Information Technology
OMB Needs to Improve Its Guidance on IT Investments Gao ID: GAO-11-826 September 29, 2011In Process
According to data reported on OMB's IT Dashboard in July 2011, 26 federal agencies plan to spend almost $79 billion on 7,248 IT investments in fiscal year 2011. OMB often uses the $79 billion figure in referring to annual federal investments in IT; however, it is important to note that this figure does not reflect the spending of the entire federal government. It does not include IT investments by 58 independent executive branch agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, or by the legislative or judicial branches. A closer look at the $79 billion in investments for the 26 agencies reveals that (1) the expenditures are split almost evenly between major and nonmajor (in terms of cost, risk, and other factors) investments; (2) about two-thirds of the expenditures are for systems in an operational state, while about one-third of the expenditures provide for the development of new systems; and (3) there are hundreds of investments providing similar functions across the federal government. For example, agencies reported 1,536 information and technology management investments, 781 supply chain management investments, and 661 human resource management investments. OMB provides guidance to agencies on how to report on their IT investments, but this guidance does not ensure complete reporting or facilitate the identification of duplicative investments. Specifically, agencies differ on what investments they include as an IT investment; for example, 5 of the 10 agencies GAO reviewed consistently consider investments in research and development systems as IT, and 5 do not. As a result, the 26 federal agencies' annual IT investments are likely greater that the $79 billion reported in fiscal year 2011. In addition, OMB's guidance to federal agencies requires each investment to be mapped to a single functional category. This limits OMB's ability to identify duplicative investments both within and across agencies because similar investments may be organized into different categories. OMB and federal agencies have undertaken several initiatives to address potentially duplicative IT investments. For example, OMB has efforts under way to consolidate similar functions through its "line of business" initiatives and has reduced the scope of three duplicative systems identified during executive reviews of high-priority projects. In addition, most of the agencies GAO reviewed established guidance for ensuring new investments are not duplicative with existing systems. However, most of OMB's recent initiatives have not yet demonstrated results. Further, agencies do not routinely assess operational systems to determine if they are duplicative. Until agencies routinely assess their IT investment portfolios to identify and reduce duplicative systems, the government's current situation of having hundreds of similar IT investments will continue to exist. GAO is recommending that OMB clarify its reporting on IT investments and improve its guidance to agencies on identifying and categorizing IT investments. OMB did not agree that further efforts were needed to clarify reporting. Given the importance of continued improvement in OMB's reporting and guidance, GAO maintains its recommendations are warranted.
RecommendationsOur 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: David A. Powner Team: Government Accountability Office: Information Technology Phone: (202) 512-9286GAO-11-826, Information Technology: OMB Needs to Improve Its Guidance on IT Investments
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-826
entitled 'Information Technology: OMB Needs to Improve Its Guidance on
IT Investments' which was released on October 26, 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:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
September 2011:
Information Technology:
OMB Needs to Improve Its Guidance on IT Investments:
GAO-11-826:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-826, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The federal government invests heavily in information technology (IT).
In recent years, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has made
efforts to improve the transparency, oversight, and management of the
federal government‘s IT investments. More recently, in June 2009, OMB
deployed the IT Dashboard, a Web-based system that provides detailed
performance information on federal IT investments.
GAO was asked to (1) describe the current number and types of IT
investments reported by federal agencies on the IT Dashboard,
(2) evaluate the adequacy of OMB‘s guidance to federal agencies in
reporting on IT investments, and (3) evaluate efforts to identify and
address potentially duplicative investments. To address these
objectives, GAO analyzed data from the IT Dashboard, analyzed 10
federal agencies‘ investment guidance and reports, and interviewed
agency officials.
What GAO Found:
According to data reported on OMB‘s IT Dashboard in July 2011, 26
federal agencies plan to spend almost $79 billion on 7,248 IT
investments in fiscal year 2011. OMB often uses the $79 billion figure
in referring to annual federal investments in IT; however, it is
important to note that this figure does not reflect the spending of
the entire federal government. It does not include IT investments by
58 independent executive branch agencies, including the Central
Intelligence Agency, or by the legislative or judicial branches. A
closer look at the $79 billion in investments for the 26 agencies
reveals that (1) the expenditures are split almost evenly between
major and nonmajor (in terms of cost, risk, and other factors)
investments; (2) about two-thirds of the expenditures are for systems
in an operational state, while about one-third of the expenditures
provide for the development of new systems; and (3) there are hundreds
of investments providing similar functions across the federal
government. For example, agencies reported 1,536 information and
technology management investments, 781 supply chain management
investments, and 661 human resource management investments (see table).
