IT Budget PIV Enable FIeld

[kengineer]

I noticed in the ITBudget/Extensions/Update-ITBudget-EXT-e.xsd file that there is a pivEnabled field under the InvestmentCharacterizationType. However, I don't see any mention of that in the guidance for the IT Budget portfolio submission. Is that supposed to be there or am I missing something?

The following two screenshots show the two references to it in the xsd.

[bill-gehrke-hhs]

I was just noticing this issue as well. Per the guidance, I would expect this to be part of the Systems Inventory, not the AITPS. Additionally, if the intent is to capture it here despite it being part of the SIL, it should be set as an optional field since not all investments have systems and neither "Yes" nor "No" is an appropriate response to the question posed in the SIL when the investment does not have a system.

[mayuri-khatri]

Hi Ken & Bill,

Thank you for posting this. This field has been added to the System Inventory section of the FY 2021 Guidance. However, since the Guidance was published, OMB requested that this field be collected at the Investments level, not the Systems level. In order to implement this on the technical side, this field needed to be included in the ITBudget endpoint.

We will send a separate email to the ITDB Vendors referencing this GitHub issue to make sure everyone is aware of the implementation.

Please reach out if you have any further questions.

Thank you, ITDB Support

[bill-gehrke-hhs]

Thank you for the response and the email clarifying the implementation. I do have two concerns with this approach. The first, and probably less critical, is that the ITBudget endpoint can only be updated at specific times, while the SIL allows for updating at almost any time. The potential effect is that an investment could add, remove, or otherwise modify a system in a way that changes the response to the PIV question but would be unable to update the response such that there is an inconsistency in the data available. As long as this potential is understood, it is likely not to be a major issue.

The bigger issue to me, as noted in my prior post, is how the PIV question is currently implemented in the ITBudget schema. Specifically, it is currently implemented as a required field with only Yes and No as options. This is not consistent with the guidance, which would only require a response for an investment with a system. As the SIL guidance states, "It is expected that some Investments may not fund a system." For such investments, answering the PIV question really does not make sense, and the SIL design was logical in that an investment with no system would not submit an SIL so would not answer the question.

I would expect this question to be made optional, or, alternatively, for "N/A" to be added as an option. This would be appropriate for investments without a system (including, for example, funding transfer investments and new investments with no operational system - since the SIL states it is limited to operational systems.)

[mayuri-khatri]

Hi Bill,

Thank you for reaching out.

This PIV Enabled field strategy was extensively discussed with OMB, and this was the direction that OMB wanted to go with this implementation. It is included in the XSD with a "minOccurs="0"" making this field optional.

Please reach out if you have any further questions.

Thank you, ITDB Support

[bill-gehrke-hhs]

Setting it to optional does resolve my major concern. Is there a schedule for when we the XSD reflecting this will be published? The file in the FY2021 folder does not include this parameter on the pivEnabled field.

[mayuri-khatri]

Hi Bill,

This change is now reflected in the updated ITBudget XSD. Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Thank you, ITDB Support