Information Technology
Continued Improvements in Investment Oversight and Management Can Yield Billions in Savings Gao ID: GAO-11-511T April 12, 2011The federal government anticipates spending $79 billion on information technology (IT) in fiscal year 2011. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plays a key role in overseeing the implementation and management of federal IT investments. Given the size of these investments and their importance to the health, economy, and security of the nation, it is critical for OMB and federal agencies to provide appropriate program oversight and ensure adequate transparency. Over the past several years, GAO has issued a number of reports and testimonies on OMB's initiatives to improve troubled projects, justify IT investments, and use project management tools. Partly in response to this prior work, in 2009 OMB deployed a public Web site--known as the IT Dashboard--that provides detailed information on approximately 800 major federal IT investments, including assessments of these investments' performance against cost and schedule targets (referred to as ratings). GAO was asked to testify on OMB's key efforts to improve the oversight and management of federal IT investments through the use of the Dashboard and other efforts. To prepare this statement, GAO drew on previously published work on IT investments, including OMB's Dashboard, agencies' oversight boards, and agencies' use of project management tools.
OMB has improved the oversight and management of IT investments through multiple initiatives. By establishing the IT Dashboard, OMB has drawn additional attention to over 300 troubled IT investments at federal agencies, totaling $20 billion, which is an improvement from the previously used oversight mechanisms. The Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) recognized that the Dashboard has increased the accountability of agency CIOs and established much-needed visibility into investment performance. However, GAO has found that the data on the Dashboard are not always accurate. Specifically, in reviews of selected investments from 10 agencies, GAO found that the Dashboard ratings were not always consistent with agency cost and schedule performance data. In these reports GAO made a number of recommendations to OMB and federal agencies to improve the accuracy of Dashboard ratings. Agencies agreed with these recommendations, while OMB agreed with all but one. Specifically, OMB disagreed with the recommendation to change how it reflects current investment performance in its ratings because Dashboard data are updated on a monthly basis. However, GAO maintained that current investment performance may not always be as apparent as it should be; while data are updated monthly, ratings include historical data, which can mask more recent performance. In addition to the Dashboard, beginning in January 2010 the Federal CIO began leading reviews--known as "TechStat" sessions--of selected IT investments involving OMB and agency leadership to increase accountability and transparency and improve performance. OMB officials stated that, as of December 2010, 58 sessions had been held and resulted in improvements to or termination of IT investments with performance problems. For example, the June 2010 TechStat session for a National Archives and Records Administration investment resulted in the halting of development funding pending the completion of a strategic plan. In addition, OMB identified 26 additional high-priority IT projects and plans to develop corrective action plans with agencies at future TechStat sessions. According to the Federal CIO, OMB's efforts to improve management and oversight of IT investments have already resulted in $3 billion in savings. Additionally, in December 2010, OMB issued an 18-month plan for reforming federal IT management that has five major goals, including strengthening program management, streamlining governance and improving accountability, and using shared solutions, among others. These goals and the plans in place to support them are consistent with GAO's work highlighting IT management and governance weaknesses, as well as work to identify duplicative activities in the government. As part of this plan, OMB has initiatives under way to strengthen agencies' investment review boards and to consolidate federal data centers. GAO has ongoing work to review the Dashboard and other OMB initiatives. Continued OMB oversight and the implementation of its 18-month plan along with outstanding GAO recommendations, could result in further significant savings and increased efficiency.
GAO-11-511T, Information Technology: Continued Improvements in Investment Oversight and Management Can Yield Billions in Savings
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-511T
entitled 'Information Technology: Continued Improvements in Investment
Oversight and Management Can Yield Billions in Savings' which was
released on April 12, 2011.
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 Government Affairs, U.S. Senate.
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:30 a.m. EDT:
Tuesday, April 12, 2011:
Information Technology:
Continued Improvements in Investment Oversight and Management Can Yield
Billions in Savings:
Statement of David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
GAO-11-511T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-511T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal
Services, and International Security, Committee on Homeland Security
and Government Affairs, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The federal government anticipates spending $79 billion on information
technology (IT) in fiscal year 2011. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) plays a key role in overseeing the implementation and
management of federal IT investments. Given the size of these
investments and their importance to the health, economy, and security
of the nation, it is critical for OMB and federal agencies to provide
appropriate program oversight and ensure adequate transparency. Over
the past several years, GAO has issued a number of reports and
testimonies on OMB‘s initiatives to improve troubled projects, justify
IT investments, and use project management tools. Partly in response
to this prior work, in 2009 OMB deployed a public Web site-”known as
the IT Dashboard”-that provides detailed information on approximately
800 major federal IT investments, including assessments of these
investments‘ performance against cost and schedule targets (referred
to as ratings).
GAO was asked to testify on OMB‘s key efforts to improve the oversight
and management of federal IT investments through the use of the
Dashboard and other efforts. To prepare this statement, GAO drew on
previously published work on IT investments, including OMB‘s
Dashboard, agencies‘ oversight boards, and agencies‘ use of project
management tools.
What GAO Found:
OMB has improved the oversight and management of IT investments
through multiple initiatives. By establishing the IT Dashboard, OMB
has drawn additional attention to over 300 troubled IT investments at
federal agencies, totaling $20 billion, which is an improvement from
the previously used oversight mechanisms. The Federal Chief
Information Officer (CIO) recognized that the Dashboard has increased
the accountability of agency CIOs and established much-needed
visibility into investment performance. However, GAO has found that
the data on the Dashboard are not always accurate. Specifically, in
reviews of selected investments from 10 agencies, GAO found that the
Dashboard ratings were not always consistent with agency cost and
schedule performance data. In these reports GAO made a number of
recommendations to OMB and federal agencies to improve the accuracy of
Dashboard ratings. Agencies agreed with these recommendations, while
OMB agreed with all but one. Specifically, OMB disagreed with the
recommendation to change how it reflects current investment
performance in its ratings because Dashboard data are updated on a
monthly basis. However, GAO maintained that current investment
performance may not always be as apparent as it should be; while data
are updated monthly, ratings include historical data, which can mask
more recent performance.
In addition to the Dashboard, beginning in January 2010 the Federal
CIO began leading reviews”known as ’TechStat“ sessions”of selected IT
investments involving OMB and agency leadership to increase
accountability and transparency and improve performance. OMB officials
stated that, as of December 2010, 58 sessions had been held and
resulted in improvements to or termination of IT investments with
performance problems. For example, the June 2010 TechStat session for
a National Archives and Records Administration investment resulted in
the halting of development funding pending the completion of a
strategic plan. In addition, OMB identified 26 additional high-
priority IT projects and plans to develop corrective action plans with
agencies at future TechStat sessions. According to the Federal CIO, OMB‘
s efforts to improve management and oversight of IT investments have
already resulted in $3 billion in savings.
Additionally, in December 2010, OMB issued an 18-month plan for
reforming federal IT management that has five major goals, including
strengthening program management, streamlining governance and
improving accountability, and using shared solutions, among others.
These goals and the plans in place to support them are consistent with
GAO‘s work highlighting IT management and governance weaknesses, as
well as work to identify duplicative activities in the government. As
part of this plan, OMB has initiatives under way to strengthen agencies‘
investment review boards and to consolidate federal data centers.
GAO has ongoing work to review the Dashboard and other OMB
initiatives. Continued OMB oversight and the implementation of its 18-
month plan along with outstanding GAO recommendations, could result in
further significant savings and increased efficiency.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-511T] or key
components. For more information, contact David A.Powner at (202) 512-
9286 or pownerd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Abbreviations:
CIO: chief information officer:
IT: information technology:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
[End of section]
April 12, 2011:
Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the federal government‘s
key activities and efforts to improve the management of information
technology (IT) investments, totaling an estimated $79 billion for
fiscal year 2011. Given the size of these investments and the
criticality of many of these systems to the health, economy, and
security of the nation, it is important that the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and federal agencies provide appropriate
oversight of and adequate transparency into these programs.
During the past several years, we have issued multiple reports and
testimonies on OMB‘s initiatives to highlight troubled projects,
justify IT investments, and encourage the use of project
management tools.[Footnote 1] We made numerous recommendations to OMB
and to federal agencies to improve these initiatives to further
enhance the transparency, oversight, and management of IT
projects.
As part of its response to our prior work, OMB deployed a public
Web site in June 2009, known as the IT Dashboard, which provides
detailed information on federal agencies‘ major IT investments,
[Footnote 2] including assessments of actual performance against cost
and schedule targets (referred to as ratings) for approximately 800
major federal IT investments. The Dashboard is intended to improve the
transparency and oversight of these investments.
You asked us to testify on OMB‘s key efforts to improve the
oversight and management of federal IT projects. Specifically, my
testimony covers OMB‘s efforts to improve IT management”in
particular, through the use of the Dashboard and its recently
announced IT reform plan.[Footnote 3] In preparing this testimony, we
relied on prior GAO reports and testimonies that assessed the
government‘s management of IT investments, including OMB‘s Dashboard,
agencies‘ oversight boards, and agencies‘ use of project management
tools.[Footnote 4] All of our work for these reports and testimonies
was performed 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
objectives.
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. The President‘s Budget for fiscal
year 2011 totaled an estimated $79.4 billion for IT investments.
Figure 1 displays the breakdown of agencies‘ planned IT
expenditures for fiscal year 2011.
Figure 1: Breakdown of $79.4 Billion in Planned IT Investments for
Fiscal Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Defense: $36.534 billion;
Homeland Security: $6.412 billion;
Health and Human Services: $6.212 billion;
Veterans Affairs: $3.356 billion;
Transportation: $3.351 billion;
Treasury: $3.263 billion;
Justice: $3.017 billion;
Agriculture: $2.704 billion;
Commerce: $2.437 billion;
Energy: $2.200 billion;
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: $1.596 billion;
Social Security Administration: $1.396 billion;
State: $1.219 billion;
Education: $1.082 billion;
Interior: $982 million;
All other civilian agencies: $3.612 billion.
Source: OMB data.
[End of figure]
OMB plays a key role in overseeing the implementation and management
of federal IT investments. To improve oversight, Congress enacted the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which requires OMB to establish processes
to analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and results of major capital
investments in information systems made by federal agencies and report
to Congress on the net program performance benefits achieved as a
result of these investments.[Footnote 5] Further, the act places
responsibility for managing investments with the heads of agencies and
establishes chief information officers (CIO) to advise and assist
agency heads in carrying out this responsibility.
To help carry out its oversight role, in 2003 OMB established the
Management Watch List, which included mission-critical projects
that needed to improve performance measures, project management, IT
security, or overall justification. Further, in August 2005, OMB
established a High-Risk List, which consisted of projects identified
by federal agencies, with the assistance of OMB, as requiring special
attention from oversight authorities and the highest levels of agency
management. Our reviews of these efforts have highlighted many issues
regarding the accuracy and usefulness of these lists.[Footnote 6] To
address these issues, we made multiple recommendations to OMB,
including disclosing risks and deficiencies of troubled projects and
reporting to Congress on remediation plans for these projects.
More recently, in June 2009, OMB replaced the Management Watch List
and High-Risk List with a public Web site-”known as the IT Dashboard-”
to further improve the transparency into and oversight of agencies‘ IT
investments. It displays detailed information on federal agencies‘
major IT investments, including assessments of actual performance
against cost and schedule targets (referred to as ratings) for
approximately 800 major federal IT investments. According to OMB,
these data are intended to provide a near realtime perspective of the
performance of these investments, as well as a historical perspective.
Further, the public display of these data is intended to allow OMB,
other oversight bodies, including Congress, and the general public to
hold government agencies accountable for results and progress.
Prior Reviews of Agencies‘ IT Investment Governance Have Identified
Weaknesses:
We have previously reported on the enduring challenges that agencies
have faced in effectively managing IT investments. Specifically, we
found that agencies had weaknesses in several areas relating to the
oversight, budget justification, planning and management of these
investments, among others.
* In January 2004, we reported that agencies did not always have the
mechanisms in place for investment review boards to effectively
control their investments.[Footnote 7] Among other things, we reported
that selected agencies largely had IT investment management boards,
but these boards did not have key policies and procedures in place for
ensuring that projects are meeting expectations. Agencies cited a
variety of reasons for not having these mechanisms in place, such as
that the CIO position had been vacant, a requirement was not included
in guidance, or that the process was being revised. We made
recommendations to the agencies regarding those practices that were
not fully in place.
* In January 2006, we reported that the underlying support for agencies‘
IT budget justifications for IT investments (OMB‘s Capital Asset Plan
and Business Case, also known as the exhibit 300) was often
inadequate.[Footnote 8] Specifically, we found weaknesses in all 29 of
the exhibit 300s that we reviewed. For example, 21 investments were
required to use a specific management system as the basis for the
cost, schedule, and performance information in the exhibit 300, but
only 6 did so following OMB-required standards. We made
recommendations aimed at improving related guidance and training
and at ensuring the disclosure and mitigation of limitations on
reliability.
* In July 2008, we reported that approximately half of the federal
government‘s major IT projects had been rebaselined-”i.e., had
modifications made to their cost, schedule, and performance goals to
reflect changed circumstances.[Footnote 9] Reasons for these
rebaselines included changes in project goals, changes in funding, or
inaccurate original baselines. We also found that agencies lacked
comprehensive rebaselining policies and that without such policies,
baseline changes could be used to mask cost overruns or schedule
delays. We recommended that OMB issue guidance for rebaselining
policies and that the major agencies develop policies that address
identified weaknesses. Consequently, OMB issued a memorandum in June
2010 on baseline management that provided this guidance.[Footnote 10]
* In June 2009, we reported that about half of the projects we
examined did not receive selection reviews (to confirm that they
support mission needs) or oversight reviews (to ensure that they are
meeting expected cost and schedule targets).[Footnote 11]
Specifically, 12 of the 24 reviewed projects that were identified by
OMB as being poorly planned did not receive a selection review; and 13
of 28 poorly performing projects we reviewed did not receive an
oversight review by a department-level board. To address these
weaknesses, we made recommendations to selected agencies to improve
their department-level board representation and selection and oversight
processes.
* In October 2009, we reported that selected agencies‘ policies were
not fully consistent with best practices for a key program
management tool.[Footnote 12] Specifically, most agencies‘ policies
lacked appropriate earned value management training requirements and did
not adequately define criteria for revising baselines. Earned value
management 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 anticipated costs at completion.
Additionally, we reported that for 13 of 16 selected investments, key
practices necessary for sound earned value management execution had
not been implemented. Finally, we estimated the total cost overrun of
these investments to be about $3 billion at program completion. We
recommended that the selected agencies modify policies to be
consistent with best practices, implement practices that address
identified weaknesses, and manage negative earned value trends.
OMB Has Several Initiatives Under Way to Improve the Oversight and
Management of IT Investments, but Continued Attention Is Needed:
OMB has initiated several efforts that have improved the oversight and
transparency of IT investments. As discussed earlier, OMB deployed its
IT Dashboard in June 2009, providing detailed information, including
performance ratings, for over 800 major investments at federal
agencies. Each investment‘s performance data are updated monthly,
which is a major improvement from the quarterly reporting cycle used
by OMB‘s prior oversight mechanisms.
As of March 2011, the Dashboard provided visibility into over 300 IT
investments, totaling almost $20 billion, in need of management
attention (rated ’yellow“ to indicate the need for attention or ’red“
to indicate significant concerns). (See figure 2.)
Figure 2: Overall Performance Ratings of Major IT Investments on the
Dashboard, as of March 2011:
Normal: 494 investments, $21.5 billion;
Needs attention: 272 investments, $17.7 billion;
Significant concerns: 39 investments, $2.0 billion.
Source: OMB's dashboard.
[End of figure]
The Federal CIO stated that the Dashboard has greatly improved
oversight capabilities compared to previously used mechanisms,
increased the accountability of agencies‘ CIOs, and established
much-needed transparency.
However, in a series of reviews, we have found that the data on the
Dashboard are not always accurate. Specifically, in reviews of
selected investments from 10 agencies, we found that the Dashboard
ratings were not always consistent with agency performance data.
* In July 2010, we reported that cost and schedule performance ratings
were not always accurate for selected investments.[Footnote 13]
Specifically, we reviewed investments at the Departments of
Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Justice
and found that the cost and schedule ratings on the Dashboard were not
accurate for 4 of 8 selected investments and the ratings did not take
into consideration current performance. For example, the Dashboard
rated a Justice investment‘s cost performance as ’green“ from July
2009 through January 2010, but our analysis showed the investment‘s
cost performance was equivalent to a ’yellow“ rating, meaning it
needed attention. We also found that there were large inconsistencies
in the number of investment activities that agencies report on the
Dashboard.
* In March 2011, we also reported that agencies and OMB need to do
more to ensure the Dashboard‘s data accuracy.[Footnote 14]
Specifically, we reviewed investments at the Departments of Homeland
Security, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, and the Social
Security Administration and found that cost ratings were inaccurate
for 6 of 10 selected investments and schedule ratings were inaccurate
for 9 of 10. We also found weaknesses in agency and OMB practices
contributing to the inaccuracies on the Dashboard. In particular, we
found that agencies had uploaded inconsistent or erroneous data,
failed to submit data, and/or used unreliable source information.
Additionally, we found that OMB‘s ratings understated some schedule
variances and did not emphasize current performance.
In these reviews, we made recommendations to the agencies and OMB
aimed at improving data accuracy on the Dashboard. Specifically, we
recommended that the selected agencies comply with OMB‘s guidance to
standardize activity reporting, provide complete and accurate data to
the Dashboard on a monthly basis, and ensure that CIO ratings disclose
issues that could undermine the accuracy of investment data. These
agencies generally concurred with our recommendations. We also
recommended that OMB improve how it rates investments related to current
performance and schedule variance. Further, we recommended that OMB
report on the effect of planned changes to the Dashboard and provide
guidance to agencies to standardize reporting. OMB agreed with most of
these recommendations but disagreed with the recommendation to change
how it reflects current investment performance in its ratings because
Dashboard data are updated on a monthly basis. However, we maintained
that current investment performance may not always be as apparent as
it should be; while data are updated monthly, ratings include
historical data, which can mask more recent performance.
Our recent and ongoing work has identified additional opportunities
for using the Dashboard to increase operational efficiency and realize
cost savings. As part of our first report responding to a statutory
requirement that GAO identify duplicative goals or activities in the
federal government, we reported on the potential for further
significant savings if OMB implements planned improvements to the
Dashboard, along with outstanding GAO recommendations.[Footnote 15] We
also have ongoing work to evaluate the data provided by the Dashboard
in order to determine the extent to which agencies may be investing in
similar projects, as well as OMB‘s efforts to identify and act on such
duplicative investments.
Recent OMB Efforts Have Resulted in Improved Management of Troubled IT
Investments:
Drawing on the visibility into federal IT investments provided by the
Dashboard, OMB has initiated efforts to improve the management of IT
investments needing attention. In particular, in January 2010, the
Federal CIO began leading TechStat sessions”a review of selected IT
investments between OMB and agency leadership to increase
accountability and transparency and improve performance. OMB has
identified factors that may result in a TechStat session, such as
policy interests, Dashboard data inconsistencies, recurring patterns
of problems, or an OMB analyst‘s concerns with an investment.
As of December 2010, OMB officials stated that 58 TechStat sessions
have been held with federal agencies. According to OMB, these sessions
have enabled the government to improve or terminate IT investments
that are experiencing performance problems. For example, the June
2010, TechStat on the National Archives and Records Administration‘s
Electronic Records Archives investment resulted in six corrective
actions, including halting fiscal year 2012 development funding
pending the completion of a strategic plan. In January 2011, we
reported that the National Archives and Records Administration had not
been positioned to identify potential cost and schedule problems
early, and has not been able to take timely actions to correct
problems, delays, and cost increases on this system acquisition
program.[Footnote 16] Moreover, we estimated that the program would
likely overrun costs by between $205 and $405 million if the agency
completed the program as originally designed. We made multiple
recommendations to the Archives, including establishing a
comprehensive plan for all remaining work, improving the accuracy of
key performance reports, and engaging executive leadership in
correcting negative performance trends. The Archivist of the United
States generally concurred with our recommendations.
OMB has also identified 26 additional high-priority IT projects and
plans to coordinate with agencies to develop corrective actions for
these projects at future TechStat sessions. According to OMB
officials, OMB and agency CIOs identified these projects using
Dashboard data, TechStat sessions, and other forms of research. For
example, OMB directed the Department of the Interior to establish
incremental deliverables for its Incident Management Analysis and
Reporting System, which will accelerate delivery of services that
will help 6,000 law enforcement officers protect the nation‘s natural
resources and cultural monuments.
According to OMB, the TechStat sessions and other OMB management
reviews have resulted in a $3 billion reduction in lifecycle costs, as
of December 2010. Further, OMB officials stated that, as a result of
these sessions, 11 investments have been reduced in scope and 4 have
been canceled. Additional opportunities for potential cost savings and
efficiencies exist with the use of the Dashboard by executive branch
agencies to identify and make decisions about poorly performing
investments, as well as its continued use by congressional committees
to support critical oversight efforts.
Recent OMB Plan Aims to Reform IT Management:
In addition to the efforts already described, in December 2010, OMB
issued its 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information
Technology Management, a plan spanning 18 months to reform IT
management throughout the federal government. The plan contains five
major goals:
* strengthen program management,
* align the acquisition and budget processes with the technology cycle,
* streamline governance and improve accountability,
* increase engagement with industry, and,
* apply ’light technology“ and shared solutions.
Many of these major goals, and their supporting reform initiatives,
are consistent with our body of work on IT acquisition issues”-which
has shown a lack of implementation or execution of critical project
management and executive governance activities. For example, as
previously discussed, in a June 2009 review[Footnote 17] of 24 IT
projects identified by OMB as needing the most attention, about half
did not receive selection or oversight reviews by agency governance
boards. OMB‘s plan acknowledges this issue and calls for agency
Investment Review Boards to be restructured according to OMB‘s
TechStat session model, in support of the goal to streamline
governance and improve accountability.
Additionally, in support of the goal to apply ’light technology“ and
shared solutions, the plan outlines OMB‘s Federal Data Center
Consolidation Initiative to guide federal agencies in developing and
implementing data center consolidation plans. According to OMB, the
number of federal data centers grew from 432 in 1998 to more than
2,000 in 2010. These data centers often house similar types of
equipment and provide similar processing and storage capabilities.
These factors have led to concerns associated with the provision of
redundant capabilities, the underutilization of resources, and the
significant consumption of energy. In our March 2011 report[Footnote
18] on duplicative goals or activities within the federal government, we
noted that data center consolidation makes sense economically and
as a way to achieve more efficient IT operations. However, we also
described key challenges associated with this effort, such as agencies‘
ability to ensure the accuracy of their inventories and plans and
integrate consolidation plans into fiscal year 2012 agency budget
submissions (as required by OMB).
In October 2010, OMB reported that all federal agencies had submitted
consolidation plans. OMB plans to monitor agencies‘ progress through
annual reports and has established a goal of closing 800 of the over
2,100 federal data centers by 2015. We are currently evaluating the
data center initiative as well as agencies‘ efforts to develop and
implement consolidation plans.
In summary, OMB‘s recent efforts have resulted in greater oversight
and management of federal IT investments, but continued attention
is necessary to build on the progress that has been made. For
example, OMB and federal agencies need to improve the accuracy of
information on the Dashboard, and continue to use OMB‘s TechStat
sessions to address troubled investments. In addition, the full
implementation of OMB‘s 18-month roadmap to reform federal IT
management, along with outstanding GAO recommendations, should result
in more effective IT management and delivery of mission-critical
systems, as well as further reduction in wasteful spending on poorly
managed investments.
Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer
any questions at this time.
[End of section]
Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
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; Lee McCracken; and Kevin Walsh.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] See for example, GAO, Information Technology: OMB Has Made
Improvements to Its Dashboard, but Further Work Is Needed by Agencies
and OMB to Ensure Data Accuracy, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262] (Washington, D.C.; Mar. 15,
2011); Information Technology: OMB‘s Dashboard Has Increased
Transparency and Oversight, but Improvements Needed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-701] (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 16,
2010); Information Technology; Federal Agencies Need to Strengthen
Investment Board Oversight of Poorly Planned and Performing Projects,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-566] (Washington, D.C.;
June 30, 2009); Information Technology: Management and Oversight of
Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars Need Attention, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-624T] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28,
2009); 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] Major IT Investment means a system or an acquisition requiring
special management attention because it: has significant importance to
the mission or function of the agency, a component of the agency, or
another organization; is for financial management and obligates more
than $500,000 annually; has significant program or policy
implications; has high executive visibility; has high development,
operating, or maintenance costs; is funded through other than direct
appropriations; or is defined as major by the agency's capital
planning and investment control process.
[3] OMB, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information
Technology Management (Washington, D.C., 2010).
[4] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262]; [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-701]; GAO, Information Technology:
Agencies Need to Improve the Implementation and Use of Earned Value
Techniques to Help Manage Major System Acquisitions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-2] (Washington, D.C.; Oct. 8,
2009); [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-566];
Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish Comprehensive
Policies to Address Changes to Projects‘ Cost, Schedule, and
Performance Goals, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-925]
(Washington, D.C.: July 31,2008); Information Technology: Agencies
Need to Improve the Accuracy and Reliability of Investment
Information, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-250]
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2006); Information Technology Management:
Governmentwide Strategic Planning, Performance Measurement, and
Investment Management Can Be Further Improved, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-49] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12,
2004).
[5] 40 U.S.C. § 11302(c).
[6] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-624T]; [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1051T]; [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1211T]; [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1099T]; [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-647], [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-571T]; [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-276].
[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-49.
[8] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-250].
[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-925].
[10] OMB Memorandum, M-10-27.
[11] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-566].
[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-2].
[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-701].
[14] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262].
[15] GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, D.C.; Mar. 1,
2011).
[16] GAO, Electronic Records Archive: National Archive Needs to
Strengthen Its Capacity to Use Earned Value Techniques to Management
and Oversee Development, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-86] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13,
2011).
[17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-566].
[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP].
[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:
