaction with its GeorgiaNet services. Periodic surveys similar to the on-line and formal surveys GTA is using to monitor constituent satisfaction with GeorgiaNet services should be considered. Areas of concern identified by the surveys should be addressed.
In its written response to the audit, GTA noted that it was working on an initiative that will address ongoing monitoring and continuous improvement of customer satisfaction. GTA also reported that is was addressing some of the areas of the survey that had lower customer satisfaction levels. GTA is working to stabilize the legacy web page development and legacy web applications areas as it prepares the information and services for the portal. GTA is implementing a new payment engine as part of the EPIA infrastructure that has fewer points of failure. GTA is working with the Secretary of State's Office to improve customer satisfaction in the area of electronic rules and regulations. In addition, GTA is reviewing the written comments

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 20

gathered during the survey to understand customer perceptions and whether the concerns involved the old GeorgiaNet Authority or GTA in order to help it improve customer satisfaction.

Finding No. 11
The major commercial purchasers of GeorgiaNet data appear to be satisfied with the services being provided. GTA should consider formally contacting major purchasers of data annually to identify if they are satisfied with the services they are receiving and if they have any suggestions for improvement. This would help GTA ensure that it continues to satisfy the needs of their commercial customers.
GTA reported that it has periodic informal contacts with its major commercial data purchasers through which they could tell if their customers were dissatisfied. Based on these contacts, GTA personnel were not aware of any customer concerns or problems. The audit team contacted the four largest commercial data purchasers that accounted for more than 94% of GeorgiaNet revenue. All of the customers we contacted seemed satisfied with the services they were receiving from GTA. One of the customers rated their relationship with GTA as excellent, two of the customers rated their relationship as good and one of the customers rated their relationship as fair.
GTA should consider formally contacting major purchasers of data annually to identify if they are satisfied with the services they are receiving and if they have any suggestions for improvement. This would help GTA ensure that it continues to satisfy the needs of their commercial customers.
In its written response to the audit, GTA agreed with the Finding.

Issue: Determine how GeorgiaNet operations compare to similar operations in other
states.
Finding No. 12 Georgia has consistently ranked in the top 25 states in The Digital State Survey, a national survey of states' use of digital technology that is primarily related to a state's internet/web presence. While the GeorgiaNet Division's focus since 2000 has been on its transition to GTA and establishing the new portal, the Division is now working towards getting the state's web portal (www.georgia.gov) nationally recognized.
The Center for Digital Government, a national research and advisory institute, publishes an annual state ranking (The Digital State Survey) "to document and assess the progress made by state governments in the adoption and utilization of digital technologies to improve the delivery of government services to their citizens." The survey ranks states in eight areas of technology application that are primarily related to their presence on the internet/web. Georgia's ranking in The Digital State Survey was seventh in 2000, 19th in 2001, and to 14th in 2002.
Exhibit 7 shows Georgia's most recent ranking in each of the eight areas of technology application in the 2002 Digital State Survey. Georgia ranked in the top 25 states in seven of the eight areas ("education" was the only area in which Georgia did not rank in the top 25 states). Georgia ranked highest in the areas of "law enforcement and courts" and "digital democracy". It should be noted that a state's ranking is based on numerical scores and multiple states may have the same ranking. For example, Georgia and Pennsylvania tied for 14th place in the 2002 Digital

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 21

State Survey. It should also be noted that in 2002, five states did not participate in The Digital State Survey.

Exhibit 7
Digital State Survey State Rankings
November 2002

RANK

Overall Ranking

14

Law Enforcement & the Courts: The use of the internet and two-way, digital multimedia applications

4

for law enforcement, judicial and corrections officials as well as to provide public information.

Digital Democracy: Measures for online or digital access to, and promotion of, information about state

government and the electronic process and the use of the internet as an information management tool for

8

the legislature.

Electronic Commerce & Business Regulation: The use of the internet and intranets to locate,

13

file and store paperwork as well as for procurement and intra-governmental projects.

Management & Administration: Measures of institutional arrangements for digital policy decision
making and long-term infrastructure management.

14

Taxation & Revenue: The use of the internet for tax information, forms and filing as well as for digital
record keeping.

21

GIS/Transportation: The use of geographic information systems (GIS) and data - in intra-governmental

and transportation policy - as well as institutional arrangements for collecting and making GIS available to

21

the public.

Social Services: The use of the internet for program information, eligibility requirements and processing
applications for administrative purposes. In addition, the security of access to client records was measured.

23

Education: The use of digital technologies for education, including functions in the areas of
administration, instruction and reporting.

>25 1

1 Georgia Did Not Rank In The Top 25 States (Exact ranking not available)
Source: Digital State Survey
Another comparison of state government websites is the "Best of the Web" contest which is judged by the Center for Digital Government, Government Technology magazine, among others. This award differs from the previous Digital State Survey rankings in that states must apply to compete for the "Best of the Web" award. Georgia's state government website ranked second in the 2000 "Best of the Web" contest; however the GeorgiaNet Division did not apply to compete for the award in 2001 and 2002 because its focus was on its transition to GTA and establishing

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 22

the new portal. GeorgiaNet Division staff indicated that they have applied to compete in the 2003 Best of Web contest.
The new portal developed by the GTA's GeorgiaNet Division was designed to provide a more intuitive user experience and make it easier for state agencies to update and expand on information provided through their websites. The impact of these improvements should be reflected in future ranking comparisons with other states.
In its written response to the audit, GTA agreed that the positive impact of the portal should be reflected in future ranking comparisons with other states.

Data Type

Appendix A GeorgiaNet Data Sales Items and Revenue
Fiscal Year 2002
Description

Motor Vehicle Record (MVR) Primarily Driver's Record Information Bulk Sales

Corporation Bulk Sales

Documents regarding incorporation, certification of existence, etc. of businesses

Vehicle Identification Number Used by automobile dealers to check on

(VIN) Checks

automobile titles

Legislative Subscriptions

Provides tracking of legislation

Multiple Corporation Searches Provides searches of Corporation Data

Geographic Information System (GIS) Data

Geographic data

Department of Revenue Alcohol Records

Data on businesses that sell/serve alcohol

TOTAL

Source: GTA Records

Revenue $21,582,149
122,000
76,886
22,050 10,620
9,576
2,850
$21,826,131

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 23

Georgia Arizona Michigan Washington

Appendix B Functional Areas Available on State Portals

Description

1 Single Sign On: Allows a user to sign on once and be identified to many services
2 Privacy: Defines user's ability to limit which entities have access to their information
3 Authorization: Acts as an autonomous tool that synchronizes the user's identification with the security requirements of processes and services
4 Repository Requirements: Provides search and discovery functionality
5 Publish and Subscribe: Provides a means for agency data to conform to statewide data standards and be made available to only authorized users
6 Data Integration: Provides for a statewide data dictionary

Y YN Y Y NY Y Y YY Y
Y NY Y Y NY N
Y NN N

7 Content Management: Provides a means for individual agencies to own their content and manage it in a distributed manner

Y NY Y

8 Personalization: Allows the user to define their experience, including Y N Y N presentation, reminders, and preferred channels of information

9 Management of User Experience: Provides a mechanism by which administrators can reconfigure the user profiles, engage the user directly, and re-engage a process on behalf of a user

Y NY U

10 Application Integration: Provides software connectors that extend legacy applications into the enterprise software infrastructure

Y YN N

11 Console Control: Provides access to components of the interoperability architecture for administrative functions

Y NN N

12 Performance Monitoring: Possesses three elements of performance Y Y Y Y measurement: web analytics, service metrics, and process metrics

13 Process and Service Manager: Provides a mechanism to track and

Y NY U

process actions and transactions, allows for the entire infrastructure to

be rolled back to a particular state, and requires a scheduling and

workflow mechanism that functions as a part process and service

manager that interacts with the state's standard MicroSoft Exchange

workflow engine

14 Continuity of Experience: Allows a user to begin a process, suspend Y N N N it, and later re-engage the same process at the point of suspension

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 24

Georgia Arizona Michigan Washington

Appendix B Functional Areas Available on State Portals

Description

15 Multiple Device Support: Supports multiple user devices including web-enabled cell phones, Interactive Voice Response, WebTV,

Y NN Y

external programmatic interfaces via web services, and standard web

browsers

16 Natural Language Search: Allows users to make requests using normal language

Y NY Y

17 Component Development: Supports development of Enterprise Java Y Y Y NR Beans and/or Component Object Model components that expose their functionality via web services

18 Application Development: Provides mechanisms for security and data access

Y Y N NR

19 Process Design: Provides the ability to create content and business process workflows that are stored in documents accessible through the Web

Y N Y NR

20 Operating System: Capable of scaling to support 1 million concurrent Y N Y NR users, provides mechanisms for load balancing and system recovery

TOTAL Y (Yes)

20 6 13 8

TOTAL N (No)

14 7 6

TOTAL U (Unsure)

2

TOTAL NR (No Response)

4

Source: Program Records and Survey of Other States

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 25

Appendix C Requirements For the Georgia Register
1 The authority1 shall publish or cause to be published through printed and electronic media and sell a publication entitled the Georgia Register which shall include information made available by the agencies through electronic media related to:
2 Notice of adoption of all rules filed during the period; 3 A summary of each rule proposed during the period and a statement of the manner in
which a copy of the complete text of the rule may be obtained; 4 The complete text of all rules adopted during the period; 5 All agency meeting notices showing the time, place, and date of the meeting, and the
text of rules proposed for consideration or a reference where the text of the proposed rules is published, including a statement of the manner in which a copy of the agenda may be obtained; 6 All executive orders or proclamations issued by the Governor; 7 A summary of all state contracts or requests for proposals of an amount more than $100,000 and a statement of the manner in which a copy of the complete contract or request for proposal may be obtained; 8 All official and unofficial Attorney General Opinions and a summary of each opinion; 9 The full text of agency emergency rules; 10 Notice of land acquisitions or transfers with a value of more than $50,000, including a statement of the manner in which more detailed information may be obtained; 11 For each session of the General Assembly:
An abstract of each bill that is introduced; A synopsis of each bill that is enacted; and The status of each bill; 12 The hearing calendar of the Supreme Court; 13 The hearing calendar of the Court of Appeals; 14 A table of contents; and 15 An index. 16 No state appropriated funds shall be used for any purpose stated in this Code section. 1 Georgia Technology Authority
Source: Georgia Code (OCGA 50-25-6)

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 26

Appendix D

Maximum Price Charged For Driver Records

No. State
1 Rhode Island 2 Oklahoma 3 Connecticut 4 New Jersey 5 Iowa 6 Arkansas 7 New Hampshire 8 Vermont 9 Alabama 10 Georgia 11 Hawaii 12 Maryland 13 Mississippi 14 Nevada 15 Virginia 16 Michigan 17 Kansas 18 Texas 19 Illinois 20 Louisiana 21 Montana 22 South Carolina 23 Tennessee 24 Utah 25 Idaho 26 Alaska 27 Indiana 28 Maine 29 New York 30 North Carolina 31 Pennsylvania 32 Washington 33 West Virginia 33 Wisconsin 35 Delaware 36 Massachusetts 37 South Dakota 38 Arizona 39 Florida 40 Kentucky 41 Nebraska 42 North Dakota 43 Oregon 44 Wyoming 45 Minnesota 46 Colorado 47 California 48 Ohio 49 New Mexico 50 Missouri

Charge
$18.00 12.00 10.00 10.00 8.50 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.55 6.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.75 5.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.25 3.10 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.20 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.25

Source: The 2003 MVR Book

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 27

For additional information, please contact Paul E. Bernard, Director, Performance Audit Operations Division, at 404.657.5220.
Or see our website: www.audits.state.ga.us/internet/pao/index.html.

GeorgiaNet (State Government's Internet/Web Presence)

Page 28