This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-49
entitled 'Information Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic
Planning, Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be
Further Improved' which was released on February 11, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
January 2004:
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT:
Governmentwide Strategic Planning, Performance Measurement, and
Investment Management Can Be Further Improved:
GAO-04-49:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-49, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
Over the years, the Congress has promulgated laws and the Office of
Management and Budget and GAO have issued policies and guidance,
respectively, on (1) information technology (IT) strategic planning/
performance measurement (which defines what an organization seeks to
accomplish, identifies the strategies it will use to achieve desired
results, and then determines how well it is succeeding in reaching
results-oriented goals and achieving objectives) and (2) investment
management (which involves selecting, controlling, and evaluating
investments).
To obtain an understanding of the government’s implementation of these
key IT management policies, congressional requesters asked GAO to
determine the extent to which 26 major agencies have in place
practices associated with key legislative and other requirements for
(1) IT strategic planning/performance measurement and (2) IT
investment management.
What GAO Found:
Agencies’ use of 12 IT strategic planning/performance measurement
practices—identified based on legislation, policy, and guidance—is
uneven (see figure, below left). For example, agencies generally have
IT strategic plans and goals, but these goals are not always linked to
specific performance measures that are tracked. Without enterprisewide
performance measures that are tracked against actual results, agencies
lack critical information about whether their overall IT activities
are achieving expected goals.
Agencies’ use of 18 IT investment management practices that GAO
identified is also mixed (see figure, below right). For example, the
agencies largely have IT investment management boards, but no agency
had the practices associated with the control phase fully in place.
Executive-level oversight of project-level management activities
provides organizations with increased assurance that each investment
will achieve the desired cost, benefit, and schedule results.
Agencies cited a variety of reasons for not having practices fully in
place, such as that the chief information officer position had been
vacant, that not including a requirement in guidance was an oversight,
and that the process was being revised, although they could not always
provide an explanation. Regardless of the reason, these practices are
important ingredients for ensuring effective strategic planning,
performance measurement, and investment management, which, in turn,
make it more likely that the billions of dollars in government IT
investments are wisely spent.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making a number of recommendations, including that each agency
take action to address IT strategic planning, performance measurement,
and investment management practices that are not fully in place. In
commenting on a draft of the report, most agencies generally agreed
with our findings and recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-49.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact David Powner at (202)
512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Agencies' Use of IT Strategic Planning/Performance Measurement
Practices Is Uneven:
Agencies' Use of IT Investment Management Practices Is Mixed:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Recommendations to Departments and Agencies:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense (including
comments from the Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy):
GAO Comments:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VII: Comments from the General Services Administration:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
Appendix X: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix XI: Comments from the Department of Justice:
GAO Comments:
Appendix XII: Comments from the Department of Labor:
GAO Comments:
Appendix XIII: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
GAO Comments:
Appendix XIV: Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Appendix XV: Comments from the Social Security Administration:
GAO Comments:
Appendix XVI: Comments from the Department of State:
GAO Comments:
Appendix XVII: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
Development:
GAO Comments:
Appendix XVIII: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:
GAO Comments:
Appendix XIX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: IT Strategic Planning/Performance Measurement Practices:
Table 2: IT Investment Management Practices:
Figures:
Figure 1: Percentage of Agencies' Use of IT Strategic Planning/
Performance Measurement Practices:
Figure 2: Percentage of Agencies' Use of IT Investment Management
Practices:
Abbreviations:
CFO: chief financial officer:
CIO: chief information officer:
COTS: commercial-off-the-shelf:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOD: Department of Defense:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
FISMA: Federal Information Security Management Act:
GISRA: Government Information Security Reform Act:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:
GSA: General Services Administration:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
IRM: information resources management:
IT: information technology:
IV&V: independent verification and validation:
NARA: National Archives and Records Administration:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
NSF: National Science Foundation:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
SBA: Small Business Administration:
SSA: Social Security Administration:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
VA: Department of Veterans Affairs:
Letter January 12, 2004:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins
Chairman
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate:
The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Adam H. Putnam
Chairman
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and the Census
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives:
According to the President's most recent budget, the federal government
spends billions of dollars annually on information technology (IT)--
reportedly investing about $50 billion in fiscal year 2002 and
expecting to invest about $60 billion in fiscal year 2004.[Footnote 1]
Despite this substantial investment, the government's management of
information resources has produced mixed results. Although agencies
have taken constructive steps to implement modern strategies, systems,
and management policies and practices, our most recent high-risk and
performance and accountability series identified continuing high-risk
system modernization efforts and governmentwide information and
technology management challenges.[Footnote 2]
For years, the Congress has been working to increase the effectiveness
of information and technology management in the federal government by
passing legislation and providing oversight. For example, the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 applied life-cycle management principles to
information and technology management and required that agencies
indicate in strategic information resources management (IRM) plans how
they are applying information resources to improve the productivity,
efficiency, and effectiveness of government programs.[Footnote 3] The
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 amended the Paperwork Reduction Act,
establishing agency chief information officers (CIO) who report
directly to the agency head and are responsible for information
resources management activities. Among other things, the Clinger-Cohen
Act also (1) required senior executive involvement in IT decision
making and (2) imposed much-needed discipline in acquiring and managing
technology resources.
To obtain a broad view of the government's implementation of key IT
management, you requested that we determine the extent to which
agencies have in place practices associated with key legislative and
other requirements for (1) IT strategic planning/performance
measurement and (2) IT investment management. To address these
objectives, we identified and reviewed major legislative requirements
and executive orders pertaining to IT strategic planning/performance
measurement, which defines what an organization seeks to accomplish,
identifies the strategies it will use to achieve desired results, and
then determines--through measurement--how well it is succeeding in
reaching results-oriented goals and achieving objectives; and IT
investment management, which involves selecting, controlling, and
evaluating investments. Specifically, we identified 30 important IT
management practices in these areas using legislative requirements,
such as the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act, and
policy and guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)[Footnote 4] and GAO.[Footnote 5] We selected 26 organizations
for our review (23 major departments and agencies identified in 31
U.S.C. 901[Footnote 6] and the 3 military services).
Results in Brief:
Agencies' use of IT strategic planning/performance measurement
practices is uneven--46 percent of the practices are in place, 41
percent are partially in place, and 7 percent are not in
place.[Footnote 7] The lack of full implementation of these practices
is of concern because effective strategic planning is important to
ensure that agencies' IT goals are aligned with the strategic goals of
the agency. Also important is having measures in place to monitor
whether, or the extent to which, IT is supporting the agency. The
agencies generally have IRM plans or IT strategic plans, but these
plans do not always address important IRM elements, such as information
collection, records management, or privacy. In addition, although
agencies generally have goals associated with IT, these goals are not
always linked to specific performance measures. Moreover, many agencies
do not monitor actual-versus-expected performance against
enterprisewide IT performance measures in their IRM plans. Agencies
cited a variety of reasons why the strategic planning/performance
measurement practices are not in place, including that there was a lack
of support from agency leadership, that the agency had not been
developing IRM plans until recently and recognized that the plans
needed further refinement, or that the process is being revised. In
addition, the agencies in our review could not always identify why the
practices were not fully in place. Regardless of the reason, these
practices were generally derived from legislative requirements and
governmentwide policies and are fundamental ingredients to effective IT
planning and performance measurement; therefore, it is important that
they be implemented.
Agencies' use of IT investment management practices is also mixed in
that 44 percent of the practices are in place, 37 percent are partially
in place, and 17 percent are not in place.[Footnote 8] Only by
effectively and efficiently managing their IT resources through a
robust investment management process can agencies gain opportunities to
make better allocation decisions among many investment alternatives and
further leverage their investments. As part of their investment
management process, the agencies largely have IT investment management
boards in place that are responsible for making decisions on selecting
investments. However, many of these boards do not have written policies
and procedures covering oversight or control of projects that cover
such critical areas as corrective action plans and the tracking of such
actions to resolution. Having these policies and procedures is a
critical element of the control phase of a comprehensive IT investment
management process, which helps ensure that investments are on track
and are continuing to meet mission needs. As in the strategic planning/
performance measurement area, agencies were not always able to explain
why certain IT investment management practices were not in place.
However, among the reasons cited were that the CIO position had been
vacant, that not including a given requirement in an investment
management guide was an oversight, and that the investment management
process was being revised. Nevertheless, the full implementation of the
investment management practices would bring more rigor and structure to
how agencies select and manage their IT investments.
We are making a number of recommendations, including that each agency
take action to address IT strategic planning, performance measurement,
and investment management practices that are not fully in place.
We received written or oral comments on a draft of this report from 25
of the agencies[Footnote 9] in our review. Most agencies generally
agreed with our findings and recommendations, and some provided
additional documentation and information that we incorporated into the
report, as appropriate.
Background:
Advances in the use of IT and the Internet are continuing to change the
way that federal agencies communicate, use, and disseminate
information; deliver services; and conduct business. For example,
electronic government (e-government) has the potential to help build
better relationships between government and the public by facilitating
timely and efficient interaction with citizens. To help the agencies
more effectively manage IT, the Congress has established a statutory
framework of requirements and roles and responsibilities relating to
information and technology management. Nevertheless, the agencies face
significant challenges in effectively planning for and managing their
IT. Such challenges can be overcome through the use of a systematic and
robust management approach that addresses critical elements, such as IT
strategic planning and investment management.
Federal Government's Statutory Framework for Information and Technology
Management:
The Congress established a statutory framework to help address the
information and technology management challenges that agencies face.
Under this framework, agencies are accountable for effectively and
efficiently developing, acquiring, and using IT in their organizations.
In particular, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger-
Cohen Act of 1996 require agency heads, acting through agency CIOs, to,
among other things,
* better link their IT planning and investment decisions to program
missions and goals;
* develop and maintain a strategic IRM plan that describes how IRM
activities help accomplish agency missions;
* develop and maintain an ongoing process to establish goals for
improving IRM's contribution to program productivity, efficiency, and
effectiveness; methods for measuring progress toward these goals; and
clear roles and responsibilities for achieving these goals;
* develop and implement a sound IT architecture;
* implement and enforce IT management policies, procedures, standards,
and guidelines;
* establish policies and procedures for ensuring that IT systems
provide reliable, consistent, and timely financial or program
performance data; and:
* implement and enforce applicable policies, procedures, standards, and
guidelines on privacy, security, disclosure, and information sharing.
Moreover, under the government's current legislative framework, OMB has
important responsibilities for providing direction on governmentwide
information and technology management and overseeing agency activities
in these areas. Among OMB's responsibilities are:
* ensuring agency integration of IRM plans, program plans, and budgets
for the acquisition and use of IT and the efficiency and effectiveness
of interagency IT initiatives;
* developing and maintaining a governmentwide strategic IRM plan;
* developing, as part of the budget process, a mechanism for analyzing,
tracking, and evaluating the risks and results of all major capital
investments made by an executive agency for information
systems;[Footnote 10]
* directing and overseeing the implementation of policy, principles,
standards, and guidelines for the dissemination of and access to public
information;
* encouraging agency heads to develop and use best practices in IT
acquisitions; and:
* developing and overseeing the implementation of privacy and security
policies, principles, standards, and guidelines.
Further, in 2002, the Congress passed, and the President signed,
legislation intended to improve the collection, use, and dissemination
of government information and to strengthen information security.
Specifically, Public Law 107-347, the E-Government Act of 2002, which
was enacted in December 2002, includes provisions to promote the use of
the Internet and other information technologies to provide government
services electronically. The E-Government Act also contains the Federal
Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002, which replaced and
strengthened the Government Information Security Reform legislative
provisions (commonly referred to as "GISRA").[Footnote 11] Among other
provisions, FISMA requires each agency, including national security
agencies, to (1) establish an agencywide risk-based information
security program to be overseen by the agency CIO and ensure that
information security is practiced throughout the life cycle of each
agency system; and (2) develop, maintain, and annually update an
inventory of major information systems (including major national
security systems) operated by the agency or under its control.
Federal IT Challenges:
Even with the framework laid out by the Congress, the federal
government faces enduring IT challenges. Specifically, in January 2003,
we reported on a variety of challenges facing federal agencies in
continuing to take advantage of the opportunities presented by
IT.[Footnote 12] Unless and until the challenges outlined below are
overcome, federal agencies are unlikely to optimize their use of IT,
which can affect an organization's ability to effectively and
efficiently implement its programs and missions.
* Pursuing opportunities for e-government. E-government offers many
opportunities to better serve the public, make government more
efficient and effective, and reduce costs. Federal agencies have
implemented a wide array of e-government applications, including using
the Internet to collect and disseminate information and forms; buy and
pay for goods and services; submit bids and proposals; and apply for
licenses, grants, and benefits. Although substantial progress has been
made, the government has not yet fully reached its potential in this
area. Recognizing this, a key element of the President's Management
Agenda is the expansion of e-government to enhance access to
information and services, particularly through the Internet. In
response, OMB established a task force that selected a strategic set of
initiatives to lead this expansion. Our review of the initial planning
projects associated with these initiatives found that important
aspects--such as collaboration and customer focus--had not been thought
out for all of the projects and that major uncertainties in funding and
milestones were not uncommon. Accordingly, we recommended that OMB
take:
steps as overseer of the e-government initiatives to reduce the risk
that the projects would not meet their objectives.[Footnote 13]
* Improving the collection, use, and dissemination of government
information. The rapid evolution of IT is creating challenges in
managing and preserving electronic records. Complex electronic records
are increasingly being created in a decentralized environment and in
volumes that make it difficult to organize them and make them
accessible. Further, storage media themselves are affected by the dual
problems of obsolescence and deterioration. These problems are
compounded as computer hardware and application software become
obsolete, since they may leave behind electronic records that can no
longer be read. Overall responsibility for the government's electronic
records lies with the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). Our past work has shown that while NARA has taken some action
to respond to the challenges associated with managing and preserving
electronic records, most electronic records remain unscheduled; that
is, their value had not been assessed and their disposition had not
been determined.[Footnote 14] In addition, records of historical value
were not being identified and provided to NARA; as a result, they were
at risk of being lost. We recommended that NARA develop strategies for
raising agency management's awareness of the importance of records
management and for performing systematic inspections. In July 2003 we
testified that although NARA has made progress in addressing these
issues, more work remains to be done.[Footnote 15]
The growth of electronic information--as well as the security threats
facing our nation--are also highlighting privacy issues. For example,
online privacy has emerged as one of the key--and most contentious--
issues surrounding the continued evolution of the Internet. In
addition, our survey of 25 departments and agencies about their
implementation of the Privacy Act--which regulates how federal agencies
may use the personal information that individuals supply when obtaining
government services or fulfilling obligations--found that a key
characteristic of the agencies' 2,400 systems of records is that an:
estimated 70 percent contained electronic records.[Footnote 16] Our
survey also found that although compliance with Privacy Act provisions
and related OMB guidance was generally high in many areas, according to
agency reports, it was uneven across the federal government. To improve
agency compliance and address issues reported by the agencies, we made
recommendations to OMB, such as to direct agencies to correct
compliance deficiencies, to monitor agency compliance, and to reassess
its guidance.
* Strengthening information security. Since September 1996, we have
reported that poor information security is a high-risk area across the
federal government with potentially devastating consequences.[Footnote
17] Although agencies have taken steps to redesign and strengthen their
information system security programs, our analyses of information
security at major federal agencies have shown that federal systems were
not being adequately protected from computer-based threats. Our latest
analyses of audit reports published from October 2001 through October
2002 continue to show significant weaknesses in federal computer
systems that put critical operations and assets at risk.[Footnote 18]
In addition, in June 2003 we testified that agencies' fiscal year 2002
reports and evaluations required by GISRA found that many agencies have
not implemented security requirements for most of their systems, such
as performing risk assessments and testing controls.[Footnote 19] In
addition, the usefulness of agency corrective action plans may be
limited when they do not identify all weaknesses or contain realistic
completion dates.
One of the most serious problems currently facing the government is
cyber critical infrastructure protection, which is protecting the
information systems that support the nation's critical infrastructures,
such as national defense and power distribution. Since the September 11
attacks, warnings of the potential for terrorist cyber attacks against
our critical infrastructures have increased. In addition, as greater
amounts of money are transferred through computer systems, as more
sensitive economic and commercial information is exchanged
electronically, and as the nation's defense and intelligence
communities increasingly rely on commercially available information
technology, the likelihood increases that information attacks will
threaten vital national interests. Among the critical infrastructure
protection challenges the government faces are (1) developing a
national critical infrastructure protection strategy, (2) improving
analysis and warning capabilities, and (3) improving information
sharing on threats and vulnerabilities. For each of the challenges,
improvements have been made and continuing efforts are in progress, but
much more is needed to address them. In particular, we have identified
and made numerous recommendations over the last several years
concerning critical infrastructure challenges that still need to be
addressed. As a result of our concerns in this area, we have expanded
our information security high-risk area to include cyber critical
infrastructure protection.[Footnote 20]
* Constructing and enforcing sound enterprise architectures. Our
experience with federal agencies has shown that attempts to modernize
IT environments without blueprints--models simplifying the
complexities of how agencies operate today, how they want to operate in
the future, and how they will get there--often result in unconstrained
investment and systems that are duplicative and ineffective. Enterprise
architectures offer such blueprints. Our reports on the federal
government's use of enterprise architectures in both February 2002 and
November 2003 found that agencies' use of enterprise architectures was
a work in progress, with much to be accomplished.[Footnote 21]
Nevertheless, opportunities exist to significantly improve this outlook
if OMB were to adopt a governmentwide, structured, and systematic
approach to promoting enterprise architecture use, measuring agency
progress, and identifying and pursuing governmentwide solutions to
common enterprise architecture challenges that agencies face.
Accordingly, we made recommendations to OMB to address these areas.
* Employing IT system and service management practices. Our work and
other best-practice research have shown that applying rigorous
practices to the acquisition or development of IT systems or the
acquisition of IT services improves the likelihood of success. In other
words, the quality of IT systems and services is governed largely by
the quality of the processes involved in developing or acquiring each.
For example, using models and methods that define and determine
organizations' software-intensive systems process maturity that were
developed by Carnegie Mellon University's Software Engineering
Institute, which is recognized for its expertise in software processes,
we evaluated several agencies' software development or acquisition
processes. We found that agencies are not consistently using rigorous
or disciplined system management practices. We have made numerous
recommendations to agencies to improve their management processes, and
they have taken, or plan to take, actions to improve.[Footnote 22]
Regarding IT services acquisition, we identified leading commercial
practices for outsourcing IT services that government entities could
use to enhance their acquisition of IT services.[Footnote 23]
* Using effective agency IT investment management practices.
Investments in IT can have a dramatic impact on an organization's
performance. If managed effectively, these investments can vastly
improve government performance and accountability. If not, however,
they can result in wasteful spending and lost opportunities for
improving delivery of services to the public. Using our information:
technology investment management maturity framework,[Footnote 24] we
evaluated selected agencies and found that while some processes have
been put in place to help them effectively manage their planned and
ongoing IT investments, more work remains.[Footnote 25]
IT Challenges Are Interdependent:
Complicating the government's ability to overcome these IT management
challenges are these challenges' interdependencies. As a result, the
inability of an organization to successfully address one IT management
area can reduce the effectiveness of its success in addressing another
management function. For example, a critical aspect of implementing
effective e-government solutions and developing and deploying major
systems development projects is ensuring that robust information
security is built into these endeavors early and is periodically
revisited.
The government's many IT challenges can be addressed by the use of
effective planning and execution, which can be achieved, in part,
through strategic planning/performance measurement, and investment
management. For example, strong strategic planning is focused on using
IT to help accomplish the highest priority customer needs and mission
goals, while effective performance measurement helps determine the
success or failure of IT activities. Finally, IT investment management
provides a systematic method for minimizing risks while maximizing the
return on investments and involves a process for selecting,
controlling, and evaluating investments. These processes, too, are
interdependent. For example, the investment management process is a
principal mechanism to ensure the effective execution of an agency's IT
strategic plan.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to determine the extent to which federal agencies
are following practices associated with key legislative and other
requirements for (1) IT strategic planning/performance measurement and
(2) IT investment management.
To address these objectives, we identified and reviewed major
legislative requirements and executive orders pertaining to IT
strategic planning, performance measurement, and investment
management. Specifically, we reviewed:
* the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
* the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996;
* the E-Government Act of 2002;
* the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002;
* Executive Order 13011, Federal Information Technology; and:
* Executive Order 13103, Computer Software Piracy.
Using these requirements and policy and guidance issued by OMB[Footnote
26] and GAO,[Footnote 27] we identified 30 IT management practices that
(1) can be applied at the enterprise level and (2) were verifiable
through documentation and interviews. These 30 practices focused on
various critical aspects of IT strategic management, performance
measurement, and investment management, including the development of
IRM plans, the identification of goals and related measures, and the
selection and control of IT investments, respectively.
We selected 26 major departments and agencies for our review (23
entities identified in 31 U.S.C. 901 and the 3 military
services).[Footnote 28] At our request, each agency completed a self-
assessment on whether and how it had implemented the 30 IT management
practices. We reviewed the completed agency self-assessments and
accompanying documentation, including agency and IT strategic plans,
agency performance plans and reports required by the Government
Performance and Results Act, and IT investment management policy and
guidance, and interviewed applicable agency IT officials to corroborate
whether the practices were in place. We did not evaluate the
effectiveness of agencies' implementation of the practices. For
example, we did not review specific IT investments to determine whether
they were selected, controlled, and reviewed in accordance with agency
policy and guidance. However, we reviewed applicable prior GAO and
agency inspector general reports and discussed whether agency policies
had been fully implemented with applicable agency IT officials.
On the basis of the above information, we assessed whether the
practices were in place, using the following definitions:
* Yes--the practice was in place.
* Partially--the agency has some, but not all, aspects of the practice
in place. Examples of circumstances in which the agency would receive
this designation include when (1) some, but not all, of the elements of
the practice were in place; (2) the agency documented that it has the
information or process in place but it was not in the prescribed form
(e.g., in a specific document as required by law or OMB); (3) the
agency's documentation was in draft form; or (4) the agency had a
policy related to the practice but evidence supported that it had not
been completely or consistently implemented.
* No--the practice was not in place.
* Not applicable--the practice was not relevant to the agency's
particular circumstances.
We also collected information from the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) but found that since it had been established so recently, it was
too early to judge its IT strategic planning, performance measurement,
and investment management. As a result, although we provided
information on what DHS was doing with respect to these areas, we did
not include it in our assessment.
We also interviewed officials from OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs regarding OMB's role in establishing policies and
overseeing agencies' implementation of the identified practices.
We performed our work at the agencies' offices in greater Washington,
D.C. We conducted our review between April and mid-December 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Agencies' Use of IT Strategic Planning/Performance Measurement
Practices Is Uneven:
The use of IT strategic planning/performance measurement practices is
uneven (see fig. 1), which is of concern because a well-defined
strategic planning process helps ensure that an agency's IT goals are
aligned with that agency's strategic goals. Moreover, establishing
performance measures and monitoring actual-versus-expected performance
of those measures can help determine whether IT is making a difference
in improving performance. Among the practices or elements of practices
that agencies largely have in place were those pertaining to
establishing goals and performance measures. On the other hand,
agencies are less likely to have fully documented their IT strategic
planning processes, developed comprehensive IRM plans, linked
performance measures to their enterprisewide IT goals, or monitored
actual-versus-expected performance for these enterprisewide goals.
Agencies cited various reasons, such as the lack of support from agency
leadership, for not having strategic practices/performance measurement
practices in place. Without strong strategic management practices, it
is less likely that IT is being used to maximize improvement in mission
performance. Moreover, without enterprisewide performance measures
that are being tracked against actual results, agencies lack critical
information about whether their overall IT activities, at a
governmentwide cost of billions of dollars annually, are achieving
expected goals.
Figure 1: Percentage of Agencies' Use of IT Strategic Planning/
Performance Measurement Practices:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Yes--the practice was in place. Partially--the agency has some,
but not all, aspects of the practice in place. Examples of
circumstances in which the agency would receive this designation
include when (1) some, but not all, of the elements of the practice
were in place; (2) the agency documented that it has the information or
process in place but it was not in the prescribed form (e.g., in a
specific document as required by law or OMB); (3) the agency's
documentation was in draft form; or (4) the agency had a policy related
to the practice but evidence supported that it had not been completely
or consistently implemented. No--the practice was not in place. Not
applicable--the practice was not relevant to the agency's particular
circumstances.
[End of figure]
Governmentwide Progress Demonstrated, but More Work Remains:
Critical aspects of the strategic planning/performance measurement area
include documenting the agency's IT strategic planning processes,
developing IRM plans, establishing goals, and measuring performance to
evaluate whether goals are being met. Although the agencies often have
these practices, or elements of these practices, in place, additional
work remains, as demonstrated by the following examples:
* Strategic planning process. Strategic planning defines what an
organization seeks to accomplish and identifies the strategies it will
use to achieve desired results. A defined strategic planning process
allows an agency to clearly articulate its strategic direction and to
establish linkages among planning elements such as goals, objectives,
and strategies.
About half of the agencies fully documented their strategic planning
processes. For example, the General Services Administration (GSA)
documented an IT governance structure that addresses the roles and
responsibilities of various organizations in strategic planning and
investment management. In addition, in its IT strategic plan, GSA
describes how it developed the plan, including its vision, business-
related priorities, and goals. In contrast, the Department of
Agriculture has not completely documented its IT strategic planning
process or integrated its IT management operations and decisions with
other agency processes. According to Agriculture IT officials, the
department's ongoing budget and performance integration initiative is
expected to result in a more clearly defined and integrated IT
strategic management planning process. Such a process provides the
essential foundation for ensuring that IT resources are effectively
managed.
* Strategic IRM plans. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires that
agencies indicate in strategic IRM plans how they are applying
information resources to improve the productivity, efficiency, and
effectiveness of government programs. An important element of a
strategic plan is that it presents an integrated system of high-level
decisions that are reached through a formal, visible process. The plan
is thus an effective tool with which to communicate the mission and
direction to stakeholders. In addition, a strategic IRM plan that
communicates a clear and comprehensive vision for how the agency will
use information resources to improve agency performance is important
because IRM encompasses virtually all aspects of an agency's
information activities.
Although the Paperwork Reduction Act also requires agencies to develop
IRM plans in accordance with OMB's guidance, OMB does not provide
cohesive guidance on the specific contents of IRM plans. OMB Circular
A-130 directs that agencies have IRM plans that support agency
strategic plans, provide a description of how IRM helps accomplish
agency missions, and ensure that IRM decisions are integrated with
organizational planning, budgets, procurement, financial management,
human resources management, and program decisions. However, Circular A-
130 does not provide overall guidance on the plan's contents. As a
result, although agencies generally provided OMB with a variety of
planning documents to meet its requirement that they submit an IRM
plan, these plans were generally limited to IT strategic or e-
government issues and did not address other elements of IRM, as defined
by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Specifically, these plans generally
include individual IT projects and initiatives, security, and
enterprise architecture elements but do not often address other
information functions, such as information collection, records
management, and privacy, or the coordinated management of all
information functions.
OMB IT staff agreed that the agency has not set forth guidance on the
contents of agency IRM plans in a single place, stating that its focus
has been on looking at agencies' cumulative results and not on planning
documents. In addition, these staff also noted that agencies account
for their IRM activities through multiple documents (e.g., Information
Collection Budgets[Footnote 29] and Government Paperwork Elimination
Act[Footnote 30] plans). However, the OMB IT staff stated that they
would look at whether more guidance is needed to help agencies in their
development of IRM plans, but have not yet made a commitment to provide
such guidance. Half the agencies indicated a need for OMB to provide
additional guidance on the development and content of IRM plans.
Strong agency strategic IRM plans could also provide valuable input to
a governmentwide IRM plan, which is also required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act. As we reported last year, although OMB designated the
CIO Council's strategic plan for fiscal years 2001-2002 as the
governmentwide strategic IRM plan, it does not constitute an effective
and comprehensive strategic vision.[Footnote 31] Accordingly, we
recommended that OMB develop and implement a governmentwide strategic
IRM plan that articulates a comprehensive federal vision and plan for
all aspects of government information. In April 2003, we testified that
OMB had taken a number of actions that demonstrate progress in
fulfilling the Paperwork Reduction Act's requirement of providing a
unifying IRM vision.[Footnote 32] However, more remains to be done. In
particular, we reported that although OMB's strategies and models are
promising, their ability to reduce paperwork burden and accomplish
other objectives depends on how OMB implements them.
One element required by the Clinger-Cohen Act to be included in agency
IRM plans is the identification of a major IT acquisition program(s),
or any phase or increment of that program, that significantly deviated
from cost, performance, or schedule goals established by the program.
However, few agencies met this requirement. In these cases, a common
reason cited for not including this information was that it was not
appropriate to have such detailed information in a strategic plan
because such plans should be forward thinking and may not be developed
every year. Agencies also identified other mechanisms that they use to
track and report cost, schedule, and performance deviations. Because
agencies generally do not address this Clinger-Cohen Act requirement in
their IRM plans, they may benefit from additional guidance from OMB on
how to address this requirement.
* IT goals. The Paperwork Reduction Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act
require agencies to establish goals that address how IT contributes to
program productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, and service delivery
to the public. We have previously reported that leading organizations
define specific goals, objectives, and measures, use a diversity of
measure types, and describe how IT outputs and outcomes impact
operational customer and agency program delivery
requirements.[Footnote 33]
The agencies generally have the types of goals outlined in the
Paperwork Reduction Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act. For example, the
Social Security Administration (SSA) set a goal of achieving an average
of at least a 2 percent per year improvement in productivity, and it
expects that advances in automation will be a key to achieving this
goal along with process and regulation changes. In addition, the
Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) latest departmental strategic plan
has a goal that includes using business process reengineering and
technology integration to speed up delivery of benefit payments,
improve the quality of health care provided in its medical centers, and
administer programs more efficiently. The VA goal includes strategies
such as using its enterprise architecture as a continuous improvement
process, implementing e-government solutions to transform paper-based
electronic collections to electronic-based mechanisms, and
establishing a single, high-performance wide area data network. Five
agencies do not have one or more of the goals required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act. For example, the Department of
Labor's single IT strategic goal--to provide better and more secure
service to citizens, businesses, government, and Labor employees to
improve mission performance--which it included in its fiscal year 2004
performance plan, does not address all required goals. Further, in
contrast to other agencies, Labor does not have goals in its IRM plan.
It is important that agencies specify clear goals and objectives to set
the focus and direction of IT performance.
* IT performance measures. The Paperwork Reduction Act, the Clinger-
Cohen Act, and Executive Order 13103 require agencies to establish a
variety of IT performance measures, such as those related to how IT
contributes to program productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness, and
to monitor the actual-versus-expected performance of those measures. As
we have previously reported, an effective performance management system
offers a variety of benefits, including serving as an early warning
indicator of problems and the effectiveness of corrective actions,
providing input to resource allocation and planning, and providing
periodic feedback to employees, customers, stakeholders, and the
general public about the quality, quantity, cost, and timeliness of
products and services.[Footnote 34]
Although the agencies largely have one or more of the required
performance measures, these measures are not always linked to the
agencies' enterprisewide IT goals. For example, the Department of
Defense (DOD), Air Force, and Navy have a variety of enterprisewide IT
goals but do not have performance measures associated with these goals.
Each of these organizations are in the process of developing such
measures. To illustrate, the Air Force's August 2002 information
strategy includes nine goals, such as providing decision makers and all
Air Force personnel with on-demand access to authoritative, relevant,
and sufficient information to perform their duties efficiently and
effectively, but does not have performance measures for these goals.
The Air Force recognizes the importance of linking performance measures
to its goals and is developing such measures, which it expects to
complete by the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2004.
Leading organizations use performance measures to objectively evaluate
mission, business, and project outcomes. Such organizations also focus
on performance measures for gauging service to key management processes
and tailoring performance measures to determine whether IT is making a
difference in improving performance. Few agencies monitored actual-
versus-expected performance for all of their enterprisewide IT goals.
Specifically, although some agencies tracked actual-versus-expected
outcomes for the IT performance measures in their performance plans or
accountability reports and/or for specific IT projects, they generally
did not track the performance measures specified in their IRM plans.
For example, although the Department of Health and Human Services'
(HHS) IT strategic plan identifies enterprisewide goals and performance
measures, these measures generally do not identify quantified outcomes
(e.g., the measures indicate that the outcome will be a percentage
transaction increase or cost decrease in certain areas but do not
provide a baseline or target). In addition, the HHS plan does not
describe how the department will monitor actual-versus-expected
performance for these measures. HHS's Director of Business Operations
in its IRM office reported that the department recognizes the need to
develop an integrated program for monitoring performance against the
enterprisewide measures in the IT strategic plan. He stated that HHS
has recently begun an initiative to establish such a process. By not
measuring actual-versus-expected performance, agencies lack the
information to determine where to target agency resources to improve
overall mission accomplishment.
* Benchmarking. The Clinger-Cohen Act requires agencies to
quantitatively benchmark agency process performance against public-and
private-sector organizations, where comparable processes and
organizations exist. Benchmarking is used by entities because there may
be external organizations that have more innovative or more efficient
processes than their own processes. Our previous study of IT
performance measurement at leading organizations found that they had
spent considerable time and effort comparing their performance
information with that of other organizations.[Footnote 35]
Seven agencies have mechanisms--such as policies and strategies--in
place related to benchmarking their IT processes. For example, DOD's
information resources and IT directive states that DOD components shall
routinely and systematically benchmark their functional processes
against models of excellence in the public and private sector and use
these and other analyses to develop, simplify, or refine the processes
before IT solutions are applied. In general, however, agencies'
benchmarking decisions are ad hoc. Few agencies have developed a
mechanism to identify comparable external private-or public-sector
organizations and processes and/or have policies related to
benchmarking; however, all but 10 of the agencies provided examples of
benchmarking that had been performed. For example, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) does not have benchmarking policies in place, but
the agency provided an example of a benchmarking study performed by a
contractor that compared SBA's IT operations and processes against
industry cost and performance benchmarks and best practices and
resulted in recommendations for improvement.
Practice-Specific Analysis:
Table 1 provides additional detail on each strategic planning/
performance measurement practice and our evaluation of whether each
agency had the practice in place. The table indicates that work remains
for the agencies to have each of the practices fully in place as well
as that several agencies reported that they were taking, or planned to
take, actions to address the practices or elements of practices.
Table 1: IT Strategic Planning/Performance Measurement PracticesA:
Practice 1.1: The agency has documented its IT strategic management
process, including, at a minimum:
* the responsibilities and accountability for IT resources across the
agency, including the relationship between the chief information
officer (CIO), chief financial officer (CFO), and mission/program
officials; and;
* the method by which the agency defines program information needs and
develops strategies, systems, and capabilities to meet those needs.
Results; Yes: 12; Partially: 11; No: 1; NA: 2.
Comments:
* Yes--the Departments of the Air Force, Army, Commerce, Defense (DOD),
Education, Energy, Labor, Navy, and Veterans Affairs (VA) and the
General Services Administration (GSA), the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), and the Social Security Administration (SSA) have
this practice in place;
* Partially--the Departments of Agriculture[C], Health and Human
Services (HHS)[C], Interior, Justice, and Transportation, and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA)[C], and the Small Business Administration
(SBA) do not have a completely documented IT strategic planning
process. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)[C] does
not clearly describe the roles and responsibilities of the CFO and
program managers in IT strategic planning. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's (NRC) roles and responsibilities in its IT strategic
management process are not clearly defined. The Department of the
Treasury's[C] documentation supporting this practice is in draft form;
* No--the National Science Foundation (NSF) does not have this practice
in place;
* NA (not applicable)--the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) are transitioning to a joint
strategic planning process that will support their common policy
objectives. The first step in this process was the August 2003 issuance
of a State/USAID strategic plan. Because a new joint IT strategic
planning process is also being implemented, it is too early to evaluate
whether the new process will address this practice.
Practice 1.2: The agency has documented its process to integrate IT
management operations and decisions with organizational planning,
budget, financial management, human resources management, and program
decisions.
Results; Yes: 13; Partially: 10; No: 1; NA: 2.
Comments:
* Yes--Air Force, Army, Commerce, DOD, Education, GSA, Labor, Navy,
NSF, OPM, SBA, SSA, and VA have this practice in place;
* Partially--Agriculture[C] and EPA have not completely documented the
integration of their IT management operations and decisions with other
agency processes. Energy[C], HUD, NASA[C], and Justice have not
documented how their IT management operations and decisions are
integrated with human resources management. HHS[C] has not documented
how its IT management operations and decisions are integrated with its
budget processes. NRC reported that improvement is needed in how IT
planning is integrated with the budget and human resources management.
Transportation's[C] IT human capital planning is not yet integrated
with the agency's human capital planning. Treasury's[C] documentation
pertaining to this practice is in draft form;
* No--Interior does not have this practice in place;
* NA--this practice is not applicable to State and USAID for reasons
outlined in practice 1.1.
Practice 1.3: The agency requires that information security management
processes be integrated with strategic and operational planning
processes.
Results; Yes: 24; Partially: 2; No: 0; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Agriculture, Air Force, Army, Commerce, DOD, Education, Energy,
EPA, GSA, HHS, HUD, Interior, Justice, Labor, NASA, Navy, NSF, OPM,
SBA, SSA, State, Transportation, USAID, and VA have this practice in
place;
* Partially--NRC and Treasury's[C] documentation supporting this
practice is in draft form.
Practice 1.4: The agency has a process that involves the CFO, or
comparable official, to develop and maintain a full and accurate
accounting of IT-related expenditures, expenses, and results.
Results; Yes: 15; Partially: 11; No: 0; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, GSA, HUD, Interior, Justice,
NASA, NRC, NSF, OPM, SSA, Transportation, Treasury, and VA reported
that they have this practice in place.[B];
* Partially--prior GAO or inspector general work indicates that Army,
Air Force, DOD, EPA, and Navy do not capture and report on the full
costs of their programs. State and USAID reported that IT internal
costs are not consistently captured. HHS reported that not all internal
costs are captured and that the CFO is not involved in the process used
to derive its IT costs. Education and Labor's CFOs are not involved in
the process used to derive their IT costs. SBA reported that not all
costs are captured for nonmajor systems.
Practice 1.5: The agency prepares an enterprisewide strategic
information resources management (IRM) plan that, at a minimum:
* describes how IT activities will be used to help accomplish agency
missions and operations, including related resources; and;
* identifies a major IT acquisition program(s) or any phase or
increment of that program that has significantly deviated from the
cost, performance, or schedule goals established for the program.
Results; Yes: 2; Partially: 22; No: 0; NA: 2.
Comments:
* Yes--Commerce and NSF have this practice in place;
* Partially--Agriculture, Air Force, Army, EPA, GSA, HHS, HUD,
Interior, Justice, Labor, NASA, OPM, and SBA's IRM plans do not include
resources and major IT acquisition programs that deviated from cost,
schedule, or performance goals. Education, Energy, Navy, SSA, and
Transportation's IRM plans do not include major IT acquisition programs
that deviated from cost, schedule, or performance goals. DOD and NRC's
draft IRM plans do not include resources and major IT acquisition
programs that deviated from cost, schedule, or performance goals in
their IRM plans. Treasury and VA's draft IRM plans do not include
resources or major IT acquisition programs that deviated from cost,
schedule, or performance goals in their IRM plans;
* NA--this practice is not applicable to State and USAID for reasons
outlined in practice 1.1.
Practice 1.6: The agency's performance plan required under Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) includes;
* a description of how IT supports strategic and program goals:
* the resources and time periods required to implement the information
security program plan required by the Federal Information Security
Management Act (FISMA), and;
* a description of major IT acquisitions contained in the capital asset
plan that will bear significantly on the achievement of a performance
goal.
Results; Yes: 0; Partially: 23; No: 0; NA: 3.
Comments:
* Partially--no agency's performance plan, except VA's, includes time
periods, and none includes resources required to implement the
information security program plan required by FISMA. In addition,
Agriculture, DOD, HHS, and Interior's plans also do not include a
description of major IT acquisitions contained in their capital asset
plans that bear significantly on the achievement of a performance goal;
* NA--this practice is not applicable to Air Force, Army, and Navy
because they are not required to produce such plans.
Practice 1.7: The agency has a documented process to;
* develop IT goals in support of agency needs:
* measure progress against these goals, and;
* assign roles and responsibilities for achieving these goals.
Results; Yes: 4; Partially: 12; No: 8; NA: 2:
Comments:
* Yes--Army, GSA, OPM, and SSA have this practice in place;
* Partially--Agriculture[C], NRC, and NSF do not have a documented
process for assigning roles and responsibilities for achieving their
enterprisewide IT goals. DOD[C] and HHS[C] have not established a
documented process for measuring progress against their enterprisewide
IT goals. Energy has this process in place for some, but not all, of
its IT goals and performance measures. Air Force[C], Education, and
Navy[C] do not have a documented process to measure against their
enterprisewide IT goals or to assign roles and responsibilities for
achieving these goals. Treasury's[C] documentation in support of this
practice is in draft form. Transportation is piloting a process.
VA's[C] documentation supporting this practice does not explicitly
address how IT goals are developed and roles and responsibilities
assigned;
* No--Commerce[C], EPA, HUD[C], Interior, Justice[C], Labor, NASA, and
SBA do not have this practice in place;
* NA--this practice is not applicable to State and USAID for reasons
outlined in practice 1.1.
Practice 1.8: The agency has established goals that, at a minimum,
address how IT contributes to;
* program productivity:
* efficiency:
* effectiveness, and;
* service delivery to the public (if applicable).
Results; Yes: 19; Partially: 5; No: 0; NA: 2.
Comments:
* Yes--Agriculture, Air Force, Army, Commerce, DOD, Education, EPA,
GSA, HHS, HUD, Interior, Justice, NASA, NSF, OPM, SBA, SSA, Treasury,
and VA have this practice in place;
* Partially--Navy does not have an IT goal associated with service
delivery to the public. Energy, Labor, and Transportation do not have a
goal associated with how IT contributes to program productivity. NRC's
documentation in support of this practice is in draft form;
* NA--this practice is not applicable to State and USAID for reasons
outlined in practice 1.1.
Practice 1.9: The agency has established IT performance measures and
monitors actual-versus-expected performance that at least addresses;
* how IT contributes to program productivity:
* how IT contributes to the efficiency of agency operations:
* how IT contributes to the effectiveness of agency operations:
* service delivery to the public (if applicable):
* how electronic government initiatives enable progress toward agency
goals and statutory mandates:
* the performance of IT programs (e.g., system development and
acquisition projects), and;
* agency compliance with federal software piracy policy.
Results; Yes: 0; Partially: 23; No: 1; NA: 2.
Comments:
* Partially--Agriculture[C], HHS[C], Interior, NASA, OPM, and VA[C]
generally do not track actual-versus-expected performance for
enterprisewide measures in their IRM plans. Commerce[C], EPA, Justice,
SBA, and Treasury have some enterprisewide IT performance measures in
their performance plans or accountability reports in which actual-
versus-expected performance is tracked but do not have measures for the
enterprisewide IT goals in their IRM plans. SBA also does not have
performance measures associated with program productivity, efficiency,
effectiveness, and performance of IT programs. Moreover, Treasury's[C]
IRM plan is in draft form. Air Force[C] has not developed measures for
the enterprisewide goals in its information strategy and does not have
measures associated with program productivity, electronic government,
and service delivery to the public. Army[C] has neither performance
measures for all of the objectives related to its enterprise IT goals
nor measures associated with service delivery to the public. Navy[C]
has not developed measures for the enterprisewide goals in its IRM plan
and does not have measures related to how IT contributes to the
effectiveness and efficiency of agency operations, service delivery to
the public, or e-government. Education does not have measures related
to how IT contributes to program productivity and the effectiveness and
efficiency of agency operations and does not track actual-versus-
expected performance of measures identified in its IRM plan. GSA did
not provide evidence that it tracked actual versus expected performance
for one of its IT goals in its IRM plan. HUD[C] does not have
performance measures related to how IT contributed to program
productivity and does not track actual-versus-expected performance for
enterprisewide measures in its IRM plan. Labor does not have
performance measures associated with program productivity and
efficiency. Energy and NRC's performance measures are not linked to the
enterprisewide IT goals contained in their IRM plans. In addition,
Energy does not have a measure associated with program productivity.
Transportation's[C] performance measures are generally not linked to
the goals contained in its IRM plan, and it does not track actual-
versus-expected performance for its enterprisewide measures. SSA
reported that it has performance measures associated with the overall
performance of its IT programs but provided no supporting
documentation. Finally, no agency has performance measures related to
the effectiveness of controls to prevent software piracy;
* No--DOD[C] does not have this practice in place but is working on
developing such measures;
* NA--this practice is not applicable to State and USAID for reasons
outlined in practice 1.1.
Practice 1.10: The agency has developed IT performance measures that
align with and support the goals in the GPRA performance plan.
Results; Yes: 22; Partially: 0; No: 1; NA: 3.
Comments:
* Yes--Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, EPA, GSA, HHS, HUD,
Interior, Justice, Labor, NASA, NRC, NSF, OPM, SBA, SSA, State,
Transportation, Treasury, USAID, and VA have this practice in place;
* No--DOD does not have this practice in place;
* NA--this practice is not applicable to the Air Force, Army, and Navy
because they are not required to produce such plans.
Practice 1.11: The agency developed an annual report, included as part
of its budget submission, that describes progress in achieving goals
for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of agency operations
and, as appropriate, the delivery of services to the public through the
effective use of IT.
Results; Yes: 25; Partially: 1; No: 0; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Agriculture, Air Force, Army, Commerce, DOD, Education, Energy,
EPA, GSA, HHS, HUD, Interior, Justice, Labor, NASA, Navy, NRC, NSF,
OPM, SSA, State, Transportation, Treasury, USAID, and VA have this
practice in place;
* Partially--SBA has not reported progress on achieving its goals for
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of agency operations.
Practice 1.12: The agency requires that its IT management processes be
benchmarked against appropriate processes and/or organizations from the
public and private sectors in terms of cost, speed, productivity, and
quality of outputs and outcomes where comparable processes and
organizations in the public or private sectors exist.
Results; Yes: 7; Partially: 9; No: 10; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Air Force, Army, DOD, Education, Navy, NRC, and VA have this
practice in place;
* Partially--Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, GSA, Interior, NASA, SBA,
SSA, and Transportation provided an example of a process that they have
benchmarked, but benchmarking is being performed on an ad hoc basis;
* No--EPA, HHS[C], HUD[C], Justice, Labor, NSF, OPM, State,
Treasury[C], and USAID do not have this practice in place.
Source: GAO.
[A] Due to its recent establishment, we did not include DHS as a part
of this analysis.
