Defense Computers

The Army relies on computers for virtually every aspect of its operations--from sophisticated weapon systems to routine business functions, such as personnel and contract management. The failure to successfully address the Year 2000 problem in time could severely degrade or disable critical Army operations. The Army has taken many positive steps to heighten awareness, promote information sharing, and encourage components to make Year 2000 remediation efforts a high priority. However, it lacks key management and oversight controls to enforce good management practices, direct resources, and establish a complete picture of its progress in remediating systems. For example, at the time of GAO's review, the Army lacked complete and accurate information on systems, interfaces, and the costs and progress of remediation efforts; had not completed interface agreements and contingency plans; and had not determined how much testing capacity was needed and available. Each of these problems seriously jeopardizes the Army's chances of meeting the Year 2000 deadline for mission-critical systems. Army officials recognize that improvements to the Year 2000 program are needed and have recently taken steps to ensure that the Year 2000 problem does not threaten the Army's ability to carry out its mission. However, until all corrective measures have been completed, the Army cannot be certain that it will successfully meet the Year 2000 challenge.

GAO noted that: (1) the Army relies on computer systems for virtually every aspect of its operations including strategic and tactical operations, sophisticated weaponry, and routine business functions; (2) failure to successfully address the year 2000 problem in time could severely degrade or disable Army mission-critical operations; (3) the Army has taken many positive actions to increase awareness, promote sharing of information, and encourage components to make year 2000 remediation efforts a high priority; (4) it has also enlisted the services of the Army Audit Agency, the Army Inspector General, and various contractors to help evaluate component needs and identify areas that could impact the successful completion of the Army's Year 2000 program; (5) it lacks key management and oversight controls to enforce good management practices, direct resources, and establish a complete picture of its progress in remediating systems; (6) for example, at the time of GAO's review, the Army: (a) did not have complete and accurate information on systems, interfaces, and the costs and progress of remediation efforts; (b) had not completed interface agreements and contingency plans; and (c) had not determined how much testing capacity was needed and available; (7) each of these problems seriously endangers the Army's chances of successfully meeting the year 2000 deadline for mission-critical systems; (8) for example, without good status and cost information, the Army cannot effectively: (a) ensure that all its mission-critical systems are being corrected; (b) identify areas where additional resources are needed; (c) ensure that year 2000 errors are not propagated from one organization to another; or (d) assess whether systems have been certified as compliant; (9) without prompt attention to interface agreements and contingency plans, there is an increased risk that key interfaces will not work and that core business processes will be adversely impacted; (10) without knowing at the department level how much testing capacity is needed and available, the Army will not be able to help acquire additional resources in the event that insufficient capacity is available to meet its needs; (11) together, these problems greatly increase the risk of failure of some mission-critical systems and operations unless corrective actions are taken; and (12) Army officials recognize that improvements in the year 2000 program are needed and have recently taken actions directed at ensuring that the year 2000 does not pose a threat to the Army's ability to execute its mission.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone: