Just as an architect must assess the lay of the land before he can start designing a new building, you must carefully analyze your business, political, and financial environments before you can skillfully craft your business case. The following considerations should lead you to gather the information that supports your case and makes sense for your time and place. Table 1 (in the Introduction) refers you to tools that may help you conduct a thorough analysis as you begin to consider how all the facets of your environment will play a role in the creation of your business case. In this initial phase, you will gather and analyze information that helps you:

• Know where you are now
• Know where you want to go
• Know how to get from here to there
• Know the risks and how to mitigate them
• Know the market for your ideas
• Know what you are asking of your audience

While the benefits of justice integration lie in your vision of the future, the cost and effort of getting there represent the difference between your current situation and that ideal future. For this reason, it is important to describe how things work today. If the stakeholders you are trying to persuade believe the current state of affairs is better than it really is, then you are much less likely to convince them to invest in significant change. In your analysis of the current situation, you must paint an unvarnished picture of today's reality so stakeholders will appreciate the need for change-and the consequences of doing nothing.

A well-crafted process model or description helps you discover, document, and explain why "bottle necks" and gaps exist and where duplication of effort occurs in current operations. It can also raise awareness about the dependencies among agencies.

The business process can be thought of as a multi-layered map. Initially you will want to show an overview of each organization's operations and how they do (or don't) interact. You could call this the 40,000-foot view. This high-level map will likely show you key problems and opportunities for improvement. You will then need a much more detailed map that represents a ground level view of those operations that seem most likely to benefit from integrative action. You can then go on to develop specific objectives, strategies, performance indicators, and other action plans to take advantage of those opportunities.

The Central Park police precinct in New York City decided recently to implement an Automated Fingerprinting Identification System (AFIS), but discovered that the available electrical output was inadequate to run the system. They solved this problem by buying their own power generation system that actually produces enough electricity to make the precinct a supplier to others in the area. While this example is unusual, it makes a strong point that infrastructure matters. Existing hardware, software, systems, networks, and physical facilities constitute the baseline infrastructure for integration. This infrastructure can be one of your biggest assets in creating an integrated system or one of your biggest problems. Most jurisdictions have at least some of the building blocks already in place: wireless communication networks, computers, Internet access, and adequately trained staff to carry out integration initiatives. Many, however, do not have these resources and many more have widely varying and incompatible types of software and equipment.

Your infrastructure analysis needs to assess the current capabilities of, and compatabilities among, all the organizations that are likely to participate in integration initiatives. Then compare these to some likely standards that will allow all to participate fully. The analysis should include attention to such issues as adequacy and compatibility of network connections and bandwidth, capacity for expansion and modernization, and physical facilities.

Mechanisms to improve information sharing for public safety have been appearing at all levels of the justice community over the last few years. Some are comprehensive efforts, but many more are partial integration projects set up in response to a specific need, a legislative mandate, or an isolated funding opportunity. Clearly, though, a great deal of money, time, and effort has been expended already in the quest for integrated systems. (For information on what is out there at the state and local level: www.search.org/integration/.)

In gathering information for your business case, you must therefore account for investments that have already been made in related systems, equipment, and personnel, and be prepared to show how those investments are paying off. Decision makers will want to know what is lacking in the current system, what benefits they will see from something new, and why past investments were not enough to solve the problems you now face. Moreover, you must become educated about the needs and project proposals of other justice agencies and begin to form a plan that takes them into account.

Integration takes many different forms. Some initiatives are very comprehensive and encompass all aspects of the public safety enterprise. Others focus on building a foundation of infrastructure, relationships or data standards that will support a variety of future initiatives. Other efforts focus on a specific pressing problem, a unique opportunity for action, or a particular funding source.

Your analysis of the current business process, infrastructure, and recent history will point out where the opportunities for change lie in your jurisdiction. Review each one for its potential to improve operations or achieve other important public safety benefits. It is unlikely that all of them can be addressed by a single initiative. Select the ones that seem most valuable for the near future, remembering that "value" can be defined in many ways. Depending on your current situation, you may identify actions that:

• Lay essential groundwork for more complete or ambitious integration efforts in the future
• Build on the foundation built by previous efforts
• Address the most pressing problems or weaknesses in the current situation
• Have the strongest and broadest base of support for immediate action
• Take advantage of a one-time funding opportunity

Putting one foot in front of the other is sometimes not as easy as it sounds, but that's what has to happen if you want to get your integration initiative up and running. There are a series of steps that must be taken to get from where you are today to your vision of the future. Because integration will affect the day-to-day business for so many people, it is important to carefully map out the steps needed to get to where you want to go. Have your game plan ready. And have a Plan B, just in case the players, the resources, or your environment change in the meantime.

Key leaders in your community, whether they are elected officials or justice professionals, are excellent candidates to carry the torch for your initiative. Find a champion who can galvanize support for your business case and for justice information integration. The champion should be someone who holds the respect of others in his or her own agency, as well as counterpart agencies. Champions can help build support by talking about the project among their colleagues, in the community, and to key decision makers.

Your analysis of work processes, practices, and information flow comes into play here. Identify specific changes in policies, processes, and practices that are necessary to achieve your integration goals. For example, if your initiative calls for a central database rather than separate files in individual agencies, the likely changes in technology, information access policies, and data definitions need to be well explained. Staff support is essential to building momentum and furthering the project. The business case has to document efforts to build and show support "within the ranks" for the proposed changes in the way work is done.

Avoid locking in on one solution to the exclusion of all others. Seek alternative approaches that could bring you to your goals, even if they seem less desirable than the one you prefer. Understanding the alternative pathways to your integration objectives will help define and clarify the points you will make in your business case. This kind of analysis is invaluable because it:

• helps you see that there are multiple ways to achieve your goals
• will provide the information you need to fully explain why the path you have chosen seems to be the best one
• enables quick adoption or adaptation of alternative approaches without going back to the drawing board

One alternative is to do nothing, and that's an important alternative to be explored at this point. Doing nothing has its costs. Your case should present the costs and consequences of doing nothing by projecting what your justice system will look like in five or ten years if your initiative is not pursued. What current problems would continue or expand? What new problems are likely to emerge? Will individual agencies pursue separate, uncoordinated agendas? Think also about how your unimproved situation will compare with peers in other states or localities. Identify funding programs or "windows of opportunity" that are open now but may close in the future.

No responsible investor will fail to ask, "What will this cost?" and "Where will the money come from?" Cost estimates for justice integration need to include salaries, training, consulting, hardware and software, networks, equipment, and other categories. A common mistake is to estimate only the cost to build a new system, but not the cost of operating it or the total cost of ownership. Another common problem is estimating the costs related to the technical system, but not the ones related to all the other business activities that are affected by it.

It is often difficult to get complete and accurate dollar figures for new technology projects, particularly for complex integration initiatives that involve multiple agencies. Working out the costs of the project requires careful attention to what cost information is relevant, what's available, and how it can be interpreted and used. Resources, such as vendors or integration committee members in areas that have developed similar initiatives, can provide or help develop cost figures or ways to calculate them.

The price tag is only part of the cost consideration. Students of taxation learn early that "if you broaden the base, you lower the rate." Integration by definition implies the participation of several groups. If the costs can be spread across all participants, the cost for each diminishes. Not all agencies can contribute dollars, but they may be able to contribute staff time, share facilities or networks, or offer linkages to key supporters, all of which can be just as valuable as funding. Perhaps one of the best ways to demonstrate the value of any system is to show in the beginning the willingness of multiple parties to collaborate-and nothing shows willingness better than money and other tangible resources on the table.

The benefit side of the equation is equally important and often harder to produce. For example, a new criminal history database system may be designed to reduce the amount of time it takes for the user to access criminal histories. One cost-performance measure for the new system could be the average personnel costs per retrieval of a history file, such as 15 minutes per retrieval at an average personnel cost of $20/hour, or $5 per retrieval. If the older system took an average of two hours ($40) per retrieval, the new system produces a saving of $35 per retrieval. The costs of implementing and maintaining the old and new systems could then be added to this measurement to give an overall assessment. The softer benefits in quality of life or citizen and officer confidence are much harder to quantify and should at least be identified and described.

Leverage is about taking advantage of elements or events in the environment to strengthen your case. Highlighting the actions of others also creates leverage. Comparing your situation with other states or jurisdictions sets up a bit of healthy competition for investments in good performance. Elections can present unique opportunities to be heard by both citizens and candidates. A human tragedy that occurred because critical data was unavailable can become a powerful call to action. Leverage can also be found in broad assessments of how certain investments can reap multiple benefits. For example, many justice applications benefit from geographic information systems-but so do economic development, environmental quality, and county or municipal services. Elected officials and budget officers are more likely to favor this kind of investment over one that meets only a single need. Look carefully for these kinds of leverage.

Risks are an inherent part of the implementation of any project. There are risks associated with the basic assumption that information integration will improve interagency communication, or reduce costs through the entire system. There are a host of basic factors that can change during a project, including political support, personnel, technology, and cost estimates. In the business case, you need to identify the risks that are critical to the success of your project and demonstrate avenues to handle any problems that may arise. A variety of risk analysis methodologies are available to perform more sensitive risk assessment and analysis, if necessary.

In both the public and private sectors, a well-documented set of risks accompanies information technology (IT) initiatives. Your project may face any number of them:

Unrealistic expectations among sponsors, builders, and users about the benefits, costs, and barriers associated with the project.

Lack of organizational support and acceptance for changes in business processes, tools, and practices. Support and acceptance throughout the organization, especially among the people who will use the technology, is just as important as top management support.

Failure to evaluate and redesign business processes before applying technology. Meeting the needs of customers, employees, and decision makers means carefully studying, evaluating, and improving business processes in preparation for new systems.

Lack of alignment between policy goals and project objectives. The goal of IT adoption should be to enhance or improve your ability to carry out your public safety mission or business objectives. It should improve citizen service, reduce response times, speed transactions, prevent errors, or support good and timely decisions

Failure to understand the strengths and limitations of new technology. Most new technologies are constantly changing, must work in tandem with others, or must be incorporated into existing older systems.

Most risks associated with information technology initiatives can be anticipated and addressed as part of the planning process. A focus on business processes, practices, and the people who will use the system is critical to achieving a complete and feasible design. Direct participation by users will help keep expectations realistic, increase support and acceptance, realistically ground new changes to the business process, and help keep goals and objectives clear. You should also get unbiased advice about the capabilities and costs of different technical solutions. Some advisory services are helpful here. You can also get good advice from other governments who have implemented solutions similar to the ones you are considering. A modular approach to design and development often reduces complexity, a common source of failure. Ask vendors and consultants for references to their past clients and take the time to question these people about their experiences and advice.

The public policy choices and public management processes that are part of government make it an especially difficult environment for technology-based innovation. The structure of government decision making, public finance, and public accountability complicate your job and limit the choices available for achieving your goals. Your project may face any or all of these public sector risks:

• Divided authority over decisions. Executive agency managers do not have a clear line of authority over agency operations. Their decisions are circumscribed by existing law, the limits of current appropriations, a civil service system, and a variety of procedures mandated by both the legislatures and the courts.
• One year budgets. Uncertainty about the size and availability of future resources weakens the ability of government agencies to adopt innovations. Most government budgets are handled on an annual cycle and annual appropriations (influenced heavily by changing government-wide priorities) tend to negate long term planning.
• Highly regulated procurement. The goals of open competitive procurement are integrity and fairness. But the processes are often lengthy and prone to controversy. Commodity- based procurement, on the other hand, is easy for agencies to use, but (often mistakenly) assumes that they have all the information they need to design and assemble a high- performance system out of a catalog of parts.
• Few government-wide information and information technology policies. The absence of a government-wide information policy in many jurisdictions adds additional risks and problems. Without a high level overview of how information and information technology can support government operations and public policy goals, integration goals are difficult to realize.

Constant communication, joint planning and decision making, bipartisanship and a long-term perspective will all go a long way toward mitigating the risks associated with your integration initiative. Be sure that all of the players who will have influence over the decision to proceed are consulted and well informed. Consider multi-agency planning councils, give informative legislative briefings (on both sides of the aisle), and think several years ahead to anticipate the full impact of your project. Even though you are likely to receive funding one year at a time, present a more complete, long-term picture so those who review your budget can see how each year's effort fits into a larger plan. When it comes time to procure a system, learn from past experience and consider the value-based procurement methods including partnership arrangements with vendors, as well as more traditional approaches.

The success of your business case depends in large part on its adaptability and appeal to different audiences. Consider the justice community; while all members are concerned with public safety and justice, they all have different roles to play and approach the issues from a variety of viewpoints. For example, a judge sees public safety from behind the bench in a courtroom, a police officer from inside the patrol car, a prosecutor from gathering evidence against the accused, a corrections officer from inside prison walls, and a parole officer from interactions with convicted offenders.