[B] We have previously reported that agencies are making progress to
address financial management system weaknesses but that agency
management does not yet have the full range of information needed for
accountability, performance reporting, and decision making. In
addition, for fiscal year 2002, auditors reported that 19 agency
systems were not compliant with the Federal Financial Management
Improvement Act, including Agriculture, Commerce, Education, HUD,
Interior, and NASA. (Financial Management: Sustained Efforts Needed to
Achieve FFMIA Accountability, [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/
getrpt?GAO-03-1062] GAO-03-1062, Sept. 30, 2002).
[C] The agency reported that it was taking, or planned to take, action
to address this practice or elements of the practice.
Note: Yes--the practice was in place. Partially--the agency has some,
but not all, aspects of the practice in place. Examples of
circumstances in which the agency would receive this designation
include when (1) some, but not all, of the elements of the practice
were in place; (2) the agency documented that it has the information or
process in place but it was not in the prescribed form (e.g., in a
specific document as required by law or OMB); (3) the agency's
documentation was in draft form; or (4) the agency had a policy related
to the practice, but evidence supported that it had not been completely
or consistently implemented. No--the practice was not in place. NA (not
applicable)--the practice was not relevant to the agency's particular
circumstances.
[End of table]
Agency IT officials could not identify why practices were not in place
in all cases, but in those instances in which reasons were identified,
a variety of explanations were provided. For example, reasons cited by
agency IT officials included that they lacked the support from agency
leadership, that the agency had not been developing IRM plans until
recently and recognized that the plan needed further refinement, that
the process was being revised (in at least one case because of changes
that are needed to reflect a loss of component organizations to the new
DHS), and that requirements were evolving. In other cases, the agency
reported that it had the information but it was not in the format
required by legislation. For instance, FISMA requires agencies to
include in the performance plans required by the Government Performance
and Results Act the resources, including budget, staffing, and
training, and time periods to implement its information security
program. None of the agencies included this information in their
performance plans.[Footnote 36] However, the agencies commonly reported
that they had this information but that it was in another document.
Nevertheless, this does not negate the need for having the agency
report to the Congress in the required form. This is particularly
important since, as in the example of the FISMA requirement, the
reporting requirement involves a public document, whereas other reports
may not be publicly available.
In the case of DHS, while we did not include the department in our
assessment and in table 1, the department is in the process of
developing its first IT strategic plan. According to DHS, it expects to
complete this plan by mid-February 2004.
Agencies' Use of IT Investment Management Practices Is Mixed:
The use of IT investment management practices is mixed (as shown in
fig. 2), which demonstrates that agencies do not have all the processes
in place to effectively select, control, and evaluate investments. An
IT investment management process is an integrated approach to managing
investments that provides for the continuous identification, selection,
control, life-cycle management, and evaluation of IT investments. Among
the investment management practices that are most frequently in place
are having investment management boards and requiring that projects
demonstrate that they are economically beneficial. Practices less
commonly in place are those requiring that IT investments be performed
in a modular, or incremental, manner and that they be effectively
controlled. Only by effectively and efficiently managing their IT
resources through a robust investment management process can agencies
gain opportunities to make better allocation decisions among many
investment alternatives and further leverage their IT investments.
Figure 2: Percentage of Agencies' Use of IT Investment Management
Practices[A]:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Percentages do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Note: Yes--the practice was in place. Partially--the agency has some,
but not all, aspects of the practice in place. Examples of
circumstances in which the agency would receive this designation
include when (1) some, but not all, of the elements of the practice
were in place; (2) the agency documented that it has the information or
process in place but it was not in the prescribed form (e.g., in a
specific document as required by law or OMB); (3) the agency's
documentation was in draft form; or (4) the agency had a policy related
to the practice, but evidence supported that it had not been completely
or consistently implemented. No--the practice was not in place. Not
applicable--the practice was not relevant to the agency's particular
circumstances.
[End of figure]
Governmentwide Progress Demonstrated, but More Work Remains:
Critical aspects of IT investment management include developing well-
supported proposals, establishing investment management boards, and
selecting and controlling IT investments. The agencies' use of
practices associated with these aspects of investment management is
wide-ranging, as follows:
* IT investment proposals. Various legislative requirements, an
executive order, and OMB policies provide minimum standards that govern
agencies' consideration of IT investments. In addition, we have issued
guidance to agencies for selecting, controlling, and evaluating IT
investments.[Footnote 37] Such processes help ensure, for example, that
investments are cost-beneficial and meet mission needs and that the
most appropriate development or acquisition approach is chosen.
The agencies in our review have mixed results when evaluated against
these various criteria. For example, the agencies almost always require
that proposed investments demonstrate that they support the agency's
business needs, are cost-beneficial, address security issues, and
consider alternatives. To demonstrate, the Department of Transportation
requires that proposed projects complete a business case to indicate
that the project (1) will meet basic requirements in areas such as
mission need, affordability, technical standards, and disabled access
requirements, (2) is economically beneficial, and (3) has considered
alternatives.
One element in this area that agencies were not as likely to have fully
in place was the Clinger-Cohen Act requirement that agencies follow, to
the maximum extent practicable, a modular, or incremental, approach
when investing in IT projects. Incremental investment helps to mitigate
the risks inherent in large IT acquisitions/developments by breaking
apart a single large project into smaller, independently useful
components with known and defined relationships and dependencies. An
example of such an approach is DOD's policy stating that IT acquisition
decisions should be based on phased, evolutionary segments that are as
brief and narrow in scope as possible and that each segment should
solve a specific part of an overall mission problem and deliver a
measurable net benefit independent of future segments.[Footnote 38]
However, 14 agencies do not have a policy that calls for investments to
be done in a modular manner. For example, although the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) reported that it worked with program offices to
try to segment work so that the scope and size of each project is
manageable, it does not have a policy that calls for investments to be
done in a modular manner. The absence of a policy calls into question
whether EPA is implementing incremental investment in a consistent and
effective manner.
* Investment management boards. Our investment management guide states
that establishing one or more IT investment boards is a key component
of the investment management process. According to our guide, the
membership of this board should include key business executives and
should be responsible for final project funding decisions or should
provide recommendations for the projects under its scope of authority.
Such executive-level boards, made up of business-unit executives,
concentrate management's attention on assessing and managing risks and
regulating the trade-offs between continued funding of existing
operations and developing new performance capabilities.
Almost all of the agencies in our review have one or more enterprise-
level investment management boards. For example, HUD's Technology
Investment Board Executive Committee and supporting boards have
responsibility for selecting, controlling, and evaluating the
department's IT investments. HUD's contractor-performed maturity
audits also have helped the department validate its board structure and
its related investment management processes. However, the investment
management boards for six agencies are not involved, or the agency did
not document the board's involvement, in the control phase. For
example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has a CIO advisory group
that addresses only the select phase of the IT investment management
process. NSF's CIO explained that the agency reviews the progress of
its major information system projects through other means, such as
meetings with management. In providing comments on a draft of this
report, the CIO stated that he believes that NSF has a comprehensive
set of management processes and review structures to select, control,
and evaluate IT investments and cited various groups and committees
used as part of this process. However, NSF's summary of its investment
management process and memo establishing the CIO advisory group include
only general statements related to the oversight of IT investments, and
NSF provided no additional documentation demonstrating that its
investment management board plays a role in the control and evaluation
phases. Our investment management guidance identifies having an IT
investment management board(s) be responsible for project oversight as
a critical process. Maintaining responsibility for oversight with the
same body that selected the investment is crucial to fostering a
culture of accountability by holding the investment board that
initially selected an investment responsible for its ongoing success.
In addition, 17 agencies do not fully address the practice that calls
for processes to be in place that address the coordination and
alignment of multiple investment review boards. For example, we
recently reported that the Department of the Interior has established
three department-level IT investment boards and begun to take steps to
ensure that investment boards are established at the bureau
level.[Footnote 39] However, at the time of our review, the department
(1) could not assert that department-level board members exhibited core
competencies in using Interior's IT investment approach and (2) had
limited ability to oversee investments in its bureaus. We made
recommendations to Interior to strengthen both the activities of the
department-level boards and the department's ability to oversee
investment management activities at the bureaus.
* Selection of IT investments. During the selection phase of an IT
investment management process, the organization (1) selects projects
that will best support its mission needs and (2) identifies and
analyzes each project's risks and returns before committing significant
funds. To achieve desired results, it is important that agencies have a
selection process that, for example, uses selection criteria to choose
the IT investments that best support the organization's mission and
prioritizes proposals.
Twenty-two agencies use selection criteria in choosing their IT
investments. In addition, about half the agencies use scoring
models[Footnote 40] to help choose their investments. For example, the
working group and CIO office officials that support the Department of
Education's investment review board used a scoring model as part of
deciding which IT investments to recommend for the board's
consideration and approval. This model contained two main categories of
criteria: (1) value criteria that measured the impact and significance
of the initiative, given project goals and the strategic objectives of
the department; and (2) health criteria that measured the potential for
the success of the initiative and helped to assess both the performance
and the associated risks that are involved in project and contract
management. In the case of DOD, in February 2003 we reported that it
had established some, and was establishing other IT investment
criteria, but these criteria had not been finalized.[Footnote 41]
Accordingly, we recommended, and DOD concurred, that DOD establish a
standard set of criteria. In September we reported that this
recommendation had not been implemented.[Footnote 42] DOD officials
stated that the department was developing the criteria but that the
proposed governance structure had not yet been adopted.
* Control over IT investments. During the control phase of the IT
investment management process, the organization ensures that, as
projects develop and as funds are spent, the project is continuing to
meet mission needs at the expected levels of cost and risk. If the
project is not meeting expectations or if problems have arisen, steps
are quickly taken to address the deficiencies. Executive level
oversight of project-level management activities provides the
organization with increased assurance that each investment will achieve
the desired cost, benefit, and schedule results.
Although no agencies had the practices associated with the control
phase fully in place, some have implemented important aspects of this
phase. For example, Labor requires project managers to prepare a
control status report based on a review schedule established during the
selection phase, which is reviewed by the Office of the CIO and its
technical review board as part of determining whether to continue,
modify, or cancel the initiative.[Footnote 43] For initiatives meeting
certain criteria, the technical review board makes recommendations to
the management council, which serves as the department's top tier
executive investment review council, is chaired by the Assistant
Secretary of Administration and Management, and consists of component
agency heads.
Nevertheless, in general, the agencies are weaker in the practices
pertaining to the control phase of the investment management process
than in the selection phase. In particular, the agencies did not always
have important mechanisms in place for agencywide investment management
boards to effectively control investments, including decision-making
rules for project oversight, early warning mechanisms, and/or
requirements that corrective actions for under-performing projects be
agreed upon and tracked. For example, the Department of the Treasury
does not have a department-level control process; instead, each bureau
may conduct its own reviews that address the performance of its IT
investments and corrective actions for under-performing projects. In a
multitiered organization like Treasury, the department is responsible
for providing leadership and oversight for foundational critical
processes by ensuring that written policies and procedures are
established, repositories of information are created that support IT
investment decision making, resources are allocated, responsibilities
are assigned, and all of the activities are properly carried out where
they may be most effectively executed. In such an organization, the CIO
is specifically responsible for ensuring that the organization is
effectively managing its IT investments at every level. Treasury IT
officials recognize the department's weaknesses in this area and
informed us that they are working on developing a new capital planning
and investment control process that is expected to address these
weaknesses. Similarly, the Department of Energy is planning on
implementing the investment control process outlined in its September
2003 capital planning and investment control guide in fiscal year 2004,
which addresses important elements such as corrective action plans.
However, this guide does not document the role of Energy's investment
management boards in this process.
Practice-Specific Analysis:
Table 2 provides additional detail on each investment management
practice and our evaluation of whether each agency had the practice in
place. The table indicates those practices in which improvement is
needed as well as which agencies reported that they were taking, or
planned to take, actions to address the practices or elements of
practices.
Table 2: IT Investment Management Practices[A]:
Practice 2.1: The agency has a documented IT investment management
process that, at a minimum;
* specifies the roles of key people (including the CIO) and groups
within the IT investment management process;
* outlines significant events and decision points;
* identifies external and environmental factors that influence the
process;
* explains how the IT investment management process is coordinated with
other organizational plans and processes, and;
* describes the relationship between the investment management process
and the agency's enterprise architecture.
Results; Yes: 12; Partially: 14; No: 0; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Commerce, Education, Energy, GSA, HUD, Interior, Justice, OPM,
SBA, SSA, State, and USAID have this practice in place;
* Partially--Agriculture and Labor do not describe the relationship
between their investment management processes, and their enterprise
architectures in their IT capital planning and investment control
guide. Air Force, EPA, and VA documentation related to this practice is
in draft form. In addition, Air Force's[C] draft portfolio management
document does not identify external and environmental factors or
describe the relationship between the investment management process and
the enterprise architecture. DOD[C] is piloting a draft IT portfolio
management policy, but this policy does not address how this process
relates to its other organizational plans and processes and its
enterprise architecture or identify external and environmental factors.
HHS[C] does not address how this process relates to its other
organizational plans and processes and its enterprise architecture or
identify external and environmental factors. NRC's current and draft
capital planning and investment control policies do not address how
this process relates to its other organizational plans and processes
and its enterprise architecture or identify external and environmental
factors. Army and NASA's[C] investment management policies and guidance
do not describe the relationship of this process to its enterprise
architecture. Navy[C] recognizes the need to clarify roles and
responsibilities related to IT investment management, and its IT
capital planning guide does not identify external and environmental
factors. NSF does not have an IT investment management guide, and its
summary of its policy does not address how this process relates to its
other organizational plans and processes and its enterprise
architecture or identify external and environmental factors.
Transportation reported that there was little integration between its
capital planning and investment control process and the budget.
Treasury[C] does not have a capital planning and investment control
guide, and its documentation supporting this practice is in draft form.
Practice 2.2: The agency established one or more agencywide IT
investment management boards responsible for selecting, controlling,
and evaluating IT investments that, at a minimum;
* have final project funding decision authority (or provide
recommendations) over projects within their scope of authority, and;
* are composed of key business unit executives.
Results; Yes: 14; Partially: 10; No: 2; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Agriculture, Commerce, Education, GSA, HHS, HUD, Interior,
Labor, OPM, SBA, SSA, State, Transportation, and VA have this practice
in place;
* Partially--Treasury[C] and USAID have not completely implemented this
practice. Air Force, Army[C], Energy, NASA, NRC, and NSF's IT
investment management boards are not responsible for controlling and
evaluating IT investments, or this role has not been fully documented.
EPA's documentation in support of this practice is in draft form.
Navy's[C] IT investment management board governance process is not
completely implemented;
* No--DOD[B,C] does not have this practice in place. Justice[C]
reported that it is piloting an IT investment management board, but did
not provide documentation on the responsibilities, processes, or makeup
of this board.
Practice 2.3: The agencywide board(s) work processes and decision-
making processes are described and documented.
Results; Yes: 9; Partially: 6; No: 11; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Agriculture, Commerce, Education, HUD, Interior, Labor, SBA,
State, and Transportation have this practice in place;
* Partially--Army has not consistently implemented this practice. GSA
did not have policies and procedures for each of its IT investment
management boards. HHS has not established procedures for the
development, documentation, and review of IT investments. EPA and VA's
documentation related to this practice is in draft form. USAID has not
completely implemented this practice;
* No--Air Force, DOD[B,C], Energy, Justice[C], NASA, Navy[C], NRC, NSF,
OPM, SSA[C], and Treasury[C] do not have this practice in place.
Practice 2.4: If more than one IT investment management board exists in
the organization (e.g., at the component level), the organization has;
* documented policies and procedures that describe the processes for
aligning and coordinating IT investment decision making;
* criteria for determining where in the organization different types of
IT investment decisions are made, and;
* processes that describe how cross-functional investments and
decisions (e.g., common applications) are handled.
Results; Yes: 2; Partially: 10; No: 7; NA: 7.
Comments:
* Yes--GSA and Labor have this practice in place;
* Partially--Agriculture does not have documented policies and
processes for aligning and coordinating IT investment decision making
or processes for describing how cross-functional investments and
decisions are made. Air Force, Army, Commerce, Education, HHS[C], and
Transportation[C] do not have documented policies and procedures for
aligning and coordinating investment decision making among their
investment management boards. Interior[B] has not fully implemented its
governance process for aligning and coordinating its IT investment
decision making. OPM did not describe its criteria for determining
major systems or describe how cross-functional investments and
decisions are handled. SBA did not address whether its enterprisewide
board can invoke final decision-making authority over its program
office boards;
* No--DOD,[B,C] Energy, NASA, Navy[C], Treasury[C], and VA[C] do not
have this practice in place. Justice[C] reported that it is piloting an
IT investment management board but did not provide supporting
documentation;
* NA--EPA, HUD, NRC, NSF, SSA, State, and USAID do not have multiple IT
investment management boards.
Practice 2.5: As part of its investment management process, the agency
has available an annually updated comprehensive inventory of its major
information systems that includes major national security systems and
interfaces.
Results; Yes: 21; Partially: 5; No: 0; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Agriculture, Air Force, Commerce, Education, EPA, GSA, HUD,
Interior, Justice, Labor, Navy, NRC, NSF, OPM, SBA, SSA, State,
Transportation, Treasury, USAID, and VA have this practice in place;
* Partially--Army's[C] inventory is not complete and does not include
interfaces. A DOD inspector general report stated that DOD's inventory
may not capture the universe of current DOD business management
systems. Energy and NASA's inventories do not include interfaces. HHS
reported that its Exhibit 300s fulfill the requirements of this
practice but did not provide supporting documentation.
Practice 2.6: A standard, documented procedure is used so that
developing and maintaining the inventory is a repeatable event, which
produces inventory data that are timely, sufficient, complete, and
compatible.
Results; Yes: 21; Partially: 1; No: 4; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Agriculture, Air Force, Commerce, DOD, Education, EPA, GSA, HUD,
Interior, Justice, Labor, Navy, NSF, OPM, SBA, SSA, State,
Transportation, Treasury, USAID, and VA have this practice in place;
* Partially--Army's documentation is in draft form;
* No--Energy[C], HHS, NASA, and NRC do not have this practice in place.
Practice 2.7: The IT asset inventory is used as part of managerial
decision making.
Results; Yes: 12; Partially: 11; No: 3; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Agriculture, Army, Commerce, Education, GSA, HUD, Labor, Navy,
SSA, State, Transportation, and VA have this practice in place;
* Partially--DOD, Energy, EPA, Interior,[B] NRC[C], NSF, OPM, SBA, and
USAID do not explicitly document how their IT asset inventory is used
to identify asset duplication. Air Force reported that its inventory is
not being consistently used to identify asset duplication. Justice[C]
reported that it has begun to use its IT asset inventory to identify
asset duplication as part of a pilot of its new IT investment
management process;
* No--HHS, NASA, and Treasury[C] do not have this practice in place.
Practice 2.8: Proposed IT investments are required to document that
they have addressed the following items during project planning:;
* that the project supports the organization's business and mission
needs and meets users' needs;
* whether the function should be performed by the public or private
sector;
* whether the function or project should be performed or is being
performed by another agency;
* that alternatives have been considered, and;
* how security will be addressed.
Results; Yes: 25; Partially: 1; No: 0; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Agriculture, Air Force, Army, Commerce, DOD, Education, Energy,
EPA, GSA, HUD, Interior, Justice, Labor, NASA, Navy, NRC, NSF, OPM,
SBA, SSA, State, Transportation, Treasury, USAID, and VA have this
practice in place;
* Partially--the HHS policy addressing the element related to whether
the function or project should be performed by the private sector or
another government agency is in draft form. This information is
normally contained in the Exhibit 300s, but HHS did not provide us with
this documentation.
Practice 2.9: In considering a proposed IT project, the agency requires
that the project demonstrate that it is economically beneficial through
the development of a business case that at least addresses costs,
benefits, schedule, and risks.
Results; Yes: 25; Partially: 1; No: 0; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Agriculture, Air Force, Army, Commerce, Education, Energy, EPA,
GSA, HHS, HUD, Interior, Justice, Labor, NASA, Navy, NRC, NSF, OPM,
SBA, SSA, State, Transportation, Treasury, USAID, and VA have this
practice in place;
* Partially--DOD has not consistently implemented this practice.
Practice 2.10: In considering a proposed IT project, the agency
requires that the project demonstrate that it is consistent with
federal and agency enterprise architectures.
Results; Yes: 20; Partially: 6; No: 0; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Air Force, Army, Commerce, Education, Energy, EPA, GSA, HHS,
HUD, Interior, Labor, Navy, NRC, NSF, OPM, SSA, State, Transportation,
Treasury, and VA have this practice in place;
* Partially--the agencies are required to include how major IT
investments align with the agency's enterprise architecture and the
federal enterprise architecture in their budget Exhibit 300s. However,
the following agencies do not have policies requiring compliance with
the agency enterprise architectures, which is a core element in our
Enterprise Architecture Management Framework. Agriculture and
NASA[B,C] do not have approved policies related to this practice but
require compliance as part of their IT investment management reviews
for the fiscal year 2005 budget cycle. Justice and USAID do not have a
policy requiring that IT projects comply with their enterprise
architecture. SBA's policy requiring compliance with its enterprise
architecture is in draft form. DOD does not have a policy requiring
compliance with its business enterprise architecture.
Practice 2.11: The agency requires that the proposed IT investment, at
a minimum;
* support work processes that it has simplified or redesigned to reduce
costs and improve effectiveness, and;
* make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software.
Results; Yes: 11; Partially: 7; No: 8; NA: 0:
Comments:
* Yes--Air Force, Army, DOD, GSA, Justice, Labor, NASA, Navy, NSF, SSA,
and VA have this practice in place;
* Partially--Education, HHS, Interior, and SBA do not require that
proposed IT investments support work processes that have been
simplified or redesigned. NRC has policies related to this practice but
reported that they have not been fully integrated into its investment
decision making. Energy's business case guidelines address this
practice, but Energy reported that consideration of these factors is
not required for selection and approval. EPA's policy related to COTS
is in draft form;
* No--Agriculture[C], Commerce, HUD, OPM, State, Transportation,
Treasury[C], and USAID do not have this practice in place.
Practice 2.12: The agency has established project selection criteria
distributed throughout the organization that include, at a minimum;
* cost, benefit, schedule, and risk elements;
* measures such as net benefits, net risks, and risk-adjusted return on
investment; and;
* qualitative criteria for comparing and prioritizing alternative
information systems investment projects.
Results; Yes: 6; Partially: 16; No: 4; NA: 0:
Comments:
* Yes--Agriculture, GSA, Energy, NASA, Transportation, and VA have this
practice in place;
* Partially--Commerce[C], Education, HUD[C], Justice, Labor, Navy,
SBA[B], State, and USAID have project selection criteria that do not
include net risk and risk-adjusted return on investment. DOD[B] has
established some IT investment criteria, but these criteria are not
finalized or part of an investment review process. EPA has project
selection criteria that do not include net risks, risk-adjusted return
on investment, or qualitative criteria. EPA's documentation in support
of this practice is also in draft form. Interior's project selection
criteria do not include cost and schedule. Air Force[C] and Army's[C]
project selection criteria do not include cost, benefit, schedule, and
risk elements or measures such as net benefits, net risks, and risk-
adjusted return on investment. OPM has not consistently implemented
this practice. SSA's[B] criteria is high-level and not explicit;
* No--HHS[C], NRC, NSF, and Treasury[C] do not have this practice in
place.
Practice 2.13: The agency has established a structured selection
process that, at a minimum;
* selects IT proposals using selection criteria;
* identifies and addresses possible IT investments and proposals that
are conflicting, overlapping, strategically unlinked, or redundant;
* prioritizes proposals; and;
* is integrated with budget, financial, and program management
decisions.
Results; Yes: 8; Partially: 15; No: 3; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Agriculture, Commerce, Education, GSA, HUD, Labor, SBA, and
State have this practice in place;
* Partially--Air Force's[C] documentation in support of this practice
is in draft form and does not include prioritizing proposals across the
enterprise or the use of a scoring model. Army's prioritized list is
limited to investments to address capability shortfalls. DOD[C] is
piloting a draft IT portfolio management policy that includes a
selection process. EPA's documentation of its selection processes is in
draft form. Energy, Interior, and Transportation do not prioritize
their IT proposals. Justice[C] does not use a scoring model or
prioritize or rank its IT proposals. NASA[C] does not have a process
for identifying possible conflicting, overlapping, strategically
unlinked, or redundant proposals; does not use a scoring model; and
does not prioritize or rank its IT proposals. Navy generally does not
use its IT investment management boards outlined in its governance
process as part of its IT investment selection process and does not use
a scoring model or prioritize or rank its IT proposals. NRC does not
select IT proposals using selection criteria, prioritize proposals, or
document how its selection process is integrated with budget,
financial, and program management decisions. OPM has not consistently
implemented this practice. SSA[B] does not use a scoring model.
USAID[C] does not have a process for identifying possible conflicting,
overlapping, strategically unlinked, or redundant proposals. VA does
not have a process to identify and address possible conflicting,
overlapping, strategically unlinked, or redundant IT investments and
does not prioritize IT proposals for selection;
* No--HHS[C], Treasury[C], and NSF do not have this practice in place.
Practice 2.14: Agency policy calls for investments to be modularized
(e.g., managed and procured in well-defined useful segments or modules
that are short in duration and small in scope) to the maximum extent
achievable.
Results; Yes: 9; Partially: 3; No: 14; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Air Force, Army, Education, Justice, NASA, Navy, NRC, SBA, and
VA have this practice in place;
* Partially--DOD had not consistently implemented this practice. HHS
and NSF's documentation supporting this practice is in draft form;
* No--Agriculture, Commerce[C], Energy, EPA, GSA[C], HUD, Interior,
Labor, OPM, SSA, State, Transportation[C], Treasury, and USAID do not
have this practice in place.
Practice 2.15: The agencywide investment management board(s) has
written policies and procedures for management oversight of IT projects
that cover, at a minimum;
* decision-making rules for project oversight that allow for
terminating projects, when appropriate;
* current project data, including expected and actual cost, schedule,
and performance data, to be provided to senior management periodically
and at major milestones;
* criteria or thresholds related to deviations in cost, schedule, or
system capability actuals versus expected project performance; and;
* the generation of an action plan to address a project's problem(s)
and track resolution.
Results; Yes: 0; Partially: 20; No: 6; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Partially--Agriculture[C] reported that it has not implemented the
corrective action plan element in a consistent manner. Air Force[C],
NASA[C], and SSA[C] have control processes but do not explicitly
document the role, responsibility, and authority of their
enterprisewide IT investment management boards in the control phase.
Army[C], DOD[B,C], and Navy's control processes do not involve
enterprisewide IT investment management boards. Commerce[C] does not
have decision-making rules to guide oversight of IT investments and
projects are not required to submit reports of deviations in system
capability. Education has not consistently required corrective actions
or tracked corrective actions related to control phase reviews. GSA
does not have clear decision-making rules, require projects to report
on deviations in system capability, or require that corrective actions
be tracked to resolution. HHS[C] does not have decision-making rules to
guide oversight of IT investments, review projects at major milestones,
or systematically track corrective actions. HUD[C] does not require
reports of deviations of system capability or monitor projects at key
milestones. Interior[B] does not have decision-making rules for
oversight of IT investments, require reports of deviations of system
capability, or require corrective action plans. Justice[B,C], reported
that it is piloting an IT investment management board that includes the
control phase but has not provided documentation supporting that all of
the practice elements are addressed. Labor and Transportation have
evaluation criteria to assess investments during the control phase, but
do not have decision-making rules to guide their investment management
boards' decisions. OPM has not consistently implemented this practice.
State's draft documentation does not require projects to be reviewed at
key milestones. USAID[C] does not have decision-making rules, require
reports on deviations in system capability, and review projects at
major milestones, and its policy for requiring action plans is in draft
form. VA's[C] policies and procedures on decision-making rules,
criteria or thresholds for system capability, and the generation of
action plans have not been fully documented;
* No--SBA[B,C] and Treasury[C] do not have this practice in place.
Energy plans to implement a control process in fiscal year 2004, but
its new capital planning and investment review guide does not address
the role of its investment management boards in the process. EPA[C] is
implementing its control process in fiscal year 2004. NRC's current and
draft capital planning and investment control documentation do not
address the elements of this practice and do not explicitly document
the role, responsibility, and authority of its enterprisewide IT
investment management board in this process. NSF's investment
management board is not responsible for the control process. NSF
reported that it uses other mechanisms to implement this practice but
provided no supporting documentation.
Practice 2.16: The agencywide investment management board(s)
established an oversight mechanism of funded investments that, at a
minimum;
* determines whether mission requirements have changed;
* determines whether the investment continues to fulfill ongoing and
anticipated mission requirements;
* determines whether the investment is proceeding in a timely manner
toward agreed-upon milestones;
* employs early warning mechanisms that enable it to take corrective
action at the first sign of cost, schedule, or performance slippages;
and;
* includes the use of independent verification and validation (IV&V)
reviews of under-performing projects, where appropriate.
Results; Yes: 2; Partially: 19; No: 5; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--GSA and VA have this practice in place;
* Partially--Agriculture[C] reported that its oversight of IT
investments has not been consistently implemented. Air Force[C],
NASA[C], and SSA[C] have control processes but did not explicitly
document the role, responsibility, and authority of their
enterprisewide IT investment management boards in this process.
Army[C], DOD[B,C], and Navy's control processes do not involve
enterprisewide IT investment management boards. Commerce and Labor do
not employ an early warning mechanism. State[C] has procedures for
control phase reviews, but they are not fully implemented. Education,
HHS, and HUD do not have a process for using IV&V reviews.
Interior[B,C], does not have a process to determine whether investments
are proceeding in a timely manner toward agreed-upon milestones, employ
an early warning mechanism, or use IV&V reviews. Justice[B,C], reported
that it is piloting an IT investment management board that includes the
control phase but did not provide documentation supporting that all of
the practice elements are addressed. OPM has not consistently
implemented this practice. SBA[B] did not provide evidence that it had
implemented all of the oversight mechanisms in its investment
management guide and did not use IV&V reviews. Transportation and USAID
do not employ an early warning system or have a process for using IV&V
reviews;
* No--Treasury[C] does not have this practice in place. Energy plans to
implement a control process in fiscal year 2004, but its new capital
planning and investment review guide does not address the role of its
investment management boards in the process. EPA[C] is implementing its
control process in fiscal year 2004. NRC's current and draft capital
planning and investment control documentation does not address the
elements of this practice and does not explicitly document the role,
responsibility, and authority of its enterprisewide IT investment
management board in this process. NSF's investment management board is
not responsible for the control process. NSF reported that it uses
other mechanisms to implement this practice but provided no supporting
documentation.
Practice 2.17: Corrective actions for under-performing projects are
agreed upon, documented, and tracked by the agencywide investment
management board(s).
Results; Yes: 5; Partially: 12; No: 9; NA: 0.
Comments:
* Yes--Commerce, HUD, Labor, Transportation, and VA have this practice
in place;
* Partially--Agriculture[C] and SBA[B] reported that they have not
consistently implemented this practice. Air Force[C], NASA[C], and SSA
have control processes but did not explicitly document the role,
responsibility, and authority of their enterprisewide IT investment
management boards in this process. SSA[C] also did not provide support
that it was tracking corrective actions. Army[C], DOD[B], and Navy's
control processes do not involve enterprisewide IT investment
management boards. Education has not consistently required corrective
actions or tracked corrective actions related to control phase reviews.
GSA and HHS[C] do not systematically track corrective actions. State[C]
has procedures for control phase reviews, but they are not fully
implemented;
* No--Interior[C], Justice, OPM, Treasury[C], and USAID do not have
this practice in place. Energy plans to implement a control process in
fiscal year 2004, but its new capital planning and investment review
guide does not address the role of its investment management boards in
the process. EPA[C] is implementing its control process in fiscal year
2004. NRC's current and draft capital planning and investment control
documentation does not address the elements of this practice and does
not explicitly document the role, responsibility, and authority of its
enterprisewide IT investment management board in this process. NSF's
investment management board is not responsible for the control process.
NSF reported that it uses other mechanisms to implement this practice,
but provided no supporting documentation.
Practice 2.18: The agencywide investment management board(s) requires
that postimplementation reviews be conducted to;
* validate expected benefits and costs, and;
* document and disseminate lessons learned.
Results; Yes: 6; Partially: 17; No: 3; NA: 3.
Comments:
* Yes--Agriculture, GSA, HUD, Labor, OPM, and VA have this practice in
place;
* Partially--Army, DOD, NASA[C], Navy, NRC, NSF, and SSA's[C]
evaluation processes do not involve an enterprisewide IT investment
management board. NSF also does not define what is to be included in a
postimplementation review and SSA[B] reported that such reviews are not
done regularly. Commerce[C] reported that postimplementation reviews
have not been consistently completed and are not required to be
reported to its investment management board. Air Force's[C]
documentation in support of this practice is in draft form and does not
document the role of its IT investment management boards in this
process. Education[C] reported that postimplementation reviews were not
always performed. Energy[C], Justice[B], Transportation[C], and USAID
have a policy related to this practice, but it has not been
implemented. Also, Energy's processes do not involve an enterprisewide
IT investment management board. HHS, SBA[B,C], and State[C] have a
policy related to this practice but did not provide evidence that it
has been completely implemented. In addition, HHS's policy does not
specifically address validating expected benefits and costs;
* No--EPA[C] is implementing its evaluation process in fiscal year
2004. Interior[C] and Treasury[C] do not have this practice in place.
Source: GAO.
[A] Due to its recent establishment, we did not include DHS as a part
of this analysis.
[B] We have an outstanding recommendation related to this practice.
[C] The agency reported that it was taking, or planned to take, action
to address this practice, or elements of the practice.
Note: Yes--the practice was in place. Partially--the agency has some,
but not all, aspects of the practice in place. Examples of
circumstances in which the agency would receive this designation
include when (1) some, but not all, of the elements of the practice
were in place; (2) the agency documented that it has the information or
process in place but it was not in the prescribed form (e.g., in a
specific document as required by law or OMB); (3) the agency's
documentation was in draft form; or (4) the agency had a policy related
to the practice, but evidence supported that it had not been completely
or consistently implemented. No--the practice was not in place. Not
applicable--the practice was not relevant to the agency's particular
circumstances.
[End of table]
Among the variety of reasons cited for practices not being fully in
place were that the CIO position had been vacant, that not including a
requirement in the IT investment management guide was an oversight, and
that the process was being revised. However, in some cases the agencies
could not identify why certain practices were not in place.
Regarding DHS, although we did not include the department in our
assessment or table 2, the department has investment management
processes that it has put in place or is in the process of putting in
place.
Conclusions:
Federal agencies did not always have in place important practices
associated with IT laws, policies, and guidance. At the governmentwide
level, agencies generally have IT strategic plans or information
resources management (IRM) plans that address IT elements, such as
security and enterprise architecture, but do not cover other aspects of
IRM that are part of the Paperwork Reduction Act, such as information
collection, records management, and privacy. This may be attributed, in
part, to OMB not establishing comprehensive guidance for the agencies
detailing the elements that should be included in such a plan. There
were also numerous instances of individual agencies that do not have
specific IT strategic planning, performance measurement, or investment
management practices fully in place. Agencies cited a variety of
reasons for not having these practices in place, such as that the CIO
position had been vacant, not including a requirement in guidance was
an oversight, or that the process was being revised. Nevertheless, not
only are these practices based on law, executive orders, OMB policies,
and our guidance, but they are also important ingredients for ensuring
effective strategic planning, performance measurement, and investment
management, which, in turn, make it more likely that the billions of
dollars in government IT investments will be wisely spent. Accordingly,
we believe that it is important that they be expeditiously implemented
by individual agencies.
Recommendations:
To help agencies in developing strategic IRM plans that fully comply
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we recommend that the
Director, OMB, develop and disseminate to agencies guidance on
developing such plans. At a minimum, such guidance should address all
elements of IRM, as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act. As part of
this guidance, OMB should also consider the most effective means for
agencies to communicate information about any major IT acquisition
program(s) or phase or increment of that program that significantly
deviated from cost, performance, or schedule goals established by the
program. One option for communicating this information, for example,
could be through the annual agency performance reports that are
required by the Government Performance and Results Act.
We are also generally making recommendations to the agencies in our
review regarding those practices that are not fully in place unless,
for example, (1) we have outstanding recommendations related to the
practice, (2) the agency has a draft document addressing the practice,
or (3) implementation of the practice was ongoing. Appendix I contains
these recommendations.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We received written or oral comments on a draft of this report from OMB
and 25 of the agencies in our review.[Footnote 44] We also requested
comments from the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of
Personnel Management, but none were provided.
Regarding OMB, in oral comments on a draft of this report,
representatives from OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
and Office of the General Counsel questioned the need for additional
IRM plan guidance because they do not want to be prescriptive in terms
of what agencies include in their plans. We continue to believe that
agencies need additional guidance from OMB on the development and
content of their IRM plans because OMB Circular A-130 does not provide
overall guidance on the contents of agency IRM plans and half the
agencies indicated a need for OMB to provide additional guidance on the
development and content of IRM plans. Further, additional guidance
would help to ensure that agency plans address all elements of IRM, as
defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act. A strategic IRM plan that
communicates a clear and comprehensive vision for how the agency will
use information resources to improve agency performance is important
because IRM encompasses virtually all aspects of an agency's
information activities.
In commenting on a draft of the report, most of the agencies in our
review generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. The
agencies' specific comments are as follows:
* Agriculture's CIO stated that the department concurred with the
findings in this report and provided information on action it was
taking, or planned to take, to implement the recommendations.
Agriculture's written comments are reproduced in appendix II.
* The Secretary of Commerce concurred with the recommendations in this
report and stated that, in response, the department is updating its
policies and procedures. Commerce's written comments are reproduced in
appendix III.
* DOD's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Deputy CIO) stated that
the department concurred or partially concurred with the
recommendations in this report. DOD also provided additional
documentation and information on actions that it is taking, or planned
to take, to address these recommendations. We modified our report based
on these comments and documentation, as appropriate. DOD's written
comments, along with our responses, are reproduced in appendix IV.
* Education's Assistant Secretary for Management/CIO stated that the
agency generally agreed with our assessment of the department's use of
IT strategic planning/performance measurement and investment
management practices. Education provided additional comments and
documentation related to two of our practices. We modified our report
on the basis of these comments and documentation, as appropriate.
Education's written comments, along with our responses, are reproduced
in appendix V.
* Energy's Director of Architecture and Standards provided e-mail
comments stating that the department believes that GAO fairly depicted
where the department currently stands in the IT investment management
process. The director also provided other comments that were technical
in nature and that we addressed, as appropriate.
* EPA's Assistant Administrator/CIO generally agreed with our findings
and recommendations on the need to complete work currently under way to
formalize the documentation of IT management practices. However, EPA
questioned our characterization of the agency's IT management and
strategic planning and provided other comments, which we addressed, as
appropriate. EPA's written comments, along with our responses, are
reproduced in appendix VI.
* GSA's CIO stated that the agency generally agreed with the findings
and recommendations in the report. GSA provided suggested changes and
additional information and documentation related to nine of our
practices and two recommendations. We modified our report on the basis
of these comments and documentation, as appropriate. GSA's written
comments, along with our responses, are reproduced in appendix VII.
* HHS's Acting Principal Deputy Inspector General stated that the
department concurred with the findings and recommendations of the
report. HHS's written comments are reproduced in appendix VIII.
* HUD's Assistant Secretary for Administration/CIO stated that the
department was in agreement with the recommendations in this report.
HUD's written comments are reproduced in appendix IX.
* Interior's Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
Budget stated that the recommendations in our report would further
improve the department's IT investment management. Interior's written
comments are reproduced in appendix X.
* Justice's CIO stated that, overall, the department concurred with the
findings and recommendations in this report, noting that our
recommendations will assist in further defining IT strategic planning,
performance measurement, and investment management practices.
Justice's written comments, along with our response, are reproduced in
appendix XI.
* Labor's Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management/CIO
reported that the department generally concurred with this report and
provided suggested changes in two areas, which we addressed, as
appropriate. Labor's written comments, along with our responses, are
reproduced in appendix XII.
* NASA's Deputy Administrator reported that the agency generally
concurred with the recommendations in this report and provided
additional information on actions that it is taking, or planned to
take, to address these recommendations. NASA's written comments, along
with our response, are reproduced in appendix XIII.
* NSF's CIO provided e-mail comments disagreeing with three areas of
this report. First, NSF did not agree with our assessment of practice
1.1, stating that the agency has a comprehensive agency-level planning
framework that includes a suite of planning documents and internal and
external oversight activities that it believes addresses IT planning
requirements. However, our review of the planning documents cited by
NSF in its self-assessment found that it did not address the elements
of the practice. In particular, the agency did not describe the
responsibility and accountability for IT resources or the method that
it uses to define program information needs and how such needs will be
met. Moreover, in our exit conference with NSF officials, the CIO
indicated agreement with our assessment. Since NSF provided no
additional documentation, we did not modify the report. Second, the CIO
disagreed with our characterization of the agency's enterprisewide
investment management board. We modified the report to reflect the
CIO's comments; however, we did not change our overall assessment of
the role of the board because NSF's summary of its investment
management process and memo establishing the CIO advisory group include
only general statements related to the oversight of IT investments, and
NSF provided no additional documentation demonstrating that its
investment management board plays a role in the control and evaluation
phases. Third, the CIO stated that NSF has established processes,
management, and oversight controls over IT investments. However, NSF
provided limited documentation on the control phase of its investment
management process. In particular, NSF's summary of its investment
management process and memo establishing the CIO advisory group include
only general statements related to the oversight of IT investments, and
NSF provided no additional documentation demonstrating that its
investment management board plays a role in the control and evaluation
phases. Accordingly, we did not modify the report.
* NRC's Executive Director for Operations stated that this report
provides useful information and agreed that the practices are important
for ensuring effective use of government IT investments but had no
specific comments. NRC's written comments are reproduced in appendix
XIV.
* SBA's GAO liaison provided e-mail comments questioning the need to
have its enterprise investment management board have final decision-
making authority over IT investments. Our IT investment management
guidance states that enterprise-level IT investment boards be capable
of reviewing lower-level board actions and invoking final decision-
making authority over all IT investments.[Footnote 45] In particular,
if disputes or disagreements arise over decision-making jurisdiction
about a specific IT investment project, the enterprise board must be
able to resolve the issue. Accordingly, we did not modify the report.
SBA also provided technical comments that we incorporated, as
appropriate.
* SSA's Commissioner generally agreed with the recommendations in the
report and provided comments on each recommendation that we addressed,
as appropriate. SSA's written comments, along with our responses, are
reproduced in appendix XV.
* State's Assistant Secretary/Chief Financial Officer stated that the
findings in the report are consistent with discussions held with its IT
staff and provided additional information on four practices. On the
basis of this additional information, we modified our report, as
appropriate. State's written comments, along with our response, are
reproduced in appendix XVI.
* A program analyst in the Department of Transportation's Office of the
CIO provided oral comments that were technical in nature that we
addressed, as appropriate.
* The Acting Director, Budget and Administrative Management in
Treasury's Office of the CIO, provided oral comments stating that the
department concurred with our findings and recommendations. The
official further stated that the department recognized its shortcomings
and was working to correct them.
* USAID's Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Management, did not
address whether the agency agreed or disagreed with our overall
findings or recommendations but commented on our evaluation of two
practices, which we addressed, as appropriate. USAID's written
comments, along with our response, are reproduced in appendix XVII.
* The Secretary of VA stated that the department concurred with the
recommendations in the report and provided comments on actions that it
has taken, or planned to take, in response. We modified the report
based on these comments, as appropriate. VA's written comments, along
with our responses, are reproduced in appendix XVIII.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, the Air Force,
the Army, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human
Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the
Interior, Justice, Labor, the Navy, State, Transportation, the
Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the administrators of the Environmental
Protection Agency, General Services Administration, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Small Business Administration,
and U.S. Agency for International Development; the commissioners of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Social Security Administration;
and the directors of the National Science Foundation, Office of
Management and Budget, and Office of Personnel Management. We will also
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report
will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions on matters discussed in this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9286 or Linda J. Lambert, Assistant Director,
at (202) 512-9556. We can also be reached by e-mail at [Hyperlink,
pownerd@gao.gov] and [Hyperlink, lambertl@gao.gov], respectively.
Other contacts and key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix XIX.
Signed by:
David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Recommendations to Departments and Agencies:
Agriculture:
To improve the department's information technology (IT) strategic
planning/performance measurement processes, we recommend that the
Secretary of Agriculture take the following six actions:
* document the department's IT strategic management processes and how
they are integrated with other major departmental processes, such as
the budget and human resources management;
* include in the department's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by the Federal Information Security Management Act
(FISMA) and include a description of major IT acquisitions contained in
its capital asset plan that bear significantly on its performance
goals;
* implement a process for assigning roles and responsibilities for
achieving the department's IT goals;
* develop performance measures related to the effectiveness of controls
to prevent software piracy;
* track actual-versus-expected performance for the department's
enterprisewide IT performance measures in its information resources
management (IRM) plan; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the department's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture take the following four
actions:
* include a description of the relationship between the IT investment
management process and the department's enterprise architecture in its
IT capital planning and investment control guide and require that IT
investments be in compliance with the agency's enterprise architecture;
* document the alignment and coordination of responsibilities of the
department's various IT investment management boards for decision
making related to IT investments, including cross-cutting investments;
* establish a policy requiring that proposed IT investments support
work processes that have been simplified or redesigned to reduce costs
and improve effectiveness and that makes maximum use of commercial-off-
the-shelf (COTS) software; and:
* establish a policy requiring modularized IT investments.
Air Force:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Secretary of the Air Force
take the following two actions:
* establish a documented process for measuring progress against the
department's IT goals and assign roles and responsibilities for
achieving these goals; and:
* develop IT performance measures related to the IT goals in the
department's information strategy, including measures such as those
contained in practice 1.9 in our report, and track actual-versus-
expected performance.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of the Air Force take the following four
actions:
* include a description of the relationship between the IT investment
management process and the department's enterprise architecture, and an
identification of external and environmental factors in its portfolio
management guide;
* include costs, benefits, schedule, and risk elements as well as
measures such as net benefits, net risks, and risk-adjusted return-on-
investment in the department's project selection criteria;
* implement a scoring model and develop a prioritized list of IT
investments as part of its project selection process; and:
* document the role, responsibility, and authority of its IT investment
management boards, including work processes, alignment, and
coordination of decision making among its various boards, and document
processes for controlling and evaluating IT investments, such as those
outlined in practices 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, and 2.18.
Army:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Secretary of the Army take
the following action:
* complete the development of IT performance measures related to the
Army's enterprisewide IT goals, including measures such as those in
practice 1.9 in our report, and track actual-versus-expected
performance.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of the Army take the following four
actions:
* include a description of the relationship between the IT investment
management process and the department's enterprise architecture in the
department's IT capital planning and investment control guide;
* document the alignment and coordination of responsibilities of its
various IT investment management boards for decision making related to
IT investments;
* include costs, benefits, schedule, and risk elements as well as
measures such as net benefits, net risks, and risk-adjusted return-on-
investment in the department's project selection criteria; and:
* involve the department's IT investment management boards in
controlling and evaluating IT investments, including the development
and documentation of oversight processes such as those in practices
2.15, 2.16, 2.17, and 2.18.
Commerce:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce take
the following four actions:
* include in the department's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
* document its process of developing IT goals in support of agency
needs, measuring progress against these goals, and assigning roles and
responsibilities for achieving these goals;
* develop performance measures related to the department's IT goals in
its IRM plan, and track actual-versus-expected performance for these IT
performance measures; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the department's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of Commerce take the following eight
actions:
* document the alignment and coordination of responsibilities of the
department's various IT investment management boards for decision
making related to IT investments;
* establish a policy requiring that proposed IT investments support
work processes that have been simplified or redesigned to reduce costs
and improve effectiveness and that makes maximum use of COTS software;
* include net risks and risk-adjusted return-on-investment in the
department's project selection criteria;
* establish a policy requiring modularized IT investments;
* develop decision-making rules to help guide the investment management
board's oversight of IT investments during the control phase;
* require that reports of deviations in systems capability in a project
be submitted to the IT investment management board;
* develop an early warning mechanism that enables the investment
management board to take corrective action at the first sign of cost,
schedule, or performance slippages; and:
* require postimplementation reviews be completed and the results
reported to its investment management board.
Defense:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take
the following three actions:
* include in the department's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA, align its performance measures with the goals
in the plan, and include a description of major IT acquisitions
contained in its capital asset plan that bear significantly on its
performance goals;
* establish a documented process for measuring progress against the
department's IT goals;
* develop IT performance measures related to its IT goals, including,
for example, the measures contained in practice 1.9 in our report and
track actual-versus-expected performance.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following action:
* document, as part of its planned IT portfolio management process, how
this process relates to other departmental processes and the
department's enterprise architecture, and document the external and
environmental factors that influence the process.
Education:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Secretary of Education
take the following four actions:
* include in the department's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
* establish and document a process for measuring progress against the
department's IT goals in its IRM plan and for assigning roles and
responsibilities for achieving these goals;
* develop performance measures related to how IT contributes to program
productivity, the effectiveness and efficiency of agency operations,
and the effectiveness of controls to prevent software piracy; and:
* track actual-versus-expected performance for the department's
enterprisewide IT performance measures in its IRM plan.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of Education take the following five
actions:
* document the alignment and coordination of responsibilities of the
department's various IT investment management boards for decision
making related to IT investments;
* establish a policy requiring that proposed IT investments support
work processes that have been simplified or redesigned to reduce costs;
* include net risks and risk-adjusted return-on-investment in the
department's project selection criteria;
* develop a process to use independent verification and validation
reviews, when appropriate; and:
* track the resolution of corrective actions for under-performing
projects and report the results to the investment management board.
Energy:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Secretary of Energy take
the following six actions:
* document how its IT management operations and decisions are
integrated with human resources management;
* include in the department's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
* develop a goal related to how IT contributes to program productivity;
* develop performance measures related to how IT contributes to program
productivity and the effectiveness of controls to prevent software
piracy;
* develop and link performance measures to the department's
enterprisewide goals in its IRM plan and track actual-versus-expected
performance for these measures; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the department's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of Energy take the following four actions:
* include interfaces in its inventory of the agency's major information
systems, implement a standard, documented procedure to maintain this
inventory, and develop a mechanism to use the inventory as part of
managerial decision making;
* prioritize the department's IT proposals;
* establish a policy requiring modularized IT investments; and:
* document the role, responsibility, and authority of its IT investment
management boards, including work processes, alignment, and
coordination of decision making among its various boards, and document
the processes for controlling and evaluating IT investments, such as
those in practices 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, and 2.18.
Environmental Protection Agency:
To improve the agency's IT strategic planning/performance measurement
processes, we recommend that the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency take the following six actions:
* document the agency's IT strategic management processes and how they
are integrated with other major departmental processes, such as the
budget and human resources management;
* include in the agency's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
* develop a documented process to develop IT goals in support of agency
needs, measure progress against these goals, and assign roles and
responsibilities for achieving these goals;
* develop performance measures related to the effectiveness of controls
to prevent software piracy;
* track actual-versus-expected performance for the agency's measures
associated with the IT goals in its IRM plan; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the agency's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the agency's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
take the following three actions:
* include net risks, risk-adjusted return-on-investment, and
qualitative criteria in the agency's project selection criteria;
* establish a policy requiring modularized IT investments; and:
* fully implement an IT investment management control phase, including
the elements contained in practices 2.15, 2.16, and 2.17.
General Services Administration:
To improve the agency's IT strategic planning/performance measurement
processes, we recommend that the Administrator of the General Services
Administration take the following four actions:
* include in the agency's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
* develop performance measures related to the effectiveness of controls
to prevent software piracy;
* track actual-versus-expected performance for each of the agency's
measures associated with the IT goals in its IRM plan; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the agency's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the agency's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Administrator of the General Services Administration
take the following four actions:
* develop work processes and decision-making processes for the agency's
investment management boards;
* establish a policy requiring modularized IT investments;
* help guide the oversight of IT investments by developing clear
decision-making rules for its IT investment management board and by
requiring that IT projects report on deviations in system capability;
and:
* track the resolution of corrective actions for under-performing
projects and report the results to the investment management board.
Health and Human Services:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Secretary of Health and
Human Services take the following six actions:
* document the department's IT strategic management processes and how
they are integrated with its budget processes;
* include in the department's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA and include a description of major IT
acquisitions contained in its capital asset plan that bear
significantly on its performance goals;
* establish a documented process for measuring progress against the
department's IT goals;
* develop performance measures related to the effectiveness of controls
to prevent software piracy;
* track actual-versus-expected performance for its enterprisewide IT
performance measures in its IRM plan; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the department's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services take the
following 10 actions:
* revise the department's IT investment management policy to include
(1) how this process relates to other agency processes, (2) an
identification of external and environmental factors, (3) a description
of the relationship between the process and the department's enterprise
architecture, and (4) the use of independent verification and
validation reviews, when appropriate.
* develop procedures for the department's enterprisewide investment
management board to document and review IT investments;
* document the alignment and coordination of responsibilities of the
department's various IT investment management boards for decision
making related to IT investments;
* implement a standard, documented procedure to maintain the
department's inventory of major information systems and develop a
mechanism to use the inventory as part of managerial decision making;
* establish a policy requiring that proposed IT investments support
work processes that have been simplified or redesigned to reduce costs
and improve effectiveness;
* implement a structured IT selection process that includes processes
and criteria such as those in practices 2.12 and 2.13;
* develop decision-making rules to help guide the investment management
board's oversight of IT investments during the control phase;
* require the investment management board to review projects at major
milestones;
* track the resolution of corrective actions for under-performing
projects and report the results to the investment management board;
and:
* revise the department's investment management policy to require
postimplementation reviews to address validating benefits and costs,
and conduct such reviews.
Housing and Urban Development:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development take the following six actions:
* document the roles and responsibilities of the chief financial
officer and program managers in IT strategic planning and how the
department's IT management operations and decisions are integrated with
human resources management;
* include in the department's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
* develop a documented process to develop IT goals in support of agency
needs, measure progress against these goals, and assign roles and
responsibilities for achieving these goals;
* develop performance measures related to how IT contributes to program
productivity and the effectiveness of controls to prevent software
piracy;
* track actual-versus-expected performance for the department's
enterprisewide IT performance measures in its IRM plan; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the department's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development take the
following five actions:
* establish a policy requiring that proposed IT investments support
work processes that have been simplified or redesigned to reduce costs
and improve effectiveness and that makes maximum use of COTS software;
* include net risks and risk-adjusted return-on-investment in the
department's project selection criteria;
* establish a policy requiring modularized IT investments;
* require IT projects to report on deviations in system capability and
monitor IT projects at key milestones; and:
* develop a process to use independent verification and validation
reviews, when appropriate.
Interior:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior
take the following six actions:
* document the department's IT strategic management processes and how
they are integrated with other major departmental processes, including
organizational planning, budget, financial management, human resources
management, and program decisions;
* include in the department's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA and include a description of major IT
acquisitions contained in its capital asset plan that bear
significantly on its performance goals;
* develop a documented process to develop IT goals in support of agency
needs, measure progress against these goals, and assign roles and
responsibilities for achieving these goals;
* develop performance measures related to the effectiveness of controls
to prevent software piracy;
* track actual-versus-expected performance for the department's
enterprisewide IT performance measures in its IRM plan; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the department's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of the Interior take the following five
actions:
* establish a policy requiring that proposed IT investments support
work processes that have been simplified or redesigned to reduce costs
and improve effectiveness;
* include cost and schedule in the department's project selection
criteria and prioritize its IT proposals;
* establish a policy requiring modularized IT investments;
* require that corrective actions be undertaken, tracked, and reported
to the investment management board for under-performing projects; and:
* implement an evaluation process for IT investments that addresses the
elements of practice 2.18.
Justice:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Attorney General take the
following six actions:
* document the department's IT strategic management processes;
* document how the department's IT management operations and decisions
are integrated with human resources management processes;
* include in the department's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
* develop a documented process to develop IT goals in support of agency
needs, measure progress against these goals, and assign roles and
responsibilities for achieving these goals;
* develop performance measures related to the department's IT goals in
its IRM plan, and track actual-versus-expected performance for these IT
performance measures; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the department's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Attorney General take the following five actions:
* develop work processes and procedures for the department's investment
management boards, including aligning and coordinating IT investment
decision making among its various boards;
* establish a policy requiring that IT investments be in compliance
with the agency's enterprise architecture;
* include net risks and risk-adjusted return-on-investment in the
department's project selection criteria;
* implement a scoring model and develop a prioritized list of
investments as part of the department's project selection process; and:
* require that corrective actions be undertaken, tracked, and reported
to the investment management board for under-performing projects.
Labor:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take
the following five actions:
* include in the department's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
* develop a documented process to develop IT goals in support of agency
needs, measure progress against these goals, and assign roles and
responsibilities for achieving these goals;
* develop a goal related to how IT contributes to program productivity;
* develop performance measures related to how IT contributes to program
productivity, efficiency, and the effectiveness of controls to prevent
software piracy, and track actual-versus-expected performance; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the department's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of Labor take the following five actions:
* include a description of the relationship between the IT investment
management process and the department's enterprise architecture in the
department's IT capital planning and investment control guide;
* include net risks and risk-adjusted return-on-investment in its
project selection criteria;
* establish a policy requiring modularized IT investments;
* develop decision-making rules to help guide the investment management
board's oversight of IT investments during the control phase; and:
* develop an early warning mechanism that enables the investment
management board to take corrective action at the first sign of cost,
schedule, or performance slippages.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
To improve the agency's IT strategic planning/performance measurement
processes, we recommend that the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration take the following seven actions:
* document the agency's IT strategic management processes;
* document how the agency's IT management operations and decisions are
integrated with human resources management processes;
* include in the agency's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
* develop a documented process to develop IT goals in support of agency
needs, measure progress against these goals, and assign roles and
responsibilities for achieving these goals;
* develop performance measures related to the effectiveness of controls
to prevent software piracy;
* track actual-versus-expected performance for the agency's
enterprisewide IT performance measures in its IRM plan; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the agency's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the agency's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration take the following four actions:
* revise the agency's IT investment management policy and guidance to
describe the relationship of this process to the agency's enterprise
architecture;
* include interfaces in its inventory of the agency's major information
systems, implement a standard, documented procedure to maintain this
inventory, and develop a mechanism to use the inventory as part of
managerial decision making;
* within the agency's IT investment selection process, implement a
mechanism to identify possible conflicting, overlapping, strategically
unlinked, or redundant proposals; implement a scoring model; and
develop a prioritized list of investments; and:
* document the role, responsibility, and authority of its IT investment
management boards, including work processes, alignment, and
coordination of decision making among its various boards, and document
the processes for controlling and evaluating IT investments, such as
those in practices 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, and 2.18.
National Science Foundation:
To improve the agency's IT strategic planning/performance measurement
processes, we recommend that the Director of the National Science
Foundation take the following five actions:
* document the agency's IT strategic management processes;
* include in the agency's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
* implement a process for assigning roles and responsibilities for
achieving its IT goals;
* develop performance measures related to the effectiveness of controls
to prevent software piracy; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the agency's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the agency's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Director of the National Science Foundation take the
following four actions:
* develop an IT investment management guide that includes a description
of the relationship between the IT investment management process and
the agency's other organizational plans and processes and its
enterprise architecture, and identify external and environmental
factors that influence the process in the agency's IT capital planning
and investment control policy;
* implement a structured IT selection process that includes the
elements of practices 2.12 and 2.13;
* involve the department's IT investment management board in
controlling and evaluating IT investments, including the development
and documentation of oversight processes such as those in practices
2.15, 2.16, 2.17, and 2.18; and:
* define and document the elements of the agency's postimplementation
reviews.
Navy:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Secretary of the Navy take
the following three actions:
* develop a documented process to measure progress against the
department's enterprisewide IT goals and assign roles and
responsibilities for achieving these goals;
* develop an IT goal related to service delivery to the public; and:
* develop IT performance measures related to the department's IT goals,
including, at a minimum, measures contained in practice 1.9 in our
report, and track actual-versus-expected performance.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of the Navy take the following four
actions:
* include net risks and risk-adjusted return-on-investment in the
department's project selection criteria;
* implement a structured IT selection process that includes the
elements of practice 2.13;
* involve all elements of the department's IT investment management
board governance process in selecting, controlling, and evaluating IT
investments; and:
* document the role, responsibility, and authority of its IT investment
management boards, including work processes, alignment, and
coordination of decision making among its various boards, and document
the processes for controlling and evaluating IT investments, such as
those outlined in practices 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, and 2.18.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
To improve the agency's IT strategic planning/performance measurement
processes, we recommend that the Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission take the following five actions:
* document the agency's roles and responsibilities for its IT strategic
management processes and how IT planning is integrated with its budget
and human resources planning;
* include in the department's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
* develop a documented process to assign roles and responsibilities for
achieving its enterprisewide IT goals;
* develop performance measures related to the effectiveness of controls
to prevent software piracy; and:
* develop performance measures for the agency's enterprisewide goals in
its IRM plan, and track actual-versus-expected performance for these
measures.
To improve the agency's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
take the following five actions:
* include a description of the relationship between the IT investment
management process and the department's other organizational plans and
processes and its enterprise architecture, and identify external and
environmental factors that influence the process in the agency's IT
capital planning and investment control policy;
* develop work processes and procedures for the agency's investment
management boards;
* implement a standard, documented procedure to maintain its IT asset
inventory, and develop a mechanism to use the inventory as part of
managerial decision making;
* develop a structured IT investment management selection process that
includes project selection criteria, a scoring model, and
prioritization of proposed investments; and:
* document the role, responsibility, and authority of its IT investment
management boards, including work processes and control, and evaluate
processes that address the oversight of IT investments, such as what is
outlined in practices 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, and 2.18.
Office of Personnel Management:
To improve the agency's IT strategic planning/performance measurement
processes, we recommend that the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management take the following four actions:
* include in the agency's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
* develop performance measures related to the effectiveness of controls
to prevent software piracy;
* track actual-versus-expected performance for the agency's
enterprisewide IT performance measures in its IRM plan; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the agency's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the agency's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Director of the Office of Personnel Management take
the following four actions:
* develop work processes and procedures for the agency's investment
management board, including establishing criteria for defining major
systems and documenting a process for handling cross-functional
investments;
* implement a policy requiring that proposed IT investments support
work processes that have been simplified or redesigned to reduce costs
and improve effectiveness and that makes maximum use of COTS software;
* establish a policy requiring modularized IT investments; and:
* require that corrective actions be undertaken, tracked, and reported
to the investment management board for under-performing projects.
Small Business Administration:
To improve the agency's IT strategic planning/performance measurement
processes, we recommend that the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration take the following five actions:
* document the agency's IT strategic management processes;
* include in the agency's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
* develop a documented process to develop IT goals in support of agency
needs, measure progress against these goals, and assign roles and
responsibilities for achieving these goals;
* develop performance measures related to the agency's IT goals in its
IRM plan, including, at a minimum, measures related to how IT
contributes to program productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, the
overall performance of its IT programs, and the effectiveness of
controls to prevent software piracy, and track actual-versus-expected
performance for these IT performance measures; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the agency's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the agency's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Administrator of the Small Business Administration
take the following two actions:
* document a process that the investment management board can invoke
final decision-making authority over IT investments addressed by lower-
level boards; and:
* implement a policy requiring that proposed IT investments support
work processes that have been simplified or redesigned to reduce costs.
Social Security Administration:
To improve the agency's IT strategic planning/performance measurement
processes, we recommend that the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration take the following three actions:
* include in its annual performance plan the resources and time periods
required to implement the information security program plan required by
FISMA;
* develop performance measures related to the performance of the
agency's IT programs and the effectiveness of controls to prevent
software piracy; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the agency's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the agency's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
take the following four actions:
* develop work processes and procedures for the agency's investment
management board;
* establish a policy requiring modularized IT investments;
* document the role, responsibility, and authority of its IT investment
management board for the oversight of IT investments, such as what is
outlined in practices 2.15, 2.16, and 2.18; and:
* require that corrective actions be tracked and reported to the
investment management board for under-performing projects.
State:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Secretary of State take
the following two actions:
* include in the department's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the department's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of State take the following five actions:
* implement a policy requiring that proposed IT investments support
work processes that have been simplified or redesigned to reduce costs
and improve effectiveness and that makes maximum use of COTS software;
* establish a policy requiring modularized IT investments;
* include risk-adjusted return-on-investment in the department's
project selection criteria;
* revise the department's draft IT investment management policy to
include reviewing projects at major milestones; and:
* fully implement an IT investment management control phase, including
the elements contained in practices 2.16 and 2.17.
Transportation:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Secretary of
Transportation take the following five actions:
* document its IT strategic planning process;
* include in the department's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
* develop a goal related to how IT contributes to program productivity;
* develop performance measures related to the department's IT goals in
its IRM plan, and track actual-versus-expected performance for these IT
performance measures; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the department's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take the following six
actions:
* document the alignment and coordination of responsibilities of the
department's various IT investment management boards for decision
making related to IT investments;
* implement a policy requiring that proposed IT investments support
work processes that have been simplified or redesigned to reduce costs
and improve effectiveness and that makes maximum use of COTS software;
* prioritize the department's IT proposals;
* establish a policy requiring modularized IT investments;
* develop and document decision-making rules to help guide the
investment management board's oversight of IT investments during the
control phase; and:
* as part of the department's control phase, employ an early warning
mechanism, and use independent verification and validation reviews,
when appropriate.
Treasury:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Secretary of the Treasury
take the following four actions:
* include in the department's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
* develop performance measures related to the effectiveness of controls
to prevent software piracy;
* develop performance measures related to the department's IT goals in
its IRM plan, and track actual-versus-expected performance for these IT
performance measures; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the department's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of the Treasury take the following eight
actions:
* develop a capital planning and investment control guide that
includes, for example, the elements of practice 2.1;
* develop work processes and procedures for the agency's IT investment
management board, and document the alignment and coordination of
responsibilities of its various boards for decision making related to
investments, including the criteria for which investments--including
cross-cutting investments--will be reviewed by the enterprisewide
board;
* use the department's IT asset inventory as part of managerial
decision making, including using it to identify the potential for asset
duplication;
* establish a policy requiring that proposed IT investments support
work processes that have been simplified or redesigned to reduce costs
and improve effectiveness and that makes maximum use of COTS software;
* implement a structured IT selection process that includes the
elements of practices 2.12 and 2.13;
* establish a policy requiring modularized IT investments;
* implement an IT investment management process that includes a control
phase that addresses, for example, the elements of practices 2.15,
2.16, and 2.17; and:
* implement an IT investment management process that includes an
evaluation phase that addresses, for example, the elements of practice
2.18.
U.S. Agency for International Development:
To improve the agency's IT strategic planning/performance measurement
processes, we recommend that the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for
International Development take the following two actions:
* include in the agency's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA; and:
* develop a mechanism for benchmarking the agency's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
To improve the agency's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International
Development take the following nine actions:
* develop work processes and procedures for the agency's IT investment
management board;
* establish a policy requiring that IT investments be in compliance
with the agency's enterprise architecture;
* develop a policy requiring that proposed IT investments support work
processes that have been simplified or redesigned to reduce costs and
improve effectiveness and that makes maximum use of COTS software;
* include net risks, risk-adjusted return-on-investment, and
qualitative criteria in the agency's project selection criteria;
* within the agency's IT investment selection process, implement a
mechanism to identify possible conflicting, overlapping, strategically
unlinked, or redundant proposals;
* develop a policy requiring modularized IT investments;
* develop decision-making rules, review projects at major milestones,
and require projects to report on deviations in system capability to
help guide the oversight of IT investments by the agency's investment
management board during the control phase;
* as part of the agency's control phase, employ an early warning
mechanism, and use independent verification and validation reviews,
when appropriate; and:
* require that corrective actions be undertaken, tracked, and reported
to the investment management board for under-performing projects.
Veterans Affairs:
To improve the department's IT strategic planning/performance
measurement processes, we recommend that the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs take the following four actions:
* include in the department's annual performance plan the resources
required to implement the information security program plan required by
FISMA;
* develop a documented process to measure progress against the
department's IT goals, and assign roles and responsibilities for
achieving these goals;
* develop performance measures related to the effectiveness of controls
to prevent software piracy; and:
* track actual-versus-expected performance for the department's
enterprisewide IT performance measures in its IRM plan.
To improve the department's IT investment management processes, we
recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs take the following two
actions:
* document the alignment and coordination of responsibilities of the
department's various IT investment management boards for decision
making related to IT investments, including cross-cutting investments;
and:
* within the agency's IT investment selection process, implement a
mechanism to identify possible conflicting, overlapping, strategically
unlinked, or redundant proposals, and prioritize its IT investments.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
USDA:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Office of the Chief Information Officer:
1400 Independence Avenue SW:
Washington, DC 20250:
DEC 3 2003:
David A. Powner, Director:
Information Technology Management Issues:
General Accounting Office:
Dear Mr. Powner:
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reviewed draft
report number GAO-04-49 entitled "Information Technology Management -
Government-wide Strategic Planning, Performance Measurement, and
Investment Management Can Be Further Improved" and is in agreement with
the findings. USDA is fully committed to meeting the Federal
information technology challenges that are outlined in the report.
USDA is currently taking steps to implement the recommendations made in
the report. For example, we are in the process of updating our Capital
Planning and Investment Control guidance to reflect the improvements
suggested by the GAO. Additional measures are being put in place to 1)
improve the Department's IT strategic management/performance
measurement processes; and 2) improve the Department's information
technology (IT) investment management processes. We currently estimate
that the six strategic management/performance measurement
recommendations will be fully implemented by the end of fiscal year
2005 and the four investment management recommendations will be fully
implemented by the end of fiscal year 2004.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the
draft report. If additional information is needed, please contact Dr.
Gregory Parham of my staff on (202) 720-5865.
Sincerely,
Signed for:
Scott Charbo:
Chief Information Officer:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE:
Washington, D.C. 20230:
December 11, 2003:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the GAO draft report
"Information Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic Planning,
Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further
Improved." We appreciate the thoroughness of your review and believe
that our information technology strategic planning and capital
investment processes will benefit from your insights. We concur with
the report's recommendations, and are updating the documentation for
our relevant policies and procedures.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Donald L. Evans:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense (including
comments from the Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Defense's (DOD)
letter dated December 5, 2003.
GAO Comments:
1. DOD provided its annual report to the President and the Congress,
which included its fiscal year 2004 performance plan. Based on a review
of this plan, we modified our report.
2. We disagree that the cited objective fully addresses this issue.
Specifically, although this objective addresses e-government, the
wording of the objective, its description, and the discussion of
related initiatives do not explicitly address service delivery to the
public. Accordingly, we did not modify our report.
3. Our review of the acquisition management process documentation
provided by the Navy did not support that the department's selection
criteria include net risks and risk-adjusted return-on-investment.
Accordingly, we did not modify our report.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT:
ASSISTANT SECRETARY:
December 10, 2003:
To: David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
From: William Leidinger:
Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Information Officer:
Signed by: William Leidinger:
Re: Draft Report: Information Technology Management:
Government Strategic Planning, Performance Measurement, and Investment
Management Can Be Further Improved:
We thank you for the opportunity to review the Information Technology
Management Report. In general, we agree with your assessment of our
implementation of the various strategic planning and performance
measurement practices as well as our investment management practices.
We have taken the position that IRM planning is subsumed in the
Department's Strategic and Annual Plans (Goal 6.3), and occurs in the
development and maintenance of the enterprise architecture. Our
architecture is business driven and our IT investments are aligned with
the architecture. We believe this approach meets the intent of both the
Paperwork Reduction Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act.
You specifically recommended that we develop measures related to how IT
contributes to program productivity and the effectiveness and
efficiency of agency operations. Currently, we require all of our major
and significant IT investments to collect and track against business
process performance measures, IT performance measures, and customer-
based performance measures. We assess progress that is reviewed by the
Department's senior management quarterly. We believe that this approach
satisfies the requirement that we develop the measure you stipulate.
Finally, specifically regarding IT Management practices 2.5 and 2.6 on
pages 46 and 47, the Department does have a repeatable process for
developing and maintaining an inventory of its major information
systems. The Department has documented this procedure in Handbook OCIO-
09, Handbook for Information Technology Security General Support
Systems and Major Applications Inventory Procedures. This process is
formally completed twice a year and includes documented Critical
Infrastructure Protection questionnaires and Systems Inventory forms to
support the contents of the Department's IT systems inventory.
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Education's
letter dated December 10, 2003.
GAO Comments:
1. We agree that Education requires IT investments to have performance
measures. However, our practice dealt with enterprise-level measures,
such as those found in the department's IRM plan, not project-specific
measures. Education reported that the performance measures in its IRM
plan do not measure how IT contributes to program productivity and the
efficiency and effectiveness of agency operations. Accordingly, we did
not modify our report.
2. We modified our assessment of practice 2.6 in this report and
deleted the related recommendation based on our evaluation of
additional documentation provided by Education.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460:
DEC 9 2003:
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION:
Mr. David Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO) draft Report to Congressional Requesters "Information
Technology Management: Government-wide Strategic Planning, Performance
Measurement, and Investment Management Can be Further Improved" (GAO-
04-49). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pleased to
note that the reviewers acknowledge that the Agency has established and
employs best-practices for IT management for the majority of key
dimensions of the report. We accept the reviewers' findings and
recommendations that in some cases the Agency does need to complete
work currently underway to formalize the documentation of those
practices. We expect to promulgate a final version of new Agency-wide
official procedures in the near future.
At the same time, EPA believes that the report does not adequately
reflect both key dimensions of EPA's IT management and strategic
planning, and current best-practices in general. The draft report
includes reference to the importance of enterprise architectures
("Constructing and enforcing sound enterprise architectures," p. 13).
However, the sections regarding IRM strategic planning do not reflect
how EPA's Enterprise Architecture (EA) constitutes the multi year,
business driven, enterprise-wide comprehensive IRM strategic plan. The
EA should, and for EPA does, derive first from strategic, line of
business, performance and outcome-based needs. Those needs tie to the
comprehensive range of IT assets (applications, data, services,
hardware, software, security) from a strategic perspective (the multi
year target), leading to the business-based priorities to move toward
those goals (baseline and sequencing plans).
As Chief Information Officer, I govern EPA's EA and the IT Capital
Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) process to implement the
architecture. This occurs through a formal integrated process in
partnership with Agency senior executives, including the Chief
Financial Officer. EPA requests that the reviewers reassess this
dimension of their findings to acknowledge how EPA fulfills strategic
planning mandates via our implementation of enterprise architecture and
IT investment management practices. This also affects the
recommendations regarding tracking actual-versus-expected performance
as well as including net risks in project selection criteria and
modularized IT investments which are all part of our EA and CPIC
practice.
In addition, for Practice 1.7 ("The agency has a documented process to:
develop IT goals in support of agency needs, measure progress against
these goals, and assign roles and responsibilities for achieving these
goals," p. 32) the reviewers state EPA "does not have this practice in
place." As noted above, EPA has a very rigorous process to accomplish
this through the integration of our EA and CPIC processes. The finding
should be corrected to include EPA in the "partially" category to
acknowledge we do have the practice in place and are working on
documentation.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to this important
report. EPA is proud of the successful implementation of many of the
best practices in IT investment and infrastructure. If you have any
questions relating to this information, please contact Steve Tiber,
EPA-GAO Liaison, at 202-564-5184.
Sincerely,
Kimberly T. Nelson:
Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer:
Signed by: Kimberly T. Nelson:
cc: Ramona Trovato;
Michael W.S. Ryan;
Mark Day;
Maggie Mitchell:
The following are GAO's comments on the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) letter dated December 9, 2003.
GAO Comments:
1. As we reported and EPA acknowledged, its documentation on IT
strategic planning and investment management was not complete or
finalized. For example, the partial rating we gave EPA for its IT
management and strategic planning practices--practices 1.1 and 1.2--
matched the agency's own self-assessment in these areas. Specifically,
our review of planning documents cited by EPA in its self-assessment
found that while the agency had documented agencywide roles and
responsibilities for planning and managing IT resources and had
documented its process to integrate the IT investment management
process with the budget, EPA had not addressed other key elements of
the practices. As an example, EPA had not fully documented the method
by which it defines program information needs and develops strategies,
systems, and capabilities to meet those needs. Since EPA provided no
additional documentation, our practice assessment and our related
recommendations remain unchanged.
2. As stated in our report, practice 1.7 refers to the documentation of
the process used to develop IT goals and measures and the
responsibility for achieving them. As EPA states in its comments, it is
currently working on documenting this process. Accordingly, we did not
modify our report.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the General Services Administration:
GSA:
GSA Office of the Chief Information Officer:
December 9, 2003:
The Honorable David M. Walker:
Comptroller General of the United States:
General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Walker:
This is to provide comments on the General Accounting Office (GAO)
findings and recommendations included in the Governmentwide Strategic
Planning, Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Practices
draft report. We generally agree with the findings and recommendations
and are pleased that General Services Administration (GSA) was
identified as fully meeting 21 of the 29 practice areas included in the
report. There were eight (8) areas identified as GSA partially meeting
and one (1) as GSA not meeting. We are concentrating our comments on
the areas identified as partially or not meeting where we feel
additional information or clarification needs to be provided to GAO.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft report. Should you
require additional information, please contact Ms. L. Diane Savoy,
Director, Office of Policy and Plans, at (202) 501-3535.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Michael W. Carleton:
Chief Information Officer:
Enclosures:
GAO GOVERNMENTWIDE STRATEGIC PLANNING, PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT, AND
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT REVIEW:
Table 1: IT Strategic Planning/Performance Measurement Practices:
Practice 1.4: The agency has a process that involves the CFO or
comparable official, to develop and maintain a full and accurate
accounting of IT-related expenditures, expenses, and results.
GAO Assessment: Partially - GSA has reported that not all costs may
have been captured.
GSA OCIO Response:
To the best of our knowledge, all IT costs are captured in the GSA IT
Capital Plan and submitted with the agency budget annually. We have
been and continue to be very diligent about ensuring that all IT
investments, agency-wide, are identified and captured in our IT Capital
Plan.
Practice 1.5: The agency prepares an enterprisewide strategic
information resources management (IRM) plan that, at a minimum:
* describes how IT activities will be used to help accomplish agency
missions and operations, including related resources;
* identifies major IT acquisition program(s) or any phase or increment
of that program that has significantly deviated from the cost,
performance, or schedule goals established for the program.
GAO Assessment: Partially-GSA ... IRM plan(s) do not include resources
and major IT acquisition programs that deviated from cost, schedule, or
performance goals.
GSA OCIO Response:
The GSA IT Strategic Plan is a strategic document that sets the
direction and focus of the GSA's IT program over a five-year period. It
is not considered the appropriate place nor is it intended to track
deviations from planned cost, performance or schedule goals. This
information is tracked as part of the Control Phase of our IT Capital
Planning and Investment Control process. GSA has provided GAO with
significant documentation from our Project Summary Control database
that currently tracks major investment deviations from planned cost,
performance or schedule goals on a monthly basis. In addition, the
project managers track these same items closely as they manage their
investments day-to-day.
We request that GAO reconsider this statement and modify it to at least
acknowledge the processes that GSA has in place to monitor the planned
and actual cost, performance and schedule. In support of this, we are
attaching copies of additional monitoring documents that are utilized
and that identify deviations cost, schedule or performance.
(Attachments 1 and 2):
Practice 1.6: The agency's performance plan required by GPR includes:
* A description of how IT supports strategic and program goals:
* The resources and time periods required to implement the information
security program plan required by the Federal Information Security
Management Act (FISMA), and:
* A description of major IT acquisitions contained in the capital asset
plan that will bear significantly on the achievement of a performance
goal.
GAO Assessment: Partially-No agency's performance plan, except VA's,
includes time periods, and none includes resources required to
implement the information security program plan required by FISMA.
GSA OCIO Response:
This will be reviewed by, coordinated with the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer and the Senior Agency Information Security Official,
and corrected appropriately. We note however, that GSA has developed
and update quarterly to OMB, as required, the FISMA security report and
Plan of Actions and Milestones (POA&M) which includes specifics and
details regarding the resources and time periods to accomplish
necessary corrective actions.
Practice 1.9: The agency has established IT performance measures and
monitors actual-Versus-expected performance that at least addresses:
* How IT contributes to program productivity,
* How IT contributes to the efficiency of agency operations,
* How IT contributes to the effectiveness of agency operations,
* Service delivery to the public (if applicable,
* How electronic government initiatives enable progress toward agency
goals and statutory mandates,
* The performance of IT programs (e.g., system development and
acquisition projects), and:
* Agency compliance with federal software piracy policy.
GAO Assessment: Partially-GSA does not have measures for one of its IT
goals and did not have performance measures on service delivery to the
public.
GSA OCIO Response:
GSA has performance measures that map to each of the IT goals. We have
attached a revised copy of the GSA Goals to Performance Measures
Mapping document that was submitted earlier. (Attachment 3):
Please note that GSA's mission is to "help Federal agencies better
serve the public by offering, at best value, superior workplaces,
expert solutions, acquisition services and management policies." As
clearly defined in our mission statement, GSA's primary role is in
support of other Federal agencies. We have a lesser role in providing
information to citizens through our Office of Citizen Services and
Communications that was established on June 30, 2002. This Office has
the following performance goals that are related providing service to
citizens:
1. Increase access to government for all audiences through the use of
web sites, call centers, e-mail, publications, and all forms of media.
2. Develop single government fact to citizens to enable the Federal
government to become more citizen centric by presenting a "front door"
for citizens who need timely, accurate, consist responses about
government programs.
The attached a revised copy of the GSA Goals to Performance Measures
Mapping includes the specific performance measures to accomplish these
goals. In further support of this, we have also attached copies of the
performance information and results from the GSA Performance
Measurement Tool for these goals. (Attachment 4):
Practice 1.12: The agency requires that its IT management process be
benchmarked against appropriate processes and/or organizations from the
public and private sectors in terms of cost, speed, productivity, and
quality of outputs and outcomes where comparable process and
organizations in the public or private sectors exist.
GAO Assessment: Partially - . . . GSA ... provided an example of a
process that they have benchmarked, but benchmarking if being performed
on an ad hoc basis.
GSA OCIO Response:
GSA has identified the need for and used benchmarking when it has been
determined that comparable process and organizations in the public or
private sector exist and that it will provide additional value in
management decision-making. GSA recognizes the benefits of benchmarking
and will continue to utilize it, as appropriate.
Table 2: IT Investment Management Practices:
Practice 2.3: The agencywide board(s) work processes and decision-
making processes are described and documented.
GAO Assessment: Partially - GSA did not have policies and procedures
for each of its IT investment management boards.
GSA OCIO Response:
GSA was advised by GAO that because the pending Business Systems
Council (BSC) charter, for the executive tier of our process is in
draft that we would be rated "partially" on this practice. We are still
planning to have the BSC Charter finalized in place before the end of
the year. Charters exist for all other tiers of our investment
management boards, and overall policies exist in the GSA IT Capital
Planning and Investment Control policy and Guide. Copies of these
documents were provided to GAO earlier.
Practice 2.14: Agency policy calls for investments to be "modularized"
(e.g., managed and procured in well-defined useful segments or
"modules" that are short in duration and small in scope) to the maximum
extent achievable.
GAO Assessment: No-_ GSA ... do not have this practice in place.
GSA OCIO Response:
In earlier versions of the GSA IT Capital Planning and Investment
Control Guide, that GAO was provided, included this requirement. This
requierment was inadvertently not included in the August 2002 version
of the Guide, which was reviewed by GAO. The GSA Capital Planning and
IT Investment Guide will be updated and will include modularization.
Practice 2.15: The agency wide investment management board(s) has
written policies and procedures for management oversight of IT projects
that cover at a minimum:
* decision-making rules for project oversight that allow for the
termination of projects, when appropriate;
* current project data, including expected and actual cost, schedule,
and performance data, to be provided to senior management periodically
and at a major milestones;
* criteria or thresholds related to deviations in cost, schedule, or
system capability actual vs. expected project performance; and:
* the generation of an action plans to address a project's problem(s)
and track resolution.
GAO Assessment: Partially - GSA does not have clear decision-making
rules, require projects to report on deviations in system capability,
or require that corrective actions be tracked to resolution.
GSA OCIO Response:
The GSA IT Capital Planning and Investment Control Guide identifies the
requirements for reporting on major investments in the Control Phase of
the IT Capital Planning and Investment Control process. The reporting
is accomplished through the Summary Project Control database. Samples
of reports from this database have been provided to GAO and provide
additional samples are included in Attachments 1 and 2.
The GSA IT Capital Planning and Investment Control guide requires the
Information Technology Resources Boards (ITRBs) and the Technical
Review Boards (TRBs), managed by sub-agency CIO's with the
participation of the agency CIO, to closely monitor investments, and to
develop and monitor correction actions when deviations occur. While
this is a decentralized approach, it is fully integrated into our
enterprise-wide process. In the upcoming revision of our IT Capital
Planning and Investment Control Guide, we will add more details to
further clarify this process.
Practice 2.17: Corrective actions for under performing projects are
agreed upon, documented, and tracked by the agencywide investment
management board(s).
GAO Assessment. Partially - GSA ... do not systematically track
corrective actions.
GSA OCIO Response:
GSA Response: As stated in reference to 2.15 above, the GSA IT Capital
Planning and Investment Control guide requires the Information
Technology Resources Boards (ITRBs) and the Technical Review Boards
(TRBs), managed by sub-agency CIO's with the participation of the
agency CIO, to closely monitor investments, and to develop and monitor
corrective actions when deviations occur.
Appendix I, Recommendations to Department and Agencies:
General Services Administration:
GAO Recommendation: To improve the agency's IT strategic management/
performance measurement processes, we recommend that the Administrator
or the General Services Administration:
* develop performance measures for each of its IT goals in its ITM plan
as well as measures related to how IT contributes to service delivery
to the public and the effectiveness of controls to prevent software
piracy:
GSA Response:
As noted in our response to Practice 1.9 and documented in attachment
3, GSA does have performance measures for each IT goal in the IT
Strategic Plan. In addition, the response to Practice 1.9 also
identified measures in place to address how IT contributes to service
delivery to the public.
We have also attached a copy of the GSA Order, 2104.1, GSA IT General
Rules of Behavior, dated July 3, 2003 that outlines the GSA policy and
requirements designed to prevent software piracy (Attachment 5). The
specifics are included in Section 10. Software acceptable use. In
addition, Section 6. Penalties for non-compliance stated "users who do
not comply with the IT General Rules of Behavior may incur disciplinary
action and/or criminal prosecution.":
The GAO stated recommendation should be removed from the report.
GAO Recommendation: To improve the agency's IT investment management
processes, we recommend that the Administrator or the General Services
Administration:
* require corrective actions be undertaken, tracked, and reported to
the investment management board for underperforming projects.
GSA Response:
As stated in our response to Practice 2.15 and 2.17, the GSA IT Capital
Planning and Investment Control Guide does require corrective actions
to be undertaken, tracked, and reported to the investment management
board for underperforming projects. Specifically, the Guide, in Section
8, The IT Capital Planning and Investment Control process, (b) Control
Phase, (1). Reporting, includes the following excerpts with critical
parts highlighted in bold to draw your attention to these sections:
The SSO CIOs will submit monthly stop light reports on all major IT
projects that are ongoing developments, acquisitions, or enhancements.
The OCIO will use these stop light reports to monitor projects through
their life cycle. In addition to alerting the CIO of projects that vary
significantly from planned cost, schedule and performance estimates,
stop light reports will allow intermittent updates of baseline
information on the agency's overall IT investments.
For any reports which indicate a yellow or red light, SSOs must submit
an update that indicates the change in status and the actions that are
being accomplished to address conditions underlying the yellow or red
light. Reports with red light changes must provide get-well plans. The
SSO CIO's will synthesize project status data and submit summary
control reports to the ITC and Executive Committee, as necessary.
Variances in project schedule or cost goals of 10 percent or more must
be reported to the ITC. Any variance or slippage in actual performance
from established goals must be included in monthly stoplight reports to
the CIO.
In addition, projects which, based upon monthly reports or other
indicators, consistently fail to meet requirements may be, in
consultation with the SSO CIO, subject to a special independent review
by an Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) contractor or
Governmentwide ITRB. The results of the review may be presented to the
ITC and/or Executive Committee, as appropriate. When a TRB, ITRB, IV&V
or Governmentwide ITRB finds a project has significant deviation from
planned performance, cost and schedule, it may result in the project
being modified or terminated.
The GSA IT Capital Planning and Investment Control Guide, section (d)
Executive and technical oversight, includes the following:
(1). Executive Committee. The Executive Committee approves the IT
Strategy and IT Capital Plan and acts on projects that significantly
deviate from investment controls. (NOTE; This Committee is being
replaced by the Business Systems Council being established):
The Executive Committee makes the decision for final approval of the
investment portfolio and decisions on systems that have significant
deviations from planned performance, cost and schedule.
The GAO stated recommendation should be removed from the report.
The following are GAO's comments on the General Services
Administration's (GSA) letter dated December 9, 2003.
GAO Comments:
1. We based our evaluation on the agency's self-assessment and comments
made by GSA's Director, Office of Policy and Plans. However, based on
GSA's representation in commenting on our draft, we changed our
evaluation of the referenced practice.
2. The Clinger-Cohen Act requires agencies to include in its
information resources management (IRM) plan the identification of a
major IT acquisition program(s), or any phase or increment of that
program, that significantly deviated from cost, performance, or
schedule goals established by the program. As we acknowledge in this
report, agencies, which would include GSA, identified other mechanisms
that they use to track and report cost, schedule, and performance
deviations. Moreover, we evaluated agencies as a "partially" instead of
a "no" in this practice to take into account that the agency had the
required information, although it was not in the prescribed format.
Accordingly, we did not modify our report.
3. The Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 requires
agencies to include in the performance plans required by the Government
Performance and Results Act the resources and time periods to implement
their information security program. As we noted in this report,
agencies, which would include GSA, commonly stated that they had this
information but that it was in another document. Nevertheless, this
does not negate the need for having the agency report to the Congress
in the form that it requires. This is particularly important since
performance plans are public documents. Accordingly, we did not modify
our report.
4. GSA's new documentation illustrates that it has performance measures
for each of the IT goals in its IRM plan. However, GSA did not provide
evidence that it was tracking actual versus expected performance for
measures associated with one of its goals. We revised our report to
reflect GSA's new documentation and our evaluation.
5. We revised our report on the basis of this new documentation.
6. GSA's highest-level IT investment management board is its Executive
Committee. GSA did not provide a charter or any other evidence of
policies and procedures for this committee. We therefore did not modify
our report.
7. The additional documentation provided by GSA (1) does not address
decision-making rules and (2) illustrates that GSA uses a monthly
project control report on cost, schedule, and performance status, but
the report does not explicitly address deviations in system capability.
In addition, according to GSA's capital planning and investment control
order, the format of the report is left to the applicable organization,
thereby making it less likely that the investment management boards are
obtaining consistent information. We therefore did not modify our
report.
8. We agree that GSA's capital planning and investment control order
requires that projects that have significant variances are to provide
"get well" plans and that monthly control reports are used to report on
project cost, schedule, and performance status. However, it is not
clear that these status reports can be used to systemically track
corrective actions. Moreover, according to GSA's capital planning and
investment control order, the format of the monthly control report is
left to the applicable organization, thereby making it less likely that
the status of corrective actions is being consistently reported. We
therefore did not modify our report.
9. See comment 8.
10. We modified our recommendations based on our evaluation of GSA's
documentation. See comment 4 for our assessment.
11. Executive Order 13103 requires agencies to use software piracy
performance measures that comply with guidance issued by the federal
CIO Council.[Footnote 46] The Council, in turn, called on the agencies
to develop such measures. The additional documentation that GSA
provided was an order requiring agency employees to use properly
licensed software, but it does not include performance measures that
would demonstrate that this requirement is being honored. Measuring how
well agencies are combating software piracy is important because it can
verify that the controls that they have put in place are working.
Accordingly, we did not change this part of the recommendation.
12. We modified our recommendation to reflect that GSA requires
projects that have significant variances to develop corrective action
plans. However, the other elements of the recommendation pertaining to
the tracking and reporting on corrective actions remain outstanding.
See comment 8 for additional information.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES:
Office of Inspector General:
Washington, D.C. 20201:
DEC 15 2003:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Enclosed are the Department's comments on your draft report entitled,
"Information Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic Planning,
Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further:
Improved." The comments represent the tentative position of the:
Department and are subject to reevaluation when the final version of:
this report is received.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft:
report before its publication.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Dara Corrigan:
Acting Principal Deputy Inspector General:
Enclosure:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's
designated focal point and coordinator for General Accounting Office
reports. OIG has not conducted an independent assessment of these
comments and therefore expresses no opinion on them.
Comments of the Department of Health and Human Services on the General
Accounting Office's Draft Report, "Information Technology Management:
Governmentwide Strategic Planning, Performance Measurement, and
Investment Management Can Be Further Improved" (GAO-04-49):
The Department of Health and Human Services (Department) appreciates
the opportunity to comment on this draft report. The Department concurs
with the findings and recommendations contained in the report.
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT:
WASHINGTON, DC 20410-3000:
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION/CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER:
DEC 15 2003:
Ms. Linda Lambert:
Assistant Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Lambert:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the GAO's draft report on
"Information Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic Planning,
Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can be Further
Improved (GAO-04-49)." The report contains six recommendations to
improve HUD's information technology (IT) strategic management/
performance measurement processes and five recommendations to improve
the investment management processes.
We are in agreement with all the recommendations in the report. We are
pleased that of the 29 applicable practices GAO examined at HUD, 17 are
in place and 8 are partially implemented. In the coming months, we will
focus on implementing the four practices that are not in place and
strengthening those processes where further improvements can be made.
The information in the report will help form a baseline against which
we will measure our continuing improvement efforts.
Should you or your staff have any questions or require additional
information, please contact Mary P. Barry, Acting Director, Office of
Management and Planning, at (202) 708-1027, extension 123.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Vickers B. Meadows:
Assistant Secretary for Administration/Chief Information Officer:
cc:
David Powner:
[End of section]
Appendix X: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY:
POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET:
Washington, DC 20240:
David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
United States General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
The Department of the Interior reviewed the Draft GAO Report entitled,
"Information Technology Management: "Governmentwide Strategic
Planning, Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be
Further Improved" (GAO-04-49). This report follows closely upon the
completion of the GAO Report on information technology investment
management (ITIM) in Interior entitled "Information Technology:
Departmental Leadership Crucial to Success of Investment Reforms at
Interior" (GAO-03-1028), in which GAO commended Interior for the
progress made to date in ITIM and provided recommendations for further
improvement. In response to this report, Interior committed to develop
a comprehensive plan to implement departmentwide improvements to the
ITIM process based on the Stage 2 and Stage 3 critical processes of
GAO's ITIM framework, and strengthen departmental oversight of bureau
investment management processes.
The draft report (GAO-04-49), which covers several agencies,
acknowledges that Interior's progress in improving information
technology investment management (ITIM) has been evident and is
ongoing. The report also provides very useful comparisons to ITIM
progress in other agencies. In order to capitalize on the successes at
other agencies, it would perhaps be more helpful to provide more
examples for emulation in areas where agencies are successful. Interior
acknowledges the assistance provided by the GAO auditors during the
review process in highlighting a few examples of successes in areas
where Interior needs greater improvement. Further examples of successes
would provide the information needed to benchmark, as recommended in
the draft report.
Interior is committed to continue to move forward aggressively to
execute key practices for ITIM considering competing priorities for
this and other initiatives. The Department of the Interior agrees the
recommendations in this report would further improve ITIM at Interior,
and have plans in place to incorporate many of the suggestions noted.
However, some of the recommendations go beyond what Interior could
reasonably accomplish within current and projected budgets for
information technology. Interior remains committed to address the
recommendations of the final report GAO-03-1028.
For additional information, please contact Mr. W. Hord Tipton, at 202
208 6194.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Lynn Scarlett:
Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget:
[End of section]
Appendix XI: Comments from the Department of Justice:
U.S. Department of Justice:
Washington, D.C. 20530:
DEC 2 2003:
David A. Powner, Director:
Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G St., N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
I would like to thank you for affording the Department of Justice
(Department) the opportunity to respond to the General Accounting
Office (GAO) report entitled "Governmentwide Strategic Planning,
Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further
Improved.":
The Attorney General appointed me Chief Information Officer for the
Department in April 2002. In July 2002,1 re-issued the Information
Technology (IT) Strategic Plan conveying a fundamental reorientation of
the role of IT in the Department of Justice. In May 2003, I received
congressional approval to reorganize my office and realign staff to
operate more effectively to carry out the management goals identified
in the IT Strategic Plan. During the past 12 months, I have initiated
the following specific initiatives in these areas in order to achieve
measurable progress in IT management within the Department:
* Initiated an outside assessment of IT investment management with
recommendations to improve the Department's investment management
processes;
* Completed a pilot project to test and assess new processes to manage
IT investments in the Select Phase resulting in a portfolio-centered
analysis of candidate investments and recommendations for consolidated
business cases as part of the Department's Fiscal Year 2005 budget
formulation process;
* Implemented an ongoing pilot project to test, assess, and phase in
new processes to manage IT investments in the Control Phase, including
the use of an IT Investment Board, which will enable departmental
senior executives to actively set direction and monitor high priority,
high risk and department wide IT investments;
* Initiated a web-based "Project Dashboard" to collect current data on
cost, schedule, and performance for major projects across the
Department;
* Consolidated business cases for enterprise architecture and IT
infrastructure - two areas critical for achieving my strategic
objectives;
* Developed of a project oversight process in collaboration with the
FBI to oversee major IT investments.
I am currently institutionalizing and documenting those key management
processes listed above to strengthen strategic planning, performance
measurement, and IT investment across the Department. The
recommendations of your report will assist me in further defining those
management practices.
Overall, I concur with the findings and recommendations in your report;
however, I want to modify one recommendation to ensure it is an
actionable item that reflects the future direction of our oversight
reporting requirements. That recommendation relates to Practice 1.6 -
"The agency's performance plan required by GPRA [Government Performance
and Results Act] includes the resources and time periods required to
implement the information security program plan required by FISMA
[Federal Information Systems Management Act].":
The Department's self-assessment and the GAO review results are in
agreement on the Partial rating for this assessment. As discussed in
the Exit Conference, the Department lays out the full FISMA program,
including major milestones and required resources, in the annual
Security Report and the Plan of Actions and Milestones Report submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), GAO, and Congress but
includes only selected performance measures in the GPRA Plan. However,
the OMB will replace the annual GPRA performance plan with performance
budgeting in FY 2005.
In light of this change, the following modification in language is
requested:
Include the resources and time periods required to implement the
information security program plan required by FISMA in reporting
document(s) as directed by OMB guidance.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report. If you need
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Vance E. Hitch:
Chief Information Officer:
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Justice's letter
dated December 2, 2003.
GAO Comments:
1. GAO has ongoing work looking at OMB's initiative. However, the
Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 requires agencies
to include in the performance plans required by the Government
Performance and Results Act the resources and time periods to implement
its information security program. Accordingly, we did not change the
recommendation.
[End of section]
Appendix XII: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management:
Washington, D.C. 20210:
DEC - 2 2003:
Mr. David Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues U.S. General
Accounting Office:
441 G. Street, NW Washington, D.C. 29548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
The enclosed comments are in reference to GAO's draft report entitled
Information Technology Management: Government-wide Strategic Planning,
Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further
Improved (GAO 04-49). As you know, the objectives of this study were to
determine the extent to which major government agencies have in place
practices associated with key legislative and other requirements for
(1) IT strategic planning/performance measurement and (2) IT investment
management.
The Department concurs with GAO's finding and is proposing two changes,
found on the enclosed document.
If you have any questions about these comments or this matter in
general, please contact Thomas Wiesner, Deputy CIO, at
wiesner.thomas@dol.gov or (202) 693-4200.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Patrick Pizzella:
Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, Chief
Information Officer:
Enclosure:
DOL Response to GAO-04-49 IT Management Practices Recommendations to
Departments and Agencies:
1) p. 25. "For example, the Department of Labor's... does not address
all required goals.":
Recommended change: After this sentence, insert new sentence reading:
"However, this single IT goal is supported by a number of IT
indicators, which are specific, measurable and tied to Labor's mission
- and address the Clinger-Cohen and PRA requirements. The CIO is
assigned responsibility for achieving the goal, with component agencies
responsible for carrying out the indicators appropriate to their
mission.":
2) p. 71, second bullet under Labor's recommendations, which begins
"develop a documented process...":
Recommended change: remove this bullet entirely for the following
reasons:
As required by the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), the
Department of Labor (DOL) prepares an annual performance plan covering
each program activity set forth in the DOL annual budget, including
information technology. This plan is built upon strategic goals
established by the Department and are directly related to the
Department's mission. In addition, performance indicators are
established to measure outcomes. These indicators are tracked and
reported quarterly through the GPRA process.
DOL's IT strategic goal, "to provide better and more secure service to
citizens, businesses, government and Labor employees to improve mission
performance" contain a number of IT indicators, which support this
goal. The indicators are specific, measurable goals that support the
strategic goal and are reported in GPRA on an annual basis.
In accordance with the Clinger-Cohen Act and DOL Secretary's Order 3-
2003, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is responsible for
establishing, monitoring and evaluating Departmental IT goals to
improve efficiencies, contain costs, streamline business processes,
provide better access to Government information and services, and
promote a secure environment. In addition, consistent with their
statutory responsibilities and other applicable Secretary's Orders and
guidelines, all DOL Agency Heads are assigned responsibility to
implement Department-wide IT initiatives approved by the Department's
Management Review Board (MRB).
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Labor's letter
dated December 2, 2003.
GAO Comments:
1. Because Labor did not disagree with our characterization of its IT
goal, no changes were made to our report.
2. We agree with Labor's characterization of its IT strategic goal and
order 3-2003. Nevertheless, the recommendation, and related practice
1.7, refers to the documentation of the process used to develop IT
goals and measures and the responsibility for achieving them. Labor
neither provided documentation of such a process nor took issue with
our assessment of practice 1.7, in which we stated that the agency did
not have this practice in place. Moreover, Labor's self-assessment
referenced a draft performance measurement guidebook and quarterly
review process in support of this practice. However, these mechanisms
relate to performance measures associated with IT projects, not Labor's
enterprisewide IT goal. Finally, as we noted in our report, unlike
other agencies in our review, Labor does not have goals in its IRM
plan. Accordingly, we did not change this recommendation.
[End of section]
Appendix XIII: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Office of the Administrator:
Washington, DC 20546-0001:
December 8, 2003:
Mr. David A. Powner, Director:
Information Technology Management Issues:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Enclosed is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
response to the General Accounting Office (GAO) Draft Report,
"Information Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic Planning,
Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further
Improved" (GAO-04-49). The Agency concurs with your recommendations for
corrective action. Enclosed are NASA's detailed comments on each
individual recommendation.
My point of contact for information technology management is Nancy
Kaplan in the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO). She may be
contacted by e-mail at Nancy.Kaplan@nasa.gov or by telephone at (202)
358-1372.
Cordially,
Signed by:
Frederick D. Gregory:
Deputy Administrator:
Enclosure:
NASA Response to Draft GAO Report: "Information Technology Management:
Governmentwide Strategic Planning, Performance Measurement, and
Investment Management Can Be Further Improved" (GAO-04-49):
GAO Recommendations: To improve the Agency's Information Technology
(IT) strategic management/performance measurement processes, we
recommend that the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
1. Document the Agency's IT strategic management processes;
NASA Response to GAO Recommendation 1: Concur. NASA has produced an
Information Resources Management (IRM) Strategic Plan and is currently
documenting the strategic planning process which will provide the
framework for ensuring that the Agency's IT management strategies as
defined in the IRM Strategic Plan remain clearly linked to the Agency's
vision, mission, and strategic goals as defined in the NASA Strategic
Plan. This activity is scheduled to be completed by June 30, 2004.
2. Document how the Agency's IT management operations and decisions are
integrated with human resources management processes;
NASA Response to GAO Recommendation 2: Concur. The human resources
management processes are critical to our success in meeting the NASA
mission, and the NASA CIO has been working closely with the NASA Office
of Human Resources to tightly integrate NASA's IT human capital needs
with their efforts. NASA has developed a Strategic Human Capital Plan
(SHCP) that establishes a systematic, Agencywide approach to human
capital management, aligned with the Agency's vision and mission. The
SHCP is built around five pillars--strategic alignment, strategic
competencies, learning, performance culture, and leadership. A
companion document to the SHCP, the Strategic Human Capital
Implementation Plan (SHCP), has also been developed which contains
detailed action plans for achieving the goals defined in the SHCP.
Neither of these plans reference specific disciplines (e.g., IT), but
are intended to pertain to all disciplines that are critical to
developing and maintaining NASA's strategic competencies. The current
NASA IRM Strategic Plan does not address human resources management
since the SHCP and the SHCIP address this from a multidiscipline
perspective, but does reference the NASA Strategic Plan, which
identifies the criticality of IT as a strategic competency to NASA
through the definition of Implementing Strategy 2, "Demonstrate
leadership in the use of information technology." However, the IRM
Strategic Plan is currently in the process of being revised and will
include language that clarifies the linkage between the various
strategic plans and the integration of IT management with human
resources management. The revised plan is scheduled to be completed by
September 30, 2004.
3. Include in the Agency's annual performance plan the resources and
time periods required to implement the information security program
plan required by FISMA;
NASA Response to GAO Recommendation 3: Partially Concur. NASA has been
including the resources and time periods required to implement the
information security changes necessary to correct the identified
weakness contained in the OMB FISMA report. OMB has instructed NASA to
exclude this information in any submit to Congress due to budget data
being embargoed at this time. NASA will summarize this information in
our annual performance plan.
4. Develop a documented process to develop IT goals in support of
Agency needs, measure progress against these goals, and assign roles
and responsibilities for achieving these goals; develop measures
related to the effectiveness of controls to prevent software piracy;
NASA Response to GAO Recommendation 4: Concur. The strategic planning
process referenced in (1) above is the process through which IT goals
and performance measures are developed. NASA is currently in the
process of revising NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 2800.1, Managing
Information Technology, which identifies the roles and responsibilities
for achieving the Agency's IT goals and objectives. This revision is
scheduled for the first quarter of calendar year 2004. NASA will
benchmark other agencies as well as private industry to identify best
practices with respect to developing performance measures related to
the effectiveness of controls to prevent software piracy. The
benchmarking activity will be completed by September 30, 2004.
5. Track actual-versus-expected performance for the Agency's
Enterprisewide IT performance measures in its IRM plan; and develop a
mechanism for benchmarking the Agency's IT management processes, when
appropriate.
NASA Response to GAO Recommendation 5: Partially Concur. NASA has
established performance measures for major IT investments that are
identified in the Agency's Exhibit 300 submissions to OMB and have
included performance measures in our IRM Strategic Plan. We acknowledge
the need to expand our benchmarking efforts.
6. Revise the Agency's IT investment management policy and guidance to
describe the relationship of this process to the Agency's Enterprise
architecture;
NASA Response to GAO Recommendation 6: Partially Concur. The NASA IT
investment management policy is contained in NPD 2800.1, Managing
Information Technology. The NASA IT Capital Planning and Investment
Control (CPIC)Process document describes the process NASA will use for
ensuring that all IT capital investments align with the Agency's
mission, Enterprise architecture, and business needs. NASA will ensure
that the planned revision of NPD 2800.1, referenced in (4) above,
clarifies the relationship between these two documents and the Agency's
Enterprise architecture. This revision is scheduled for the first
quarter of calendar year 2004.
7. Include interfaces in its inventory of the Agency's major
information systems, implement a standard, documented procedure to
maintain this inventory, and develop a mechanism to use the inventory
as part of managerial decisionmaking;
NASA Response to GAO Recommendation 7: Concur. NASA has started the
process of replacing our existing asset management system, and the NASA
CIO has provided IT asset-tracking requirements to the project
responsible for implementing this new system. In addition, the CIO has
established a database that captures all NASA systems and has begun to
integrate the use of these data into our management processes to
facilitate decisionmaking. We will be integrating our existing database
with the new asset management system once that system is deployed.
8. Within the Agency's IT investment selection process, implement a
mechanism to identify possible conflicting, overlapping, strategically
unlinked or redundant proposals, implement a scoring model, and develop
a prioritized list of investments;
NASA Response to GAO Recommendation 8: Concur. The NASA CPIC Process
document referenced in (6) above describes the selection phase of the
process NASA will use. The selection phase is divided into two stages-
-Concept Screening and Business Case Development and Screening. The
Concept Screening stage permits the evaluation of a number of candidate
investments with a minimum amount of information. If the investment is
deemed viable after this initial screening, then it will move into the
business case development and screening stage where it will undergo the
development of a full business case and project plan. Investments that
pass the initial screening will be rated and ranked against other
proposed investments and in the context of ongoing projects. As
described in the CPIC process, a portfolio analysis will be conducted
for rating and ranking each investment in the context of a total
investment portfolio. NASA will have completed this process for the FY
2006 budget submission by September 30, 2004.
9. Document the role, responsibility, and authority of its IT
investment management boards, including work processes, alignment and
coordination of decisionmaking among its various boards and processes
for controlling and evaluating IT investments, such as those in
practices 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, and 2.18.
NASA Response to GAO Recommendation 9: Concur. NASA will ensure that
the role, responsibility, and authority of its IT investment management
board(s) in the referenced practices (2.15, 2.16, 2.17, and 2.18) is
clarified in the revision of NPD 2800.1, Managing Information
Technology, referenced in (4) and (6) above. This revision is scheduled
for the first quarter of calendar year 2004.
The following are GAO's comments on the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) letter dated December 8, 2003.
GAO Comments:
1. Our practice dealt with enterprise-level measures, not project-
specific measures. In addition, although we agree that NASA's IRM plan
included performance measures, the agency generally does not track
actual-versus-expected performance for these enterprisewide measures.
[End of section]
Appendix XIV: Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION:
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001:
December 5, 2003:
Mr. David A. Powner, Director:
Information Technology Management Issues:
United States General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review and submit
comments on the draft report, "Information Technology Management:
Governmentwide Strategic Planning, Performance Measurement, and
Investment Management Can be Further Improved," (GAO-04-49). The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission appreciates the time and effort that you
and your staff have taken to review this important topic.
Overall, this report provides useful information on Federal agencies'
use of 12 IT strategic planning/performance measurement practices and
18 IT investment management practices. We agree that these practices
are important for ensuring effective use of government IT investments,
and we support the effort to encourage best practices across Federal
agencies.
We have no specific comments on the report. Should you have any
questions, please contact either Mr. William Dean at 301-415-1703 or
Ms. Melinda Malloy at 301-415-1785 of my staff.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
William D. Travers:
Executive Director for Operations:
cc: Linda J. Lambert, GAO:
[End of section]
Appendix XV: Comments from the Social Security Administration:
SOCIAL SECURITY:
The Commissioner:
December 3, 2003:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. 20548:
Room 4075:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report, "Information
Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic Planning, Performance
Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further Improved" (GAO-
04-49). Our comments are enclosed. If you have any questions, please
have your staff contact Mark Welch at (410) 965-0374.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart:
Enclosure:
COMMENTS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ON THE GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE'S (GAO) DRAFT REPORT "INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
MANAGEMENT: GOVERNMENTWIDE STRATEGIC PLANNING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT,
AND INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CAN BE FURTHER IMPROVED" (GAO-04-49):
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on this
GAO draft report. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has taken
many positive actions in recent years, and continues efforts, to fully
comply with federal guidance relating to information technology (IT)
management and improve overall performance in this area. We are pleased
that this GAO report acknowledges the numerous IT management practices
fully and partially in place at SSA, and that our performance in this
area compares quite favorably with that of other federal agencies.
Recommendation I:
Include in its annual performance plan (APP) the resources and time
periods required to implement the information security program plans
required by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002
(FISMA).
Comment:
We agree in part. We are concerned about including the details of our
information security program, including information about the resources
and time periods required for implementation in a public document,
because such information might aid and abet those seeking to compromise
the Agency's information security. However, we recognize that Section
3544(d) of the FISMA calls for agencies to include as part of their
APP, which are public documents, the time periods and resources that
are necessary to implement their information security programs.
Therefore, we will include this information in future APPS in a manner
that will not risk compromise of the Agency's information security.
Recommendation 2:
Develop measures related to the performance of the Agency's IT programs
and the effectiveness of controls to prevent software piracy.
Comment:
We agree and we believe the Agency already has effective measures in
place to ensure effective SSA IT program performance. SSA's Strategic
Information Resources Management Plan and associated IT programs are
driven by the Agency's strategic goals and objectives which are defined
in the Agency Strategic Plan and APP. IT programs provide the
automation support required for the projects that help SSA to achieve
those goals and objectives.
At the tactical level, the Control Phase of the Agency's Capital
Planning and Investment Control Process provides the appropriate
oversight process for IT initiatives, including measuring compliance
with the cost, schedule and performance goals established for these IT
initiatives. SSA also has availability, stability and performance
measures for many components of its enterprise IT architecture.
Regarding software piracy, SSA currently tests the effectiveness of
controls to prevent software piracy. Since the performance measures in
the APP are at a high level and are focused on the four Agency goals,
it seems inappropriate to include a goal focused at the tactical level
of preventing software piracy. This issue is more appropriately
addressed in the oversight provided in the Control Phase of the
Agency's Capital Planning and Investment Control Process.
Recommendation 3:
Develop a mechanism for benchmarking the agency's IT management
processes, when appropriate.
Comment:
We agree that the use of benchmarking of IT management processes is
useful in certain situations. However, we do not agree with any
recommendation that requires the Agency to develop a mechanism (that
is, an explicit strategy or policy) for benchmarking its IT management
processes. We are in compliance with the Clinger/Cohen Act, Section
5123(4) requirement that "the head of an executive agency shall, where
comparable processes and organizations in the public or private sectors
exist, quantitatively benchmark agency process performance against such
processes in terms of cost, speed, productivity, and quality of outputs
and outcomes." SSA performs benchmarking, when appropriate, and has
provided GAO a list of Agency benchmarking activities carried out in
response to the Clinger/Cohen Act requirement.
Recommendation 4:
Develop work processes and procedures for the agency's investment
management board.
Comment:
We agree and SSA's investment management board (the Information
Technology Advisory Board - ITAB) already follows established work
processes and procedures. The role of the ITAB is evolving as we
explore ways to refine and improve our Capital Planning and Investment
Control Process to ensure continued compliance with legislation and
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. While high-level
documentation concerning the ITAB's operations is in place, we are
working to more fully document ITAB's work processes and procedures.
Recommendation 5:
Establish a policy requiring modularized IT investments.
Comment:
We agree and SSA has already established and is following a modularized
investment policy. SSA's current review of business cases includes an
assessment of major projects against the "Raines Rules" criteria that
include "modularized" system implementations. The Raines Rules criteria
are incorporated into guidance in OMB Circulars No. A-11 and A-130. The
provisions of these circulars are incorporated by reference in SSA's
Capital Planning and Investment Control Process. SSA software
development initiatives follow a modular, release-oriented strategy and
major IT technology deployments are performed through a phased-
implementation approach. Each IT investment is assessed to determine
whether it is worth doing before approval is given to proceed. Any
problems with the results from the implementations of earlier "modules"
of a system are considered in the approval process for continued
investments.
Recommendation 6:
Document the role, responsibility, and authority of its IT investment
management board for the oversight of IT investments, such as what is
outlined in practices 2.15, 2.16, and 2.18.
Comment:
We agree. The role, responsibility and authority of SSA's investment
management board (the ITAB) for the oversight of IT investments is
documented at a high level. As noted above, the role of the ITAB is
evolving as we explore ways to refine and improve our Capital Planning
and Investment Control Process to ensure continued compliance with
legislation and OMB guidance. We are working to ensure that the ITAB's
role, responsibility and authority for the oversight of IT investments
are more explicitly documented.
Recommendation 7:
Require that corrective actions be tracked, and reported to the
investment management board for under performing projects.
Comment:
We agree. SSA tracks the progress of all IT projects, including both
projects that are proceeding as planned, and those that are not. Any
surfacing problems are:
separately tracked and monitored within the Risk Identification and
Mitigation System and:
Problem and Issues Reporting System. These repositories collect and
track risk/problem information and the corrective actions taken, which
are reported upon at various points along a project's lifecycle. The
ITAB has access to this information. Therefore, we will more explicitly
document how corrective actions for under-performing projects are
tracked and reported to the ITAB.
The following are GAO's comments on the Social Security
Administration's (SSA) letter dated December 3, 2003.
GAO Comments:
1. We agree that SSA needs to consider the level of detail that is
appropriate to include in its performance plans so as not to compromise
security.
2. We requested documentation to support SSA's assertion that it has
performance measures associated with the performance of IT programs
(e.g., the percentage of IT projects that are meeting cost, schedule,
and performance goals), but none were provided. Accordingly, we did not
modify our report.
3. We agree that it is not appropriate to include measures related to
the effectiveness of controls to prevent software piracy in agency
performance plans. Neither our practice nor our recommendation
specifies the document or process that should be used to address
software piracy.
4. As we noted in this report, SSA performs benchmarking in an ad hoc
manner. We believe that taking a more systematic approach is necessary
to ensure that benchmarking is performed at suitable times using an
appropriate methodology. Without a systematic approach, it is not
possible to validate that the agency performs benchmarking "when
appropriate." Accordingly, we did not modify our report.
5. References to OMB's Circular A-11 in agency policy documentation
alone do not ensure that these practices are met. In particular, we
believe that agency policies related to modularized IT investments
should be explicit and that it is neither prudent nor practical to rely
on users of SSA's documentation of its capital planning and investment
control process to review a secondary source.
[End of section]
Appendix XVI: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer:
Washington, D. C 20520:
DEC 9 2003:
Dear Ms. Westin:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT: Governmentwide Strategic Planning, Performance
Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further Improved," GAO-
04-49, GAO Job Code 310448.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Karen Mummaw, Computer Specialist, Bureau of Information Resource
Management at (202) 663-1415.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Christopher B. Burnham:
Enclosure:
As stated.
cc: GAO/IT - David Powner;
State/OIG - Luther Atkins;
State/IRM - Bruce Morrison;
State/H - Paul Kelly:
Ms. Susan S. Westin, Managing Director, International Affairs and
Trade, U.S. General Accounting Office.
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
Information Technology Management, Government-wide Strategic Planning,
Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further
Improved (GAO-04-49, GAO Job Code 310448):
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft
report "Information Technology Management, Government-wide Strategic
Planning, Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be
Further Improved". In general, the findings of the report are
consistent with the discussions between GAO staff and our Bureau of
Information Resource Management staff in September 2003. However, we
have made progress in several of the areas since those discussions took
place. So that GAO might have the opportunity to reflect the most
current information in its final report, we want to bring the following
information to your attention:
* Practice Area 2.13, pg. 49 - Agency has established a structured
selection process. GAO scored this item as partial for the Department
and commented that the Department's documentation of its selection
process is in draft form.
On September 25, 2003, the Department published the final version of
the Department's Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) Program
Guide on the IT Planning Division's web page on the Department's
Intranet. This guide contains the framework for the Department's
information technology CPIC process. Section 4 of the guide contains
detailed procedures for the Select phase and addresses process,
prerequisites and data requirements, scoring criteria, and outputs. The
Department suggests that GAO consider changing the score to a "yes" for
this practice area and amend the comment section accordingly. (See pp.
11-14 of the final CPIC guide that is attached.):
* Practice Area 2.16, pg. 51 - Agency has established an oversight
mechanism of funded investments. GAO scored this item as partial for
the Department and commented that State had draft procedures for
control phase reviews in place, but they are not fully implemented.
Section 5 of the Department's final CPIC Guide, published on the
Department's Intranet, contains detailed procedures for the Control
phase of the process. The Department has begun the process of
implementing these procedures for controlling IT investments, which
address the initiative review process, portfolio review process,
prerequisites and data requirements, scoring criteria, and outputs.
(See pp. 16-21 of the CPIC Guide attached.) The Department suggests
that GAO amend the comments section for this practice area to state
that the Department recently issued final procedures for control phase
reviews, which are not yet fully implemented.
Practice Area 2.17, pg. 51 - Corrective actions for projects are agreed
upon, documented, and tracked by the agency wide investment management
board. GAO scored this item as partial for the Department and commented
that State had draft procedures for control phase reviews in place, but
they are not fully implemented.
See our comment for Practice Area 2.16. The Department suggests that
GAO amend the comments section for this practice area to state that the
Department recently issued final procedures for control phase reviews,
which are not yet fully implemented.
* Practice Area 2.18, pg. 52 - Agency-wide investment management board
required that post-implementation reviews be conducted. GAO scored this
item as partial for the Department and commented that State has a
policy related to this practice, but did not provide evidence that it
is completely implemented.
Section 6.2 of the Department's final CPIC Guide provides for post-
implementation reviews of IT investments and sets forth the
prerequisites and data requirements for such reviews. (See pp. 24-25.)
The Department suggests that GAO amend the comments section for this
practice area to state that the Department recently issued final
procedures for conducting post implementation reviews, which are not
yet fully implemented.
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State's letter
dated December 9, 2003.
GAO Comments:
1. We based our evaluation on the agency's draft Capital Planning and
Investment Control Program Guide that was provided during our review.
However, based on State's newly finalized Capital Planning and
Investment Control Program Guide, we changed this evaluation in our
report.
2. We based our evaluation on the agency's draft Capital Planning and
Investment Control Program Guide that was provided at the time of our
review. Based on the final version of the Capital Planning and
Investment Control Program Guide provided by State in its response, we
modified the language in our report, as appropriate.
3. See comment 2.
4. See comment 2.
[End of section]
Appendix XVII: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
Development:
USAID:
DEC 9 2003:
U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director:
Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
I am pleased to provide the U.S. Agency for International Development's
(USAID's) formal response on the draft GAO report entitled "Information
Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic Planning, Performance
Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further Improved"
(November 2003.):
We have reviewed the draft recommendations to USAID and appreciate the
thorough review which has been performed by your team. We do take
exception to your assessment of USAID's compliance at the "No" level
with the following practices:
l. Practice 2.11 (page 48): "The agency requires that the proposed IT
investment, at a minimum:
* support work processes that it has simplified or redesigned to reduce
costs and improve effectiveness, and:
* make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software.":
2. Practice 2.14 (page 49): "Agency policy calls for investments to be
modularized (e.g., managed and procured in well-defined useful segments
or modules that are short in duration and small in score) to the
maximum extent achievable.":
We believe that USAID implements both practices at a \\partial" level
because we require that USAID IT investment requests be submitted in
accordance with OMB Circular A-11 which contains such policy
requirements. For example, USAID's Automated Directives System (ADS)
Chapter 577 (Capital Planning and Investment Control), Table l,
Investment Category Documentation and Review Requirements, states that
OMB Exhibit 300 must be submitted to the CIO requesting approval of
Level II and Level III investments, which are defined on that table.
Authors of Level I Investment Decision Requests (USAID 3001) must
follow instructions provided in OMB Exhibit 300 in OMB Circular A-11.
OMB Circular A-11 states that, "Agencies must develop, implement and
use a capital programming process to develop their capital asset
portfolio, and must: ...
* Simplify or otherwise redesign work processes to reduce costs,
improve effectiveness, and make maximum use of commercial services and
off-the-shelf technology; ...
* Structure major acquisitions into useful segments with a narrow scope
and brief duration... ..":
(ADS 577 is available on the USAID website at: http://www.usaid.gov/
policy/ads/500/577.pdf. Table 1 is available at:
http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/500/577maa.doc. The Action Memorandum
is available at:
http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/500/577mag.pdf and OMB Circular A-11,
Part 7; page p. 300-8 is available at: http://www.cio.gov/documents/
s300.pdf.):
In addition, USAID evaluates and scores IT investment proposals, in
part, according to the following criteria: - whether or not the project
includes the use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions and
minimizes the use of customer-designed components and - whether the
Agency uses phased successive chunks. (See ADS 577, Table 3, page 3,
item 2.2, which is available on the USAID website at: http://
www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/ 500/577mab.pdf.):
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this
review. If you have any questions, you may contact me or contact Mark
Kneidinger, Deputy CIO for Policy and Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Management at (202)712-1200.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
John Marshall:
Assistant Administrator:
Bureau for Management:
The following are GAO's comments on the U.S. Agency for International
Development's (USAID) letter dated December 9, 2003.
GAO Comments:
1. References to OMB's Circular A-11 in agency policy documentation
alone do not ensure that these practices are met. In particular, we
believe that agency policies related to practices 2.11 and 2.14 should
be explicit and that it is neither prudent nor practical to rely on
users of USAID's directives to review a secondary source. Regarding
USAID's comments that it uses the criteria in practices 2.11 and 2.14
as part of its evaluation and scoring of investments, we agree that the
agency does ask some questions on the use of commercial-off-the-shelf
software and whether the agency uses "successive chunks" within its
proposed IT investment scoring model. However, addressing these
criteria as part of a scoring model does not address our practice
because scoring projects on the basis of the questions asked does not
necessarily preclude projects from continuing if they do not fully meet
the criteria. Additionally, the questions asked as part of the scoring
model do not fully meet the requirements of the practices. Accordingly,
we did not modify our report.
[End of section]
Appendix XVIII: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:
THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS:
WASHINGTON:
December 5, 2003:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director:
Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed your draft report,
Information Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic Planning,
Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further
Improved (GAO 04-49). VA concurs with all seven of GAO's
recommendations. I am pleased to advise that VA has already implemented
five recommendations and plans implementing the remaining two
recommendations by the end of April 2004.
VA's detailed comments specific to the report's recommendations are
outlined in the enclosure. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on
your draft report.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Anthony J. Principi:
Enclosure:
Enclosure:
Department of Veterans Affairs Comments To GAO Draft Report,
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT: Governmentwide Strategic Planning,
Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further
Improved (GAO-04-49):
To improve the department's IT strategic management/performance
measurement processes, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs:
* Include in the department's annual performance plan the resources
required to implement the information security program plan required by
FISMA.
Concur: The Department currently collects information on the costs to
implement the provision of Federal Information Security Management Act
(FISMA) of 2002 through several inter-related efforts and reports this
information to the Office of Management and Budget. This information
will be included in future Government Performance and Results Act
submissions.
* Develop a documented process to measure progress against the
department's IT goals and assign goals and responsibilities for
achieving these goals.
Concur: VA's Acting Chief Information Officer (CIO) is revising the
Department's IT Strategic Plan. The revision will include a section
that outlines the performance measures that are associated with
specific IT goals and objectives and which organizations are
responsible for carrying them out. Progress against these performance
measures will be assessed as part of the monthly performance reviews
that all projects within the IT Portfolio must undergo. The process for
measuring this performance will be documented in guidance being
prepared to address IT Portfolio and Project Management and will be
developed by April 2004. The IT Strategic Plan update will be developed
by February 2004. VA anticipates implementing this recommendation by
the end of April 2004.
* Develop measures related to the effectiveness of controls to prevent
software piracy.
Concur: In fiscal year 2004, VA will field its Department-wide Security
Configuration and Management Program (SCAMP). SCAMP will establish and
deploy an enterprise-level, network configuration management framework
capability to centrally manage all desktops, servers, and
communications and security devices in the VA environment. This
initiative will greatly enhance VA's existing capabilities to preclude
the installation of any unauthorized (including pirated) software on VA
networks and desktops, and should provide data to measure the
effectiveness of the controls.
* Track actual-versus-expected performance for the department's
enterprisewide IT performance measures in its IRM plan.
Concur: Monthly performance reports are provided to VA's Strategic
Management Council for all OMB Exhibit 300-level projects and programs
actual-versus-expected performance metrics including:
* Acquisition requirements:
* Funding:
* Staffing:
* Schedule performance:
* Budget performance:
* Quality performance:
The Department's Strategic Management Council is chaired by the Deputy
Secretary and is comprised of senior officers from the Department's
administrations and staff offices. This recommendation has been
implemented.
To improve the department's IT investment management process, GAO
recommends that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs:
Document the alignment and coordination of responsibilities of the
department's various IT investment management boards for decision
making related to IT investments, including cross-cutting
investment(s).
Concur: Within VA, the sole board responsible for the overall
governance of IT decision making, as it is related to the IT Portfolio
of VA investments, is the Enterprise Information Board (EIB). The EIB
is chaired by the VA Chief Information Officer and includes within its
membership the senior IT leadership of the Department, as well as
fiscal officer representation. The EIB uses the Integrated Management
Process as its tool for managing IT investments. The Integrated
Management Process ensures appropriate planning, technical, and fiscal
review at key decision points ("milestone") within a project's life
cycle. Projects must fully complete all requirements for a given
milestone before they are permitted unqualified approval to proceed to
the next one. There are five milestones in the life cycle of a project:
(0) Project Concept Development; (1) Project Planning; (2) Project
Pilot/Prototyping; (3) Project Development/Roll-Out; and (4) Project
Operation (i.e., "Post-Implementation"). VA constituent organizations
(administrations and staff offices) are free to develop appropriate
decision making mechanisms to vet investments and investment progress
decisions prior to their review by the EIB. Nevertheless, those boards
are still subject to the overall governance of the EIB. Detailed
guidance on the Integrated Management Process, IT Portfolio Management,
and IT Project Management is being prepared and will be completed by
April 2004. VA anticipates implementing this recommendation by the end
of April 2004.
Within the agency's IT investment selection process, implement a
mechanism to identify possible conflicting, overlapping, strategically
unlinked or redundant proposals and prioritize its IT investment(s).
Concur: VA has already implemented an IT Capital Planning and
Investment Control (CPIC) process that fully implements the requirement
of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as defined within OMB
Circular A-11, Section 300. A key component of the CPIC process is the
annual review of the entire IT Portfolio through the analyses of
Exhibit 300 - Capital Asset Plan and Business Case - for each of the
Department's major IT investments. VA has fully aligned its review
process with that of OMB to the extent that internal evaluation of
Exhibit 300s (prior to their dispatch to OMB) uses the same scoring
template and analytical paradigm as used by OMB. All Exhibit 300
documents are reviewed by a small group of technical subject matter
experts. Through such means, it becomes possible to identify those
investments that may be in conflict with others, potentially offer
duplicative or overlapping efforts, or not advance the mission, goals,
and objectives of the Department (i.e., "strategically unlinked").
Based on this review, the EIB is offered recommendations on the IT
Portfolio. The EIB, through its capability to decide whether to
recommend continuance, modification, or termination of projects to the
VA CIO, can then resolve conflicting, overlapping, or non-aligned
investment proposals. This recommendation has been implemented.
* Develop a process to use independent verification and validation
reviews, when appropriate.
Concur: As part of VA's Integrated Management Process, the VA CIO, or
the EIB, can request "in process" reviews of investments during their
life cycle, particularly if such an investment appears "off track"
(that is, cost and/or schedule is no longer within planned values plus
10 percent, or the project is not delivering the performance that was
expected). In addition, after implementation, projects are subject to
post-implementation reviews. This latter set of reviews determines
whether a project, now fully implemented, provided the Department with
what was initially expected. These reviews are conducted by someone in
other than the office responsible for the investment and often by
outside consultants. This recommendation has been implemented.
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Veterans Affairs'
(VA) letter dated December 5, 2003.
GAO Comments:
1. VA's response indicates that the department will address this
recommendation in the future and, therefore, we did not remove this
recommendation.
2. See comment 1.
3. See comment 1.
4. VA's monthly performance reports track project-specific measures,
not enterprisewide IT performance measures. VA's draft IRM plan states
that it will establish metrics to measure performance for IT strategic
initiatives. However, progress toward doing so was not addressed by VA
in its comments. Therefore, we do not believe this recommendation has
been fully addressed.
5. See comment 1.
6. Although VA describes a process followed for reviewing investment
proposals, it did not provide evidence to support that this practice
was actually followed. In addition, VA did not address the element of
our recommendation related to prioritizing its IT investments.
Therefore, we did not remove this recommendation.
7. On the basis of the additional information provided, we agree that
the recommendation has been implemented and modified our report
accordingly.
[End of section]
Appendix XIX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Linda J. Lambert, (202) 512-9556 Mark D. Shaw, (202) 512-6251:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Joseph P. Cruz, Lester P. Diamond, Laurence P. Gill, David B. Hinchman,
Robert G. Kershaw, David F. Plocher, Susan S. Sato, and Patricia D.
Slocum made key contributions to this report.
(310448):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government,
Fiscal Year 2004, Report on IT Spending for the Federal Government for
Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, and 2004. We did not verify these data.
[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-
03-119 (Washington, D.C. January 2003) and Major Management Challenges
and Program Risks: A Governmentwide Perspective, GAO-03-95 (Washington,
D.C. January 2003).
[3] The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 revised the information
resources management responsibilities established under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, as amended in 1986.
[4] Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-11, Preparation,
Submission, and Execution of the Budget (July 27, 2002) and Circular A-
130, Management of Federal Information Resources (Nov. 28, 2000).
[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology Investment
Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity,
GAO/AIMD-10.1.23, Exposure Draft (Washington, D.C. May 2000).
[6] This section of the United States Code requires 24 departments and
agencies to establish chief financial officers. We did not include the
Federal Emergency Management Agency in our review, even though it is
one of the 24 departments and agencies, because this agency has been
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.
[7] Six percent were not applicable.
[8] One percent were not applicable. Percentages do not add up to 100
percent due to rounding.
[9] DOD submitted a single letter that included comments from the
Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy.
[10] This responsibility is in addition to OMB's role in assisting the
President in reviewing agency budget submissions and compiling the
President's budget, as discussed in 31 U.S.C. chapter 11.
[11] Government Information Security Reform, Title X, Subtitle G, Floyd
D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, P.L.
106-398, Oct. 30, 2000.
[12] GAO-03-95.
[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Selection
and Implementation of the Office of Management and Budget's 24
Initiatives, GAO-03-229 (Washington, D.C. Nov. 22, 2002).
[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Management: Challenges
in Managing and Preserving Electronic Records, GAO-02-586 (Washington,
D.C. June 17, 2002).
[15] U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Records: Management and
Preservation Pose Challenges, GAO-03-936T (Washington, D.C. July 8,
2003).
[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Privacy Act: OMB Leadership Needed
to Improve Agency Compliance, GAO-03-304 (Washington, D.C. June 30,
2003).
[17] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Security:
Opportunities for Improved OMB Oversight of Agency Practices, GAO/AIMD-
96-110 (Washington, D.C. Sept. 24, 1996).
[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, Computer Security: Progress Made,
but Critical Federal Operations and Assets Remain at Risk, GAO-03-303T
(Washington, D.C. Nov. 19, 2002).
[19] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Security: Continued
Efforts Needed to Fully Implement Statutory Requirements, GAO-03-852T
(Washington, D.C. June 24, 2003).
[20] U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk Series: Protecting
Information Systems Supporting the Federal Government and the Nation's
Critical Infrastructures, GAO-03-121 (Washington, D.C. January 2003).
[21] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Leadership
Remains Key to Agencies Making Progress on Enterprise Architecture
Efforts, GAO-04-40 (Washington, D.C. Nov. 17, 2003) and Information
Technology: Enterprise Architecture Use across the Federal Government
Can Be Improved, GAO-02-6 (Washington, D.C. Feb. 19, 2002).
[22] For example, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Information
Technology: Inconsistent Software Acquisition Processes at the Defense
Logistics Agency Increase Project Risks, GAO-02-9 (Washington, D.C.
Jan. 10, 2002); and HUD Information Systems: Immature Software
Acquisition Capability Increases Project Risks, GAO-01-962
(Washington, D.C. Sept. 14, 2001).
[23] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Leading
Commercial Practices for Outsourcing of Services, GAO-02-214
(Washington, D.C. Nov. 30, 2001).
[24] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology Investment
Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity,
Exposure Draft, GAO/AIMD-10.1.23 (Washington, D.C. May 2000).
[25] For example, U.S. General Accounting Office, Information
Technology: Departmental Leadership Crucial to Success of Investment
Reforms at Interior, GAO-03-1028 (Washington, D.C. Sept. 12, 2003);
Bureau of Land Management: Plan Needed to Sustain Progress in
Establishing IT Investment Management Capabilities, GAO-03-1025
(Washington, D.C. Sept. 12, 2003); United States Postal Service:
Opportunities to Strengthen IT Investment Management Capabilities, GAO-
03-3 (Washington, D.C. Oct. 15, 2002); Information Technology: DLA
Needs to Strengthen Its Investment Management Capability, GAO-02-314
(Washington, D.C. Mar. 15, 2002); and Information Technology: INS
Needs to Strengthen Its Investment Management Capability, GAO-01-146
(Washington, D.C. Dec. 29, 2000).
[26] Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-11, Preparation,
Submission, and Execution of the Budget (July 2002) and Circular A-130,
Management of Federal Information Resources (Nov. 30, 2000).
[27] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology Investment
Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity,
GAO/AIMD-10.1.23, Exposure Draft (Washington, D.C. May 2000).
[28] The Departments of Agriculture, the Air Force, the Army, Commerce,
Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and
Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, the Navy, State,
Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; and the
Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science
Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel
Management, Small Business Administration, Social Security
Administration, and U.S. Agency for International Development.
[29] Each year, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
publishes an Information Collection Budget by gathering data from
executive branch agencies on the total number of burden hours it
approved for collection of information at the end of the fiscal year
and agency estimates of the burden for the coming fiscal year.
[30] In fulfilling its responsibilities under this act, OMB requires
agencies to report to OMB on their plans for providing the public with
the option of submitting, maintaining, and disclosing required
information electronically, instead of on paper.
[31] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Resources Management:
Comprehensive Strategic Plan Needed to Address Mounting Challenges,
GAO-02-292 (Washington, D.C. Feb. 22, 2002).
[32] U.S. General Accounting Office, Paperwork Reduction Act: Record
Increase in Agencies' Burden Estimates, GAO-03-619T (Washington, D.C.
April 11, 2003).
[33] U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Measuring
Performance and Demonstrating Results of Information Technology
Investments, GAO/AIMD-98-89 (Washington, D.C. March 1998).
[34] GAO/AIMD-98-89.
[35] GAO/AIMD-98-89.
[36] VA included the time periods to implement its information security
program in its performance plan.
[37] GAO/AIMD-10.1.23 and U.S. General Accounting Office, Assessing
Risks and Returns: A Guide for Evaluating Federal Agencies' IT
Investment Decision-making, GAO/AIMD-10.1.13 (Washington, D.C.
February 1997).
[38] We have previously reported that certain DOD system acquisitions
were not utilizing incremental management best practices or were just
beginning to do so. For example, see U.S. General Accounting Office,
DOD Systems Modernization: Continued Investment in Standard Procurement
System Has Not Been Justified, GAO-01-682 (Washington, D.C. July 31,
2001).
[39] GAO-03-1028.
[40] With a scoring model, the assessment body typically attaches
numerical scores and "relative value" weights to each of the individual
selection criteria. Investments are then assessed relative to these
scores and then against weights associated with each individual
criterion. Finally, the weighted scores are summed to create a
numerical value for each investment.
[41] U.S. General Accounting Office, DOD Business Systems
Modernization: Improvements to Enterprise Architecture Development and
Implementation Efforts Needed, GAO-03-458 (Washington, D.C. Feb. 28,
2003).
[42] U.S. General Accounting Office, DOD Business Systems
Modernization: Important Progress Made to Develop Business Enterprise
Architecture, but Much Work Remains, GAO-03-1018 (Washington, D.C.
Sept. 19, 2003).
[43] The technical review board, which serves as the department's
first-tier investment review board, is chaired by the deputy CIO, and
its members consist of IRM managers and administrative officers from
each component.
[44] DOD submitted a single letter that included comments from the
Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy.
[45] AIMD-10-1-23.
[46] The CIO Council is the principal interagency forum for improving
agency practices related to the design, acquisition, development,
modernization, use, operation, sharing, and performance of federal
government information resources.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: