Summary

The Customs Service does not yet have a complete enterprise information systems architecture to guide and constrain the millions of dollars that it spends each year to develop and acquire new information systems and evolve existing ones. For five of its six business areas--outbound, passenger, finance, human resources, and investigations--Custom's architecture does not (1) describe all of the agency's business functions, (2) define the information needed to perform the functions, or (3) completely identify the users and locations of the functions. The limitations in Customs' architecture are rooted in its decision to focus on defining the technical characteristics of its systems environment, such as hardware, software, telecommunications, and security. Customs' view does not include the logical characteristics of its enterprise system environment, such as business functions and their interrelationships, information needs, and users and work locations, that would allow it to define and implement systems that optimally support the agency's mission needs. Until Customs defines the logical characteristics of its business environment and uses them to establish technical standards and approaches, it lacks assurances that the systems that it plans to build and operate, such as its Automated Commercial Environment--a system with a life cycle cost of about $1 billion--will effectively support the agency's needs. Customs also has not developed and implemented effective procedures to enforce its architecture once it is completed.

GAO noted that: (1) Customs does not yet have a complete enterprise information systems architecture to guide and constrain the millions of dollars it spends annually to develop and acquire new information systems and evolve existing ones; (2) for five of its six business areas Custom's architecture does not: (a) describe all the agency's business functions; (b) define the information needed to perform the functions; and (c) completely identify the users and locations of the functions; (3) while the architecture and related documentation describe business functions, and users and work locations for the sixth business area, they do not identify all the information needs and flows for all the trade functions; (4) also, Customs has named certain technical standards, products, and services that it will use in building systems to support all its business areas; (5) however, Customs has not chosen these based on a complete description of its business needs; (6) the limitations in Customs' architecture are rooted in its decision to focus on defining the technical characteristics of its systems environment; (7) Customs' view does not include the logical characteristics of its enterprise system environment, which would enable it to define and implement systems that optimally support the agency's mission needs; (8) Customs plans to develop the architecture in accordance with Department of the Treasury architectural guidance; (9) specifically, Customs plans to define its functional, information, and work needs and their interrelationships across its six business areas and, in light of these needs and interrelationships, reevaluate the technical characteristics it has selected for its systems environment; (10) until Customs defines the logical characteristics of its business environment and uses them to establish technical standards and approaches, it does not have adequate assurance that the systems it plans to build and operationally deploy will effectively support the agency's business needs; (11) Customs also has not developed and implemented effective procedures to enforce its architecture once it is completed; (12) Customs officials stated that a newly established investment management process will be used to enforce architectural compliance; (13) this process, however, does not require that system investments be architecturally compliant or that architectural deviations be justified and documented; and (14) as a result, Customs risks incurring the same problems as other federal agencies that have not effectively defined and enforced an architecture.