REPORT DIGEST DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES BUREAU OF COMMUNICATION AND COMPUTER SERVICES THIRD PARTY REVIEW For the Year Ended: June 30, 2008 Release Date: July 9, 2008
State of Illinois Office of the Auditor General WILLIAM G. HOLLANDAUDITOR GENERAL
To obtain a copy of the Report contact: Office of the Auditor
General Iles Park Plaza 740 E. Ash Street Springfield, IL 62703 (217) 782-6046 or TTY (888)
261-2887 This Report Digest and Full
Report are also available on the worldwide web at www.auditor.illinois.gov |
INTRODUCTION The Department of Central Management Services’ (Department)
Bureau of Communication and Computer Services carries out statutory
responsibilities relating to data processing and telecommunication services (20 ILCS 405/405-10; 20 ILCS 405/405-20; 20
ILCS 405/405-250; 20 ILCS 405/405-255; 20 ILCS 405/405-260; 20 ILCS
405/405-270 and 20 ILCS 405/405-410). To fulfill its responsibilities, the Department operates the Central
Computer Facility (CCF), the Communications Center, and branch
facilities. Through its
facilities, the Department provides data processing services to approximately
97 user agencies. The Department is
mandated to manage or delegate the management of the procurement, retention,
installation, maintenance, and operation of all electronic data processing
equipment used by State agencies to achieve maximum economy consistent with
development of adequate and timely information in a form suitable for
management analysis, in a manner that provides for adequate security
protection and back-up facilities for that equipment. The Department
functions as a service organization providing computing and telecommunication
resources for State agencies’ use. The
Department and the agencies that use the Department’s computer resources
share the responsibility for maintaining the integrity and security of
computerized data and functions. We reviewed data
processing general controls at the Department primarily during the period
from January 2, 2008 to May 16, 2008.
We performed tests to determine compliance with policies and
procedures, conducted interviews, performed observations, and identified
specific control objectives and procedures we considered necessary to
evaluate the controls. We also reviewed
application controls for systems maintained by the Department for State
agencies’ use. The systems reviewed
were the Accounting Information, Central Payroll, Central Inventory, and
Central Time and Attendance Systems. |
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
BUREAU OF COMMUNICATION AND
COMPUTER SERVICES
STATISTICS |
2008 |
||
Mainframes |
4 Units
Configured as 12 Production Systems and 6
Test Systems 1 Unit
Configured as 5 Systems for Business Continuity |
||
Services/Workload
|
Impact Printing – 11.8
Million Lines per Month Laser Printing – 15.4
Million Pages per Month |
||
State
Agency Users |
97 |
||
Bureau
Employees |
2005
-- 775 2006
-- 777 2007
-- 748 2008
-- 708 |
||
Historical
Growth Trend** |
2005 -- 2006 -- 2007 -- 2008
-- |
3,217 3,217 3,962 4,018 |
-- MIPS -- MIPS -- MIPS -- MIPS -- Million Instructions Per Second |
|
**
In the month of April for each year listed |
Information
provided by the Department – Unaudited
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR/BUREAU
MANAGER |
During Audit Period and Current Acting Director: Maureen O’Donnell Deputy Director/Bureau Manager: Doug Kasamis |
|
Security policies had not been updated to reflect current environment
Billing methodology weaknesses were identified Disaster Contingency Planning Weaknesses
|
REPORT
SUMMARY We identified two significant deficiencies for
which we could not obtain reasonable assurance over the controls. Security PoliciesThe Department has the primary responsibility for providing IT services to State Government. Thus, it is imperative the Department implement a framework to promote and apply prudent, comprehensive, and effective security practices. The expanding use of information technology, increased sharing of sensitive information, and emerging IT risks make it imperative that security be appropriately addressed.
The policies outlined in the Department’s
Description of Control as current and approved, were actually not in effect,
and were not published by posting them to the appropriate repository. The Department developed several updated
policies in December 2007; however, the policies published on the Intranet
still did not reflect the current technological environment or address
security concerns.
Even though this deficiency was included in the last two Third Party Reviews, the Department had not taken comprehensive action to remedy the control weakness. To ensure the framework exists to promote and guide security practices, the Department should thoroughly review and update security policies to address the current technological environment, consolidation issues, and present-day risks. Once finalized, the policies (and associated procedures) should be implemented, formally communicated, and disseminated (along with being placed in the appropriate repository) to all affected parties. (page 6) The Department concurred with our recommendation. Department officials stated the Department is taking steps to address the recommendation.
Information Technology Billings
The Department billed user
agencies for various services, based on utilizations and rates developed by
the Department. However, based on
inquiries and review of billing data, the
Department had not implemented an adequate process/methodology to ensure the
appropriateness of billings to agencies.
Billing invoices were the foundation for user
agencies to make payments to the Department, including payments from the 11
agencies included in the consolidation of various functions of State
government into the Department.
To ensure the accuracy of the billings, the
Department should:
The Department concurred with our recommendation. Department officials stated that at the beginning of fiscal year 2008, BCCS instituted several new rates for services that had been previously billed through the IBiS system. Many of the issues found during the review were related to these newly rated services and BCCS is working diligently to correct any deficiencies and ensure proper controls are in place. The Department will also work to document the methodology used to develop these rates, as this is a requirement for the fiscal year 2008 Statewide Cost Allocation Plan. Department officials stated, by the beginning of fiscal year 2009, BCCS hopes to have rates for all services and no longer utilize the IBiS system.
Although not covered under audit standards as a deficiency, the
deficiency outlined below may impact the Department’s ability to process information
in the future.
Disaster Contingency Planning
Although the Department had developed some basic strategies to address the disaster contingency needs of the State’s Central Computer Facility, the plans and operational provisions need to be enhanced to provide assurance that all of the State’s critical applications and network operations can be recovered within required timeframes. The Department had not adequately implemented procedures to protect critical information resources, minimize the risk of unplanned interruptions, and ensure the availability of critical information resources within acceptable timeframes. The State is placing great reliance on the Department’s ability to
provide data processing and network services in the event of a disaster. As such, comprehensive and thoroughly
tested disaster contingency plans are an essential component of recovery
efforts.
The Department should ensure the necessary
components (plans, equipment, and facilities) are available to provide for
continuation of critical computer operations in the event of a disaster. In addition, the Department should conduct
comprehensive tests of the plans on an annual basis. (page 7)
The Department partially concurred with our
recommendation. Department officials stated they
agree that they need to improve and update the plans, procedures and overall
recovery documentation. However, the Department believes it has demonstrated
through local and regional tests that it is able to recover the State’s
Category 1 applications where the agencies have provided appropriate
documentation to do so.
AUDITORS' OPINION With the exception of the two significant
deficiencies described above, procedures were generally sufficient to provide
reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that relevant general and application
control objectives were achieved.
________________________________________ WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General
WGH:WJS |