The potential costs and risks of your initiative will undoubtedly meet with some resistance. Because integration requires collaboration and change at the personal and organizational levels, the costs, benefits, and incentives to the key stakeholders in the justice community must be identified. Other stakeholders, such as elected officials, weigh the costs and benefits of integration against other important policy goals. Your case needs to convince politicians that integration is a good investment and worth trading off against other desirable actions.

Below are short descriptions of probable audiences for your business case, the kinds of issues that usually concern them, and the methods they often use to make decisions. This information is summarized in Table 2.

Elected officials-executives and legislators at the state, county, and local levels-are needed to help build public support for integration, draft and propose necessary legislation, and allocate the funding to start and maintain your project. But before you build your business case for an elected official, it is important to understand how your state and local governments are structured, the type of district that an elected official represents, and the official's appropriation responsibilities. Often on the state and local level, being an elected official is a part time job with full time concerns.

While improving public safety is an important and ongoing concern for elected officials, it competes for attention and resources with other significant issues like transportation, economic development, taxation, and education. Learning about elected officials' policy priorities, which drive their decisions, can help enhance your opportunities and avoid dead ends.

Project costs and funding sources are also important concerns. Once an investment is made, politicians want to ensure the initiative is working to make communities safer, not simply creating a new kind of bureaucracy. They are concerned with the actions and statements of elected officials from the political parties in and out of power, and how constituency groups feel about various issues.

While every elected official is different, they share a variety of methods to gather and assess information: public opinion surveys, newspapers, community forums, memorandums of support or opposition for legislative initiatives, personal contacts, and recommendations from staff members who focus on specific policy areas.

Once they gather information from their various sources, elected officials make decisions based on what is best for their constituents and what is politically feasible, as measured against their own policy priorities. They are also careful to weigh the pros and cons of every decision. Keep in mind that funding resources are limited, the number of requests is high, and officials are more likely to consider investments that have multiple payoffs. In addition, most elected officials keep at least one eye on the next election, and if you are asking them to support something that has little payoff for years to come, you're less likely to get the support you need.

Because of the wide range and complexity of issues facing them, elected executives-governors, county executives, and mayors-appoint agency directors, administrators, and staff members who are responsible for carrying out their policy initiatives and goals. Many cities and counties employ professional managers who serve under contract rather than by election. Legislators-state representatives, county commissioners, and city council members-may also employ policy advisors to help draft, analyze, and carry out legislation, policy directives, and budget decisions.

The justice enterprise is made up of a variety of professionals-judges, court administrators, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, county sheriffs, correctional officials, probation officers, and others-who are all on the front lines of public safety. They are charged with protecting the communities where they live and work. In this portion of your analysis, you must identify the specific needs and concerns of each segment of the justice enterprise and determine how different players feel about sharing information.

In general, justice professionals are concerned with preventing and responding appropriately to crimes and other threats to public safety. They also want to maintain the safety and efficiency of their own work. Concerns about protecting turf and jobs could impede your integration effort.

Each different professional has specific views and concerns. You may hear concerns about reducing the growing backlogs of court cases, getting accurate information quickly during traffic stops, accessing complete criminal histories before pressing criminal charges, reducing the costs of obtaining paper records necessary for defense planning, overburdening the already near-full capacity prisons, and reducing redundant paperwork to free up time to meet with offenders. Learn about the issues faced by justice colleagues in your area and factor them into your analysis.

Unions play an important and powerful function for the many individuals who work in the justice enterprise. Unions are concerned with negotiating contracts, keeping their members informed about current issues in their field, representing members in disputes with management, and steering public opinion.

Most unions employ a staff of professionals, usually at the state and national levels, who stay up- to-date on the issues that affect their membership. They receive information from members, management representatives, industry-specific publications, and the mainstream media. Unions make decisions based on the short and long-term interests of their membership. The backing of a union can be a strong endorsement for your project.

Similarly, professional organizations serve educational and advocacy roles on issues of importance to their members.

TABLE .2 LIKELY AUDIENCES AND THEIR KEY CONCERNS

Your audiences	Their key concerns	The issues themselves
Elected officials: Executives and legislators at the state, county, and municipal levels	Constituency concerns	Such as public safety, taxation, transportation, economic development, education, etc.
	Political issues	Actions and statements of other political leaders, and how various constituency groups feel about integration
	Budget decisions	How much a project costs, where the proposed funding would come from, and what are the competing needs
	Good government	That the initiative is working to make communities safer, not simply creating a new bureaucracy
Appointed policy makers & key staff: Agency directors, department heads, county and city managers, and legislative and executive staff	Policy issues	Carrying out the policy and legislative directives of elected officials
	Budget decisions	Addressing the known constraints of existing budgets and appropriations
	Advisement	Advising the elected official about the issues surrounding integration and public opinion
	Administrative practices	Managing the people who work at the agency or office over which they preside, effectiveness
Justice professionals: Judges, court administrators, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, county sheriffs, tribal police, correctional officials, probation officers, and others	Public Safety	Preventing and responding to criminal activity and its sources
	Work issues	Increasing the safety and efficiency of their jobs on a day-to-day basis
	Turf	Letting go of or sharing information, responsibility, power
Professional organizations & unions: Police officers, correctional officers, civil service unions, professional associations, municipal leagues	Membership concerns	Negotiating contracts, providing information about current events/issues, building membership
	Political action	Taking positions on and engaging in political issues
Community groups & organizations: Service organizations, neighborhood associations, chambers of commerce, civil rights groups	Quality of life	Working to improve the quality of life in the community
	Public safety	Keeping streets free from crime helps attract families and businesses, which expands the tax base and strengthens the community
	Economic development	Encouraging businesses to expand and grow to create jobs and economic prosperity in the community
	Civil rights	Protecting individual rights
	Membership	Keeping members informed and engaged in the organization
Private sector interests: Local corporations and the foundations they sponsor	Economic development	Strengthening the local economy benefits businesses as well as individuals
	Quality of life	Creating an environment that attracts a highly skilled workforce and their families
	Public safety	Cracking down on crime in the community helps prevent vandalism and crimes against businesses
The media: Newspapers, radio, television	Viewership	Attracting and keeping readership, listeners, and viewers
	Education	Keeping the public informed about the news and events in their community
The public	Public safety	Protecting themselves, their families, and their communities
	Pocketbook	Paying taxes
	Good government	Monitoring how well government spends taxpayer dollars

Community groups are comprised of people who want a better quality of life. Service groups (like the Rotary Club, Kiwanis, and the Knights of Columbus), neighborhood associations (like Neighborhood Watch, Crime Stoppers, and D.A.R.E.), and business groups (like chambers of commerce) are natural audiences for justice integration initiatives.

Here you have a group of people who volunteer their time because they believe in something. If you can direct some of that effort towards integration, you can significantly increase the likelihood that elected officials, appointed personnel, and others will be receptive to your case. Grass roots support for your project is a powerful tool in getting the attention of policy makers.

Some community groups may resist integration because they are concerned that an individual's rights may be violated by the sharing of personal information. Others may be concerned about security issues. Each of these concerns needs to be assessed and considered in your plan.

Corporations and private foundations also have a tremendous interest and the funding to invest in projects that improve their communities' quality of life. These groups want a community that attracts skilled workers and new businesses to strengthen the local economy and provide the tax base needed for top-quality public services. Initiatives that reduce and help prevent crime are likely to be a major priority.

Foundations and corporations gather information from grant applications and requests for funding, as well as employees who live in the community. Foundation boards and corporate executives are also concerned with their image and the projects to which their names are connected. They will make decisions based on what's best for the organization, their employees, and the community.

Media organizations-local newspapers, radio and television stations-are concerned with attracting and keeping readership, listeners, and viewers. Most newsrooms have a staff reporter who covers justice issues, including the court and police beats. By paying attention to how justice issues are presented by each particular media source, you can usually gauge how they might cover stories about justice information integration.

Media organizations get their information from other news agencies, community residents, public officials, public relations agencies, and businesses that hold press conferences and other events. Media outlets decide what stories to cover by analyzing what issues they believe interest their audience and what issues other news organizations are covering. Finding ways to get news coverage in your local area should be a prime concern.

The public may be the most important audience for your business case. Safety-for themselves, their families, and their communities-is of the utmost importance for most people. The public receives information about justice from the news media, television shows, and movies, where the lack of justice integration is rarely shown. For that reason, most people assume their justice enterprise is already integrated. The public will decide how they feel about your initiative based on how they think it will help improve public safety in their community.

Many of the groups listed above help shape public opinion. Developing a concise plan on how you will engage these audiences and shape public opinion is of extreme importance. The quickest way to get a policy maker to listen to your ideas is to have the public demand it. Garnering sufficient public support is a complicated task, but one that must be given time and resources.

The business case you are about to put together has one main purpose-to convince key stakeholders to support some new venture in a visible or tangible way. Support might come in the form of financing, public endorsements, shared responsibility, or a deep appreciation of your venture that influences related decisions. You prepare a business case because you want these important stakeholders to think or to act positively on behalf of your integration initiative. You are arguing for integration because you want your audience to do something that will help you. Your case needs to include any or all of these specific calls to action:

Perhaps no goal is more important than this one in your quest for investment in justice integration. Stakeholders need to see and understand justice as a complex system of many components that influence one another and whose combined effects lead to desired (or undesired) outcomes.

Justice integration planning, design, and implementation are long-term efforts. If those efforts are successful, they will lead to a new way of doing business that will need continued nurturing and attention. Advocates can help bring the issue to the table with other stakeholders, sustain top level attention through long periods of planning and development, help clear obstacles and resolve problems, and carry the message to top political and community leaders.

If public safety is viewed as an interconnected enterprise, then coordination mechanisms are the essential connective tissue. When one organization's activities are coordinated with another, some change in both is inevitable. Many forms of coordination are possible, such as an executive committee made up of representatives of the participating organizations or a central staff group charged with coordination responsibilities. The important point is that stakeholders understand and acknowledge that formal coordination is a requirement for successful communication, compromise, dispute resolution, and authoritative decision making.

Your business case will seek investments that build integration, instead of funding for separate and discrete efforts. These investments can usually be measured in dollars or staff time. Other needed resources include shared infrastructure such as data or voice networks, space, equipment, and specialized skills. The case will also show how partnerships can multiply the value of existing resources and strengthen the chances of obtaining external funding from grants and other sources.

Most of the elements described so far pertain to a justice integration case made to executive or elected leadership. In many instances, however, a core group of partners needs to make a case to peers and colleagues within the justice community. In this situation, you will be seeking agreement and participation in the integration planning and implementation processes. These activities form the basis for long-lasting relationships in which trust can develop. Trusting relationships make it easier to make tough decisions, communicate effectively, face problems, and try new ideas. Moreover, executive and elected leaders will likely look for evidence of real consensus among justice agencies as they make their own decisions about support for the effort.

Standards are crucial to integrated justice information. They represent agreement and consistency or compatibility in data elements, procedures, application design, communications protocols, and computing platforms. Decisions about standards typically require individual agencies or jurisdictions to give up some autonomy and incur some costs to change procedures, train staff, or adopt new equipment or applications. Your business case shows stakeholders how and why the benefits of adopting standards outweigh the costs.

The complexity of the justice integration enterprise is daunting. Positive results usually require the involvement of many different organizations, or jurisdictions, or levels of government. They entail extensive learning, coordination, and information sharing over an extended period of time. Stakeholders need to understand, appreciate, and commit to work together over a period of years, not weeks or months.

This chapter was intended to get you thinking about all of the things that must go into the design of your business case. You should have a better understanding of your integration objectives and opportunities, the strengths in your favor and the constraints you face, as well as the resources needed for integration compared to the resources currently available to you. You should also have a better sense of the audiences for your case, what they care about, and what you want them to do on your behalf. Assessing all of these aspects of your environment will give you a fairly clear picture of where you are, where you want to go, and how to get from here to there.

The checklist on the following page can help you begin to organize the information you uncover as you conduct your business analysis and prepare your business case. The more specific you can be at this point, the more it will help you build and present a strong case.

As each of the following analyses is defined, record who is responsible for conducting it and a due date. When it is complete, enter a short description of the result

Analysis needed	Responsible person	Due date	Brief description of result
Business Process What is the business process map of your current justice system? What are the problem areas from a system-wide perspective? What are the likely targets for change?
Goals and approach to meeting them How do we want performance to improve? What changes are needed in policies, processes, and practices to achieve these performance goals?
Infrastructure and technology What is the current technical infrastructure of each relevant agency? What information technology projects are underway right now in each agency or system-wide?
Risks and mitigation What are the risks of changing from the current process? How do we avoid, mitigate, or address them?
Costs and resources What are the costs of achieving key goals and who will cover them? What/who can we leverage for more funding, political support, or economies of scale?
Alternatives What are some alternative approaches and their pros and cons?
Support Who needs to support our integration initiative and what are their concerns? What do we want them to do? Who is or could be the "champion" and how do we engage them? Who is likely to oppose this initiative and why?