Information Technology
Management and Oversight of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars Need Attention Gao ID: GAO-09-624T April 28, 2009Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on federal information technology (IT) projects each year; for fiscal year 2009, federal IT spending has risen to an estimated $71 billion. Given the size of these investments and their significance to the health, economy, and security of the nation, it is important that that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and federal agencies are providing adequate oversight and ensuring transparency of these programs. Appropriate oversight and transparency will help ensure that programs are delivered on time, within budget, and with the promised capabilities. During the past several years, GAO has issued numerous reports and testimonies on OMB's initiatives to highlight troubled projects, justify IT investments, and use project management tools. For example, OMB has used a Management Watch List to identify major projects that were poorly planned and has required agencies to identify high-risk projects that have performance shortfalls. GAO made many recommendations to improve these initiatives and further enhance oversight and transparency of IT projects. GAO was asked to testify on key OMB efforts to improve the oversight and transparency of federal IT projects. In preparing this testimony, GAO relied on its prior reports and testimonies. GAO also followed up with OMB to determine the status of its efforts to implement past recommendations.
OMB has made progress implementing several initiatives aimed at improving oversight and transparency of federal IT investments, but as GAO previously reported and recommended, more attention needs to be placed on improving these initiatives. For example, OMB's Management Watch List identified poorly planned projects, and the office also identified and listed high-risk projects failing to meet one of four performance evaluation criteria. OMB took steps to improve the identification of the poorly planned and performing projects by, for example, issuing a central list of Management Watch List projects and publicly disclosing these projects' deficiencies. With regard to the high-risk list, OMB clarified the project criteria and started publicly releasing aggregate lists of high-risk projects on its Web site in September 2006. However, more needs to be done by both OMB and the agencies to address recommendations GAO has previously made, such as identifying and publicizing performance shortfalls on high-risk projects. Additionally, the future of the Management Watch List and high-risk list is uncertain because OMB officials stated that they have not decided if the agency plans to continue to use these lists. As another step aimed at increasing oversight of agencies' IT investments, OMB required agencies to provide investment justifications for major IT projects to demonstrate both to agency management and to OMB that the projects are well planned. However, GAO raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the information agencies used to comply with this requirement and recommended changes to the reporting process. In response, OMB required agencies to disclose weaknesses in their information. OMB also required the use of earned value management, an approach to project management that can provide insight into project status, warning of schedule delays and cost overruns, and unbiased estimates of total costs. However, GAO identified weaknesses in agencies' use of this management tool. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration was using earned value management to manage IT acquisition programs, but not all programs ensured that their earned value data were reliable. GAO made a number of recommendations to federal agencies to clarify and expand their earned value management policies and strengthen their oversight processes at the program level. Until agencies expand and enforce their earned value management policies, it will be difficult for them to optimize the effectiveness of this management tool. Building on successes and looking for more efficient and comprehensive ways to bolster oversight and transparency of the federal IT budget will help ensure that federal IT dollars are wisely spent and agency mission performance is enhanced. Accordingly, OMB needs to decide if it is going to continue to use its Management Watch list and high-risk list. If OMB decides not to use these tools, it should promptly implement other appropriate mechanisms to help oversee IT investments.
GAO-09-624T, Information Technology: Management and Oversight of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars Need Attention
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-624T
entitled 'Information Technology: Management and Oversight of Projects
Totaling Billions of Dollars Need Attention' which was released on
April 29, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government
Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate.
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT:
April 28, 2009:
Information Technology:
Management and Oversight of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars Need
Attention:
Statement of David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
GAO-09-624T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-624T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services,
& International Security, Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental
Affairs, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on federal information
technology (IT) projects each year; for fiscal year 2009, federal IT
spending has risen to an estimated $71 billion. Given the size of these
investments and their significance to the health, economy, and security
of the nation, it is important that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and federal agencies are providing adequate oversight and
ensuring transparency of these programs. Appropriate oversight and
transparency will help ensure that programs are delivered on time,
within budget, and with the promised capabilities.
During the past several years, GAO has issued numerous reports and
testimonies on OMB‘s initiatives to highlight troubled projects,
justify IT investments, and use project management tools. For example,
OMB has used a Management Watch List to identify major projects that
were poorly planned and has required agencies to identify high-risk
projects that have performance shortfalls. GAO made many
recommendations to improve these initiatives and further enhance
oversight and transparency of IT projects.
GAO was asked to testify on key OMB efforts to improve the oversight
and transparency of federal IT projects. In preparing this testimony,
GAO relied on its prior reports and testimonies. GAO also followed up
with OMB to determine the status of its efforts to implement past
recommendations.
What GAO Found:
OMB has made progress implementing several initiatives aimed at
improving oversight and transparency of federal IT investments, but as
GAO previously reported and recommended, more attention needs to be
placed on improving these initiatives. For example, OMB‘s Management
Watch List identified poorly planned projects, and the office also
identified and listed high-risk projects failing to meet one of four
performance evaluation criteria. OMB took steps to improve the
identification of the poorly planned and performing projects by, for
example, issuing a central list of Management Watch List projects and
publicly disclosing these projects‘ deficiencies. With regard to the
high-risk list, OMB clarified the project criteria and started publicly
releasing aggregate lists of high-risk projects on its Web site in
September 2006. However, more needs to be done by both OMB and the
agencies to address recommendations GAO has previously made, such as
identifying and publicizing performance shortfalls on high-risk
projects. Additionally, the future of the Management Watch List and
high-risk list is uncertain because OMB officials stated that they have
not decided if the agency plans to continue to use these lists.
As another step aimed at increasing oversight of agencies‘ IT
investments, OMB required agencies to provide investment justifications
for major IT projects to demonstrate both to agency management and to
OMB that the projects are well planned. However, GAO raised concerns
about the accuracy and reliability of the information agencies used to
comply with this requirement and recommended changes to the reporting
process. In response, OMB required agencies to disclose weaknesses in
their information.
OMB also required the use of earned value management, an approach to
project management that can provide insight into project status,
warning of schedule delays and cost overruns, and unbiased estimates of
total costs. However, GAO identified weaknesses in agencies‘ use of
this management tool. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration
was using earned value management to manage IT acquisition programs,
but not all programs ensured that their earned value data were
reliable. GAO made a number of recommendations to federal agencies to
clarify and expand their earned value management policies and
strengthen their oversight processes at the program level. Until
agencies expand and enforce their earned value management policies, it
will be difficult for them to optimize the effectiveness of this
management tool.
Building on successes and looking for more efficient and comprehensive
ways to bolster oversight and transparency of the federal IT budget
will help ensure that federal IT dollars are wisely spent and agency
mission performance is enhanced. Accordingly, OMB needs to decide if it
is going to continue to use its Management Watch list and high-risk
list. If OMB decides not to use these tools, it should promptly
implement other appropriate mechanisms to help oversee IT investments.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-624T] or key
components. For more information, contact David A. Powner at (202) 512-
9286 or pownerd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss efforts to improve oversight
and transparency of information technology (IT) investments. As you
know, billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on these projects each
year; federal IT spending has now risen to an estimated $71 billion for
fiscal year 2009. Given the size of these investments and the
criticality of many of the systems to the health, economy, and security
of the nation, it is important that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and federal agencies are providing appropriate oversight and that
there is adequate transparency into these programs.
During the past several years, we have issued numerous reports and
testimonies on OMB's initiatives to highlight troubled projects,
[Footnote 1] justify IT investments,[Footnote 2] and use project
management tools.[Footnote 3] We made many recommendations to OMB and
to federal agencies to improve these initiatives to further enhance the
oversight and transparency of IT projects.
You asked us to testify on OMB's key efforts to improve the oversight
and transparency of federal IT projects. Specifically, my testimony
covers key oversight mechanisms OMB used to highlight troubled
projects, justify IT investments, and manage costs and schedule growth.
In preparing this testimony, we relied on prior GAO reports and
testimonies that assessed the government's management of IT
investments, including management of projects identified as poorly
planned and/or performing, justification of IT investments, and use of
project management tools. We also followed up with OMB and federal
agencies to determine the status of their efforts to implement our past
recommendations.
We performed our work in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective.
Background:
Each year, OMB and federal agencies work together to determine how much
the government plans to spend on IT projects and how these funds are to
be allocated. OMB plays a key role in overseeing the implementation and
management of federal IT investments. To improve this oversight,
Congress enacted the Clinger-Cohen Act in 1996, expanding the
responsibilities delegated to OMB and agencies under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.[Footnote 4] Among other things, Clinger-Cohen requires
agencies to better link their IT planning and investment decisions to
program missions and goals and to implement and enforce IT management
policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines. The act also requires
that agencies engage in capital planning and performance and results-
based management.[Footnote 5] OMB's responsibilities under the act
include establishing processes to analyze, track, and evaluate the
risks and results of major capital investments in information systems
made by executive agencies. OMB must also report to Congress on the net
program performance benefits achieved as a result of these investments.
[Footnote 6]
In response to the Clinger-Cohen Act and other statutes, OMB developed
a policy for the planning, budgeting, acquisition, and management of
federal capital assets. This policy is set forth in OMB Circular A-11
(section 300) and in OMB's Capital Programming Guide (supplement to
Part 7 of Circular A-11), which direct agencies to develop, implement,
and use a capital programming process to build their capital asset
portfolios. Among other things, OMB's Capital Programming Guide directs
agencies to:
* evaluate and select capital asset investments that will support core
mission functions and demonstrate projected returns on investment that
are clearly equal to or better than alternative uses of available
public resources,
* institute performance measures and management processes that monitor
actual performance and compare it to planned results, and:
* establish oversight mechanisms that require periodic review of
operational capital assets to determine if mission requirements have
changed and whether the assets continue to fulfill those requirements
and deliver their intended benefits.
To further support the implementation of IT capital planning practices
as required by statute and directed in OMB's Capital Programming Guide,
we have developed an IT investment management framework[Footnote 7]
that agencies can use in developing a stable and effective capital
planning process. It is a tool that can be used to determine both the
status of an agency's current IT investment management capabilities and
the additional steps that are needed to establish more effective
processes. Mature and effective management of IT investments can vastly
improve government performance and accountability, while poor
management can result in wasteful spending and lost opportunities for
improving the delivery of services to the public.
In addition, OMB has used key oversight mechanisms to highlight
troubled projects, justify IT investments, and manage cost and schedule
growth. These mechanisms include:
* a Management Watch List to identify major IT projects that are poorly
planned;
* a list of high-risk projects that are performing poorly;
* investment justifications for major IT projects that agency officials
were required to prepare to demonstrate both to their management and to
OMB that the projects were well planned; and:
* use of earned value management (EVM), which is a project management
tool that can provide insight into project status, warning of schedule
delays and cost overruns, and unbiased estimates of total costs.
Among other initiatives, OMB also developed and oversaw the
implementation of policies, principles, standards, and guidelines for
information security, and reviewed agency information security programs
at least annually. In addition, OMB was responsible for overseeing
enterprise architecture[Footnote 8] development within and across
agencies. OMB, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and
the federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council issued frameworks
that define the scope and content of architectures.[Footnote 9] OMB
used these frameworks to assess agencies' enterprise architecture
activities. In addition, OMB has issued a collection of five reference
models[Footnote 10] (Business, Performance, Data/Information, Service,
and Technical) that are intended to facilitate governmentwide
improvement through cross-agency analysis and the identification of
duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities.
The Clinger-Cohen Act also requires agency heads to designate Chief
Information Officers to lead reforms to help control system development
risks, better manage technology spending, and achieve real, measurable
improvements in agency performance through better management of
information resources. As such, the responsibility for directly
managing IT projects and implementing OMB's guidance lies with agency
heads and their Chief Information Officers.
OMB Initiatives Have Improved Oversight and Transparency, but More Work
Remains:
OMB has established initiatives aimed at increasing oversight and
transparency of federal IT projects. However as we have previously
reported and recommended, more attention needs to be placed on
improving these initiatives. Specifically,
* OMB took steps to improve the identification of poorly planned and
performing IT projects, but projects totaling billions of dollars
require more attention;
* OMB has taken steps to enhance oversight of agencies' investment
justifications, but accuracy and reliability concerns remain; and:
* OMB has required the use of EVM, but agencies' earned value
management policies and implementation need improvement.
OMB Has Taken Steps to Improve the Identification of Poorly Planned and
Performing IT Projects, but Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars Still
Require Oversight:
Beginning in 2004, OMB identified major projects that were poorly
planned by placing them on a quarterly Management Watch List. The list
was derived based on a detailed review of each investment's Capital
Asset Plan and Business Case, also known as the exhibit 300. OMB began
using its Management Watch List as a means to oversee the justification
for and planning of agencies' IT investments.
Over the past 4 years we testified on the hundreds of projects,
totaling billions of dollars that OMB placed on the Management Watch
List. For example, in 2008 we testified that OMB determined that 352
projects--totaling about $23.4 billion--were poorly planned.[Footnote
11] According to OMB's evaluation of the exhibit 300s, investments were
placed on the watch list primarily because of weaknesses in the way
they addressed (1) cost, schedule, and performance; (2) security; (3)
privacy; and (4) acquisition strategy.
In order for OMB to take advantage of the potential benefits of using
the Management Watch List as a tool for analyzing and following up on
IT investments on a governmentwide basis, in 2005 we recommended that
the agency: (1) publicly disclose the deficiencies of projects on the
Management Watch List; (2) use the list as the basis for selecting
projects for follow-up and for tracking follow-up activities (including
developing specific criteria for prioritizing the IT projects included
on the list, taking into consideration such factors as their relative
potential financial and program benefits, as well as potential risks);
(3) analyze the prioritized list to develop governmentwide and agency
assessments of the progress and risks of IT investments, identifying
opportunities for continued improvement; and (4) report to Congress on
progress made in addressing risks of major IT investments and
management areas needing attention.[Footnote 12]
OMB took steps to address our recommendations by publicly disclosing
the deficiencies of projects and developing governmentwide and agency
assessments. Specifically, OMB started disclosing projects'
deficiencies (i.e., the reasons for inclusion on the Management Watch
List) in April 2008. In addition, OMB performed governmentwide and
agency-specific analyses of projects' deficiencies, which it reported
to Congress and disclosed publicly in April and July of 2008.
The Management Watch List has been instrumental in helping prioritize
projects that require follow-up action and in informing Congress on
management areas needing attention. However, the future of the
Management Watch List is uncertain because OMB officials recently
stated that the agency has not decided if it plans to continue to use
this list.
As defined by OMB, high-risk projects were those that agencies
identified as requiring special attention from oversight authorities
and the highest levels of agency management. These projects were not
necessarily at risk of failure, but may be on the list for a variety of
reasons such as that the agency had not consistently demonstrated the
ability to manage complex projects. To identify high-risk projects,
staff from each agency's Office of the Chief Information Officer
compared criteria against their portfolio to determine which projects
met OMB's definition for high-risk and performance shortfalls. They
then submitted the list to OMB for review. High risk projects failing
to meet one of four performance evaluation criteria were considered to
have "performance shortfalls."
In our analysis of the high-risk projects in June 2008, we found that
of the 472 IT projects that were categorized as high risk, at least 87
had performance shortfalls--collectively totaling about $4.8 billion in
funding requested for fiscal year 2009. Agencies reported cost and
schedule variances that exceeded 10 percent as the most common
shortfall.
To improve the identification and oversight of the high-risk projects,
we recommended, among other things, that OMB establish a structured,
consistent process to update the list of high-risk projects on a
regular basis, including identifying new projects and removing previous
ones to ensure that the list is current and complete.[Footnote 13] We
also recommended that OMB develop a single aggregate list of high-risk
projects and their deficiencies and use that list to report to Congress
the progress made in correcting high-risk problems, actions under way,
and further actions that may be needed.
OMB took several steps to address these recommendations. The agency
clarified the high-risk project criteria in 2008. It also asked
agencies to identify, in their quarterly reports, reasons for placement
on the list and reasons for removal, thereby adding structure and
consistency to the process for updating the list. In addition, OMB also
started publicly releasing aggregate lists of the high-risk projects in
September 2006, and had been releasing them on its Web site quarterly.
As we previously testified,[Footnote 14] OMB had not identified the
deficiencies (i.e., performance shortfalls) associated with the high-
risk projects. Doing so would allow OMB and others to better analyze
the reasons projects are performing poorly, take corrective actions,
and track these projects on a governmentwide basis. Such information
would also help to highlight progress made by agencies or projects,
identify management issues that transcend individual agencies, and
highlight the root causes of governmentwide issues and trends. In
addition, OMB has not released an update to the high-risk list since
the first quarter of fiscal year 2009, and, as with the Management
Watch List, OMB officials indicated that the agency has not decided if
it plans to continue the use of the high-risk list.
OMB Took Steps to Enhance Oversight of Agencies' Investment
Justifications, but Accuracy and Reliability Concerns Remain:
As another step aimed at increasing oversight of agencies' IT
investments, OMB--in response to the Clinger-Cohen Act and other
statutes--required agencies to prepare investment justifications for
major IT projects, referred to as the exhibit 300. The exhibit 300 is a
reporting mechanism intended to enable an agency to demonstrate to its
own management, as well as to OMB, that a major project is well planned
in that it has employed the disciplines of good project management;
developed a strong business case for the investment; and met other
administration priorities in defining the cost, schedule, and
performance goals proposed for the investment.
In January 2006, we noted that the underlying support for information
provided in the exhibit 300s was often inadequate and that, as a
result, the Management Watch List may be undermined by inaccurate and
unreliable data.[Footnote 15] For example, documentation of the
information either did not exist or did not fully agree with specific
areas of all exhibit 300s. We recommended, among other things, that OMB
provide more specific guidance to the agencies and direct agencies to
improve the accuracy and reliability of exhibit 300 information.
To address our recommendations, in June 2006 OMB modified exhibit 300
requirements and provided more guidance for specific sections. Also in
June, OMB directed agencies to post their exhibit 300s on their Web
sites within two weeks of the release of the President's budget request
for fiscal year 2008. As part of the 2010 budget cycle, OMB asked
agencies to disclose weaknesses in the accuracy and reliability of
information reported in their exhibit 300s. Ensuring the reliability of
these investment justification documents is essential to enable
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.
OMB Has Required Use of Earned Value Management, but Agencies' Earned
Value Management Policies and Implementation Need Improvement:
Pulling together essential cost, schedule, and technical information in
a meaningful, coherent fashion is a challenge for most programs.
Without meaningful and coherent cost and schedule information, program
managers can have a distorted view of a program's status and risks.
Earned Value Management (EVM) is a project management approach that, if
implemented appropriately, provides objective reports of project
status, produces early warning signs of impending schedule delays and
cost overruns, and provides unbiased estimates of a program's total
costs.
In August 2005, OMB issued guidance outlining steps that agencies must
take for all major and high-risk development projects to better ensure
improved execution and performance and to promote more effective
oversight through the implementation of EVM.[Footnote 16]Among other
things, this guidance directed agencies to develop comprehensive
policies to ensure that agencies use this management tool to plan and
manage development activities for major IT investments.
In reviewing agencies' implementation of OMB's EVM guidance, we
identified weaknesses with policies and implementation at several major
departments. Examples include the following:
* The Department of the Treasury had an EVM policy that clearly defined
criteria for which programs were to use the management tool. However,
this policy did not require and enforce earned value management
training for personnel with investment oversight and program management
responsibilities, nor did it adequately address key elements for
ensuring reliability of earned value data--including program EVM
compliance with the national standard.[Footnote 17]
* The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was using EVM to manage IT
acquisition programs, but not all programs were ensuring that their
earned value data were reliable.[Footnote 18] One program did not
adequately validate contractor performance data. We found anomalies in
which the contractor reported spending funds without accomplishing work
and others in which the contractor reported accomplishing work while
crediting funds to the government.
We made a number of recommendations to each of these agencies to
clarify and expand their EVM policies and strengthen their oversight
processes at the program level. The Treasury has recently implemented
some of our recommendations to improve its earned value management
policies and practices. For example, in September 2008, the agency
issued a new EVM policy stating that each bureau shall develop,
implement, and use a standard earned value management process. In
response to our recommendations to FAA, the agency reported that it has
initiatives under way to improve its EVM oversight processes, including
work to ensure that all contract provisions specific to this management
tool are being met.
Until these agencies expand and enforce their EVM policies, it will be
difficult for them to optimize the effectiveness of this management
tool. Furthermore, without robust oversight of earned value management
at the program level, these same agencies face an increased risk that
managers are not getting the information they need to effectively
manage the programs. We are currently evaluating for this subcommittee
the state of EVM implementation at eight major agencies and plan to
report on this work later this year.
In summary, OMB made progress implementing several initiatives aimed at
improving oversight and transparency of federal IT investments, such as
the Management Watch and high-risk lists and governmentwide use of EVM.
Nevertheless, more needs to be done by the executive branch to further
increase the oversight and transparency of IT projects. The executive
branch needs to build on its successes and also look for more efficient
and comprehensive ways to bolster oversight and transparency.
Accordingly, OMB needs to decide if it is going to continue to use its
Management Watch list and high-risk list to track poorly planned and
performing projects. If OMB decides not to use these tools, it should
promptly implement other appropriate mechanisms to help oversee IT
investments. Without adequate oversight and transparency of IT projects
the federal government risks wasting potentially billions of taxpayer
dollars.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer
any questions at this time.
Contact and Staff Acknowledgements:
If you should have any questions about this testimony, please contact
me at (202) 512-9286 or by e-mail at pownerd@gao.gov. Individuals who
made key contributions to this testimony are Carol Cha, Assistant
Director; Shannin O'Neill, Assistant Director; Sabine Paul, Assistant
Director; Bradley Becker; Lee McCracken; Kevin Walsh; and Eric Winter.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Information Technology: Treasury Needs to Better Define and
Implement Its Earned Value Management Policy, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-951] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22,
2008); Information Technology: Further Improvements Needed to Identify
and Oversee Poorly Planned and Performing Projects, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1211T] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20,
2007); Information Technology: Improvements Needed to More Accurately
Identify and Better Oversee Risky Projects Totaling Billions of
Dollars, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1099T]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2006); Information Technology: Agencies and
OMB Should Strengthen Processes for Identifying and Overseeing High
Risk Projects, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-647]
(Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006).
[2] GAO, Information Technology: OMB Can Make more Effective Use of Its
Investment Reviews, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-276]
(Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2005).
[3] GAO, Air Traffic Control: FAA Uses Earned Value Techniques to Help
Manage Information Technology Acquisitions, but Needs to Clarify Policy
and Strengthen Oversight, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-756] (Washington, D.C.: July 18,
2008); GAO, Information Technology: Treasury Needs to Better Define and
Implement Its Earned Value Management Policy, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-951] (Washington, D.C.: September
22, 2008).
[4] 44 U.S.C. § 3504(h) & 3506(h).
[5] 40 U.S.C. § 11312 &11313.
[6] 40 U.S.C. § 11302 &11303.
[7] GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for
Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-394G] (Washington, D.C.: March
2004).
[8] An enterprise architecture is an organizational blueprint that
defines--in logical or business terms and in technology terms--how an
organization operates today, intends to operate in the future, and
intends to invest in technology to transition to this future state.
[9] OMB, Circular A-130; National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Information Management Directions: The Integration
Challenge, Special Publication 500-167 (September 1989); and CIO
Council, Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, Version 1.1
(September 1999).
[10] The Business Reference Model is intended to describe the business
operations of the federal government independent of the agencies that
perform them, including defining the services provided to state and
local governments. The Performance Reference Model is to provide a
common set of general performance outputs and measures for agencies to
use to achieve business goals and objectives. The Data and Information
Reference Model is to describe, at an aggregate level, the type of data
and information that support program and business line operations, and
the relationships among these types. The Service Component Reference
Model is to identify and classify IT service (i.e., application)
components that support federal agencies and promote the reuse of
components across agencies. The Technical Reference Model is to
describe how technology is supporting the delivery of service
components, including relevant standards for implementing the
technology.
[11] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1051T].
[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-276].
[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-647].
[14] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1051T].
[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-250].
[16] OMB Memorandum, M-05-23 (Aug. 4, 2005).
[17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-951].
[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-756].
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