Table:
Selected category of investment: Information and technology management;
Number of investments: 1,536;
Expenditures: $35,476,000,000.
Selected category of investment: Supply chain management;
Number of investments: 781;
Expenditures: $3,331,000,000.
Selected category of investment: Human resource management;
Number of investments: 661;
Expenditures: $2,516,000,000.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB IT Dashboard, exhibit 53 data as of July
2011.
[End of table]
OMB provides guidance to agencies on how to report on their IT
investments, but this guidance does not ensure complete reporting or
facilitate the identification of duplicative investments.
Specifically, agencies differ on what investments they include as an
IT investment; for example, 5 of the 10 agencies GAO reviewed
consistently consider investments in research and development systems
as IT, and 5 do not. As a result, the 26 federal agencies‘ annual IT
investments are likely greater that the $79 billion reported in fiscal
year 2011. In addition, OMB‘s guidance to federal agencies requires
each investment to be mapped to a single functional category. This
limits OMB‘s ability to identify duplicative investments both within
and across agencies because similar investments may be organized into
different categories.
OMB and federal agencies have undertaken several initiatives to
address potentially duplicative IT investments. For example, OMB has
efforts under way to consolidate similar functions through its ’line
of business“ initiatives and has reduced the scope of three
duplicative systems identified during executive reviews of high-
priority projects. In addition, most of the agencies GAO reviewed
established guidance for ensuring new investments are not duplicative
with existing systems. However, most of OMB‘s recent initiatives have
not yet demonstrated results. Further, agencies do not routinely
assess operational systems to determine if they are duplicative. Until
agencies routinely assess their IT investment portfolios to identify
and reduce duplicative systems, the government‘s current situation of
having hundreds of similar IT investments will continue to exist.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that OMB clarify its reporting on IT investments
and improve its guidance to agencies on identifying and categorizing
IT investments. OMB did not agree that further efforts were needed to
clarify reporting. Given the importance of continued improvement in
OMB‘s reporting and guidance, GAO maintains its recommendations are
warranted.
View GAO-11-826. For more information, contact David Powner, (202) 512-
9286 or pownerd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Key Federal Agencies Plan to Spend Almost $79 Billion on 7,248 IT
Investments in Fiscal Year 2011:
OMB's Guidance on Reporting IT Investments Does Not Ensure Complete
Reporting or Facilitate Identifying Duplicative Investments:
OMB and Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Address Potentially
Duplicative Investments, but Results to Date Are Mixed and More
Remains to Be Done:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Selected Federal Agencies' IT Investments:
Appendix III: Examples of Primary Functions of Federal IT Investments:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Departments and Agencies that Report to OMB on Their IT
Investments:
Table 2: Executive Branch Departments and Agencies Included on the IT
Dashboard:
Table 3: Available FEA Categories for Investments, for Fiscal Year
2010 Submissions:
Figures:
Figure 1: Breakdown of $78.8 Billion in Planned IT Investments for
Fiscal Year 2011 (dollars in millions, as of July 2011):
Figure 2: Summary of Major and Nonmajor Investments in Development and
O&M, as of July 2011 (dollars in billions):
Figure 3: Number of IT Investments Governmentwide by Primary Function,
as of July 2011 (fiscal year 2011 expenditures, in millions):
Figure 4: Number of Federal Agencies' Investments in the Information
and Technology Management Systems Functional Area (as of July 18,
2011):
Figure 5: Number of IT Investments by Federal Agency (excluding DOD)
within the Information and Technology Management Systems Functional
Area (as of July 2011):
Figure 6: Number of Department of Defense IT Investments for Fiscal
Year 2011:
Figure 7: Number of HHS IT Investments for Fiscal Year 2011:
Figure 8: Number of DHS IT Investments for Fiscal Year 2011:
Figure 9: Number of VA IT Investments for Fiscal Year 2011:
Figure 10: Number of Department of the Treasury IT Investments for
Fiscal Year 2011:
Figure 11: Number of Department of Transportation IT Investments for
Fiscal Year 2011:
Figure 12: Number of Department of Justice IT Investments for Fiscal
Year 2011:
Figure 13: Number of Department of Agriculture IT Investments for
Fiscal Year 2011:
Figure 14: Number of Department of Commerce IT Investments for Fiscal
Year 2011:
Figure 15: Number of NASA IT Investments for Fiscal Year 2011:
Figure 16: Number of Human Resources Investments for Fiscal Year 2011:
Figure 17: Number of Human Resources Investments (excluding DOD) for
Fiscal Year 2011:
Figure 18: Number of Supply Chain Management Investments for Fiscal
Year 2011:
Figure 19: Number of Supply Chain Management Investments (excluding
DOD) for Fiscal Year 2011:
Figure 20: Number of Financial Management Investments for Fiscal Year
2011:
Figure 21: Number of Financial Management Investments (excluding DOD)
for Fiscal Year 2011:
Abbreviations:
Agriculture: Department of Agriculture:
CIO: chief information officer:
Commerce: Department of Commerce:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FEA: Federal Enterprise Architecture:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
IT: information technology:
Justice: Department of Justice:
LOB: Line of Business:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
O&M: operation and maintenance:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
Transportation: Department of Transportation:
Treasury: Department of the Treasury:
VA: Department of Veterans Affairs:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 29, 2011:
Congressional Requesters:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reported that the
federal government spends billions of dollars on information
technology (IT) investments each year, with such investments totaling
almost $79 billion in fiscal year 2011. During the past several years,
we have issued several reports and testimonies and made numerous
recommendations to OMB to improve the transparency, oversight, and
management of the federal government's IT investments.[Footnote 1] In
June 2009, OMB deployed the IT Dashboard, a Web-based system to
improve the transparency and oversight of IT spending. Currently, the
Dashboard provides detailed performance information for 828 major IT
investments and access to less detailed information on over 6,000
nonmajor IT investments.[Footnote 2]
To understand more about OMB's oversight of IT investments, you asked
us to (1) describe the current number and types of IT investments
reported by federal agencies on the IT Dashboard, (2) evaluate the
adequacy of OMB's guidance to federal agencies in reporting on IT
investments, and (3) evaluate efforts to identify and address
potentially duplicative investments. To do so, we analyzed IT
investment data downloaded from the Dashboard and OMB's guidance to
federal agencies on IT investments, interviewed officials at the 10
federal agencies with the largest IT spending in fiscal year
2010[Footnote 3] to understand how they implement OMB guidance, and
analyzed reports and interviewed officials on efforts to address
duplicative investments.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2011 to September
2011 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. See
appendix I for a complete description of our objectives, scope, and
methodology.
Background:
OMB plays a key role in overseeing how federal agencies manage their
investments by working with them to plan, justify, and determine how
to best manage their IT projects. 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's Roles and Responsibilities for Overseeing IT Investments:
Over the last two decades, Congress has enacted several laws to assist
agencies and the federal government in managing IT investments. Three
key laws are the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,[Footnote 4] the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996,[Footnote 5] and the E-Government Act of
2002:[Footnote 6]
* The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995--The act specifies OMB and
agency responsibilities for managing information resources, including
the management of information technology. Among its provisions, this
law establishes agency responsibility for maximizing the value and
assessing and managing the risks of major information systems
initiatives. It also requires that OMB develop and oversee policies,
principles, standards, and guidelines for federal agency information
technology functions, including periodic evaluations of major
information systems.
* The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996--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. Additionally, this law 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.
* The E-Government Act of 2002--The act establishes a federal e-
government initiative, which encourages the use of Web-based Internet
applications to enhance the access to and delivery of government
information and service to citizens, to business partners, to
employees, and among agencies at all levels of government. The act
also requires OMB to report annually to Congress on the status of e-
government initiatives. In these reports, OMB is to describe the
administration's use of e-government principles to improve government
performance and the delivery of information and services to the public.
OMB subsequently began several initiatives to help fulfill these
responsibilities:
* In February 2002, OMB established the Federal Enterprise
Architecture (FEA) program. According to OMB, the FEA is intended to
facilitate governmentwide improvement through cross-agency analysis
and identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities
for collaboration, interoperability, and integration within and across
agency programs. The FEA is composed of five "reference models"
describing the federal government's (1) business (or mission)
processes and functions, independent of the agencies that perform
them; (2) performance goals and outcome measures; (3) means of service
delivery; (4) information and data definitions; and (5) technology
standards. The reference models are intended to inform agency efforts
to develop their agency-specific enterprise architectures and enable
agencies to ensure that their proposed investments are not duplicative
with those of other agencies and to pursue, where appropriate, joint
projects.
* In April 2003, OMB established the Office of E-Government to promote
better use of the Internet and other information technologies to
improve government services for citizens, internal government
operations, and opportunities for citizen participation in government.
In recent years, OMB e-government initiatives have fostered the
establishment of centralized systems across the government. Key
efforts target electronically filing annual tax returns, providing a
one-stop portal for emergency response information, developing a
governmentwide electronic travel system, and consolidating the number
of payroll systems to a small number of providers.
* In March 2004, OMB established multiple "Line of Business" (LOB)
initiatives to consolidate redundant IT investments and business
processes across the federal government in areas including case
management, grants management, human resources management, federal
health architecture, information systems security, budget formulation
and execution, geospatial information, financial management, and IT
infrastructure. Each LOB initiative is led by an individual agency and
supported by other relevant agencies. One of the initiatives' goals is
to reduce costs governmentwide through consolidation and
standardization, and OMB reports to Congress each year on the costs
and benefits of these initiatives. OMB officials explained that the
current administration continues to support these LOB initiatives.
OMB's IT Oversight Mechanisms:
OMB uses several data collection mechanisms to oversee federal IT
spending during the annual budget formulation process. Specifically,
OMB requires 26 key federal departments and agencies (agencies) to
provide information related to their IT investments, including agency
IT investment portfolios (called exhibit 53s) and capital asset plans
and business cases (called exhibit 300s). The 26 federal agencies are
listed in table 1 and the exhibits are described below.
Table 1: Departments and Agencies that Report to OMB on Their IT
Investments:
Departments:
Agriculture;
Commerce;
Defense[A];
Education;
Energy;
Health and Human Services;
Homeland Security;
Housing and Urban Development;
Interior;
Justice;
Labor;
State;
Transportation;
Treasury;
Veterans Affairs.
Independent agencies:
Environmental Protection Agency;
General Services Administration;
National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
National Archives and Records Administration;
National Science Foundation;
Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Office of Personnel Management;
Small Business Administration;
Social Security Administration;
U.S. Agency for International Development.
Other agencies:
Smithsonian Institution.
Source: OMB's IT Dashboard, as of July 2011.
[A] While the Army Corps of Engineers submits information on its IT
investments to OMB separate from the Department of Defense's
submission, we have included it here as part of the Department of
Defense.
[End of table]
* Exhibit 53. The purpose of the exhibit 53 is to identify all IT
investments--both major and nonmajor--and their associated costs
within a federal organization. Information included on agency exhibit
53s is designed, in part, to help OMB better understand what agencies
are spending on IT investments. The information also supports cost
analyses prescribed by the Clinger-Cohen Act. As part of the annual
budget, OMB publishes a report on IT spending for the federal
government representing a compilation of exhibit 53 data submitted by
the 26 agencies.
* Exhibit 300. The purpose of the exhibit 300s is to provide a
business case for each major IT investment and to allow OMB to monitor
IT investments once they are funded. Agencies are required to provide
information on each major investment's cost, schedule, and performance.
To help carry out its oversight role and assist the agencies in
carrying out their responsibilities as assigned by the Clinger-Cohen
Act, OMB developed a Management Watch List in 2003. This list included
mission-critical projects that needed improvements in performance
measures, project management, IT security, or their 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.
More recently, in June 2009, to further improve the transparency into
and oversight of agencies' IT investments, OMB publicly deployed a
website, known as the IT Dashboard, which replaced its Management
Watch List and High-Risk List. The Dashboard displays information on
the cost, schedule, and performance of 828 major federal IT
investments at 26 federal agencies. In addition, the Dashboard allows
users to download exhibit 53 data, which includes information on both
major and nonmajor investments. According to OMB, these data are
intended to provide a near real-time perspective of the performance of
these investments, as well as a historical perspective. Further, the
public display of these data are intended to allow OMB, other
oversight bodies, and the general public to hold the government
agencies accountable for results and progress.
According to OMB officials, the agency's analysts use the IT Dashboard
to identify IT investments that are experiencing performance problems
and to select them for a TechStat session--a review of selected IT
investments between OMB and agency leadership that is led by the
Federal CIO. As of December 2010, OMB had held 58 of these sessions.
[Footnote 7] Further, OMB officials told us that, in mid-2011,
TechStat reviews began to occur at the agency level, and as of
September 2011, each of the agencies that participated in the IT
Dashboard held agency-level TechStat meetings. According to OMB, these
sessions have enabled the government to improve or terminate IT
investments that are experiencing performance problems.
GAO Has Previously Reported on Needed Improvements to the Reliability
of the Exhibit 300s and the IT Dashboard:
Over the last 5 years, we have issued several reports recommending
improvements to the reliability of both the exhibit 300s and the IT
Dashboard. In January 2006, we issued a report on the accuracy and
reliability of agencies' exhibit 300s.[Footnote 8] We found that
underlying support for the information in the exhibit 300 was often
inadequate. Specifically, we reported that the exhibit 300s had three
types of weaknesses: (1) underlying documentation either did not exist
or disagreed with the exhibit 300, (2) agencies did not always
demonstrate that they complied with federal or departmental
requirements or policies with regard to management and reporting
processes, and (3) cost data were generally unreliable. We recommended
that OMB direct agencies to identify and disclose weaknesses in data
accuracy and reliability. We also recommended that OMB develop more
explicit guidance for the exhibit 300s and provide training to agency
personnel for completing exhibit 300s. In response, OMB issued
guidance directing agencies to ensure that they are complying with OMB
guidance on information quality, modified exhibit 300 guidance to make
it more explicit in certain sections, and provided training to
agencies on how to complete their exhibit 300s.
More recently, we issued two reports on the IT Dashboard. In July 2010
we reported that the Dashboard had increased the transparency and
oversight of federal IT investments; however, the cost and schedule
ratings on the Dashboard were not always accurate for selected
investments.[Footnote 9] Specifically, of the eight investments
selected for review, we found that four had notable discrepancies on
either their cost or schedule ratings. We noted that a primary reason
for the data inaccuracies was that while the Dashboard was intended to
represent near real-time performance information, the cost and
schedule ratings did not take into consideration current performance.
As a result, the ratings were based on outdated information. Another
issue with the ratings was the wide variation in the number of
milestones agencies reported, which was partly because OMB's guidance
to agencies was too general. We recommended that OMB report on its
planned changes to the Dashboard to improve the accuracy of
performance information and provide guidance to agencies that
standardizes milestone reporting. OMB agreed with our recommendations
and initiated work to address them.
Subsequently, in March 2011, we reported that OMB had initiated
several efforts to increase the Dashboard's value as an oversight
tool, and had used the Dashboard's data to improve federal IT
management.[Footnote 10] These efforts include streamlining key OMB
investment reporting tools, eliminating manual monthly submissions,
coordinating with agencies to improve data, and improving the
Dashboard's user interface. However, we also noted that while the
efforts contributed to data quality improvements, performance data
inaccuracies remained. The ratings of selected IT investments on the
Dashboard did not always accurately reflect current performance, which
is counter to the website's purpose of reporting near real-time
performance. Specifically, we found that cost ratings were inaccurate
for 6 of the 10 investments that we reviewed, and schedule ratings
were inaccurate for 9. These inaccuracies can be attributed to
weaknesses in how agencies report data to the Dashboard, such as
providing erroneous data submissions, as well as limitations in how
OMB calculates the ratings. Accordingly, we recommended that heads of
each of the five selected agencies with inaccurate ratings take steps
to improve the accuracy and reliability of Dashboard information and
OMB improve how it rates investments relative to current performance
and schedule variance. In response, four of the selected agencies
agreed with our recommendation, and one agreed to consider it. OMB
agreed with our recommendation to update the schedule calculation, and
stated that the agency has long-term plans to update the Dashboard's
calculations.
Key Federal Agencies Plan to Spend Almost $79 Billion on 7,248 IT
Investments in Fiscal Year 2011:
As of July 2011, the 26 federal agencies that submit information to
the IT Dashboard planned to spend about $78.8 billion on 7,248 IT
investments in fiscal year 2011. DOD reported the most planned
spending in IT investments (at $37.1 billion for 2,414 investments),
followed by HHS (at $7 billion for 706 investments), and DHS (at
almost $6 billion for 402 investments). Figure 1 shows the planned
spending, in millions, on IT investments by federal agency. Appendix
II provides more information on selected agencies' IT investments.
Figure 1: Breakdown of $78.8 Billion in Planned IT Investments for
Fiscal Year 2011 (dollars in millions, as of July 2011):
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
DOD: $37.120 billion; 47%;
HHS: $7.030 billion; 9%;
DHS: $5.987 billion; 8%;
Treasury: $3.419 billion; 4%;
VA: $3.193 billion; 4%;
Justice: $2.991 billion; 4%;
Transportation: $2.926 billion; 4%;
Agriculture: $2.504 billion; 3%;
DOC: $2.337 billion; 3%;
17 other agencies: $11.276 billion; 14%.
Source: GAO analysis of exhibit 53 data.
[End of figure]
When providing IT investment information to OMB, federal agencies
designate investments as major or nonmajor IT investments and identify
whether expenditures are for new development or for ongoing operation
and maintenance (O&M). Of the planned fiscal year 2011 expenditures
listed on the IT Dashboard, major IT investments account for about
$40.2 billion and nonmajor investments account for about $38.4
billion. Looked at another way, federal agencies plan to spend
approximately $24.7 billion on development activities and about $54
billion on O&M. Figure 2 provides a visual summary of the relative
cost of investments that are major and nonmajor investments, and that
are in development and O&M.
Figure 2: Summary of Major and Nonmajor Investments in Development and
O&M, as of July 2011 (dollars in billions):
[Refer to PDF for image: 3 pie-charts]
Life cycle stage:
Operation and maintenance: $53.8 billion;
Development: $24.7 billion.
Investment type:
Nonmajor: $38.4 billion;
Major: $40.2 billion.
Combined:
Nonmajor investments:
Operation and maintenance: $28.5 billion;
Development: $9.9 billion;
Major investments:
Operation and maintenance: $25.4 billion;
Development: $14.8 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[End of figure]
The IT Dashboard Does Not Include All Federal IT Investments:
OMB often refers to the federal government's approximately $79 billion
annual investment in IT; however, the Dashboard does not provide data
for all federal agencies. While the IT Dashboard provides IT
investment information for 26 federal agencies, it does not include
any information about 61 other agencies' investments. Specifically,
the Dashboard presents information from 15 federal departments, 10
independent agencies, and 1 other agency.[Footnote 11] It does not
include information from 58 independent executive branch agencies
(such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Central
Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Communications Commission) and 3
other agencies (such as the Legal Services Corporation). It also does
not include information from the legislative or judicial branch
agencies. Table 2 summarizes the executive branch agencies that are
included and excluded from the Dashboard.
Table 2: Executive Branch Departments and Agencies Included on the IT
Dashboard:
Type of agency: Departments;
Number of agencies included on IT Dashboard: all 15 are included.
Type of agency: Independent;
Number of agencies included on IT Dashboard: 10 of 68 are included.
Type of agency: Other;
Number of agencies included on IT Dashboard: 1 of 4 are included.
Sources: GAO analysis of USA.gov and IT Dashboard data.
[End of table]
According to OMB, the agencies on the Dashboard are those that have
historically been involved in the annual capital planning process.
While OMB encourages smaller agencies to use the Dashboard, most of
these agencies choose not to. Accordingly, estimates of these
agencies' IT investments are not included in the $79 billion spending
figure.
Agencies Categorize Their Investments by Primary Function:
When agencies develop their annual exhibit 53s, they are required to
categorize each investment according to a primary function identified
in the FEA reference models. For the fiscal year 2010 submissions,
agencies were asked to select a primary function from categories
within the FEA business or service reference models--several of which
have similar titles.[Footnote 12] The primary functions identified in
both of these models are listed in table 3.
Table 3: Available FEA Categories for Investments, for Fiscal Year
2010 Submissions:
Business reference model:
Administrative management;
Community and social services;
Controls and oversight;
Correctional activities;
Defense and national security;
Disaster management;
Economic development;
Education;
Energy;
Environmental management;
Financial management;
General government;
General science and innovation;
Health;
Homeland security;
Human resource management;
Income security;
Information and technology management;
Intelligence operations;
Internal risk management and mitigation;
International affairs and commerce;
Law enforcement;
Legislative relations;
Litigation and judicial activities;
Natural resources;
Planning and budgeting;
Public affairs;
Regulatory development;
Revenue collection;
Supply chain management;
Transportation;
Workforce management.
Service reference model:
Analysis and statistics;
Asset/materials management;
Business intelligence;
Collaboration;
Communication;
Content management;
Customer initiated assistance;
Customer preferences;
Customer relationship management;
Data management;
Development and integration;
Document management;
Financial management;
Forms management;
Human capital/workforce management;
Human resources;
Investment management;
Knowledge discovery;
Knowledge management;
Management of process;
Organizational management;
Records management;
Reporting;
Routing and scheduling;
Search;
Security management;
Supply chain management;
Systems management;
Tracking and workflow;
Visualization.
Source: OMB.
[End of table]
In their fiscal year 2011 submissions, agencies reported the greatest
number of IT investments in the information and technology management
category (1,536 investments), followed by supply chain management (781
investments), human resources management (661 investments), and
financial management (580 investments). Similarly, planned
expenditures on investments were greatest in the information and
technology management category, at about $35.5 billion. Figure 3
depicts the total number of investments governmentwide by agency-
identified primary function.
Figure 3: Number of IT Investments Governmentwide by Primary Function,
as of July 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
FEA primary function: Information and technology management;
Number of investments: 1536;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $35.476 billion.
FEA primary function: Supply chain management;
Number of investments: 781;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $3.331 billion.
FEA primary function: Human resources/human capital management;
Number of investments: 661;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $2.516 billion.
FEA primary function: Financial management;
Number of investments: 580;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $2.737 billion.
FEA primary function: Health;
Number of investments: 444;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $5 billion.
FEA primary function: General science and innovation;
Number of investments: 372;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $1.637 billion.
FEA primary function: Defense and national security;
Number of investments: 358;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $9.35 billion.
FEA primary function: Administrative management;
Number of investments: 301;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $759 million.
FEA primary function: Planning and budgeting;
Number of investments: 292;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $705 million.
FEA primary function: Environmental management;
Number of investments: 177;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $1.151 billion.
FEA primary function: Controls and oversight;
Number of investments: 176;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $527 million.
FEA primary function: Transportation;
Number of investments: 173;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $2.812 billion.
FEA primary function: General government;
Number of investments: 134;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $1.277 billion.
FEA primary function: Natural resources;
Number of investments: 118;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $307 million.
FEA primary function: Disaster management;
Number of investments: 116;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $740 million.
FEA primary function: Homeland security;
Number of investments: 115;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $2.589 billion.
FEA primary function: Education;
Number of investments: 106;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $371 million.
FEA primary function: Public affairs;
Number of investments: 94;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $250 million.
FEA primary function: All other functions;
Number of investments: 714;
Fiscal year 2011 expenditures: $7.250 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of exhibit 53 data.
[End of figure]
This information can also be analyzed to determine the number of
investments for each agency in each category. For example, within the
information and technology management category, DOD has the greatest
number of investments, at 487. Following are the Departments of
Energy, with 172 investments, and Justice, with 135 investments.
Figure 4 provides a visual representation of the number and cost of
investments in the information and technology management category.
Figure 4: Number of Federal Agencies' Investments in the Information
and Technology Management Systems Functional Area (as of July 18,
2011):
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
DOD: 487 investments; about $19.8 billion in FY 2011 spending;
Other agencies: 1049 investments; over $15.7 billion in FY 2011
spending.
Source: GAO analysis of exhibit 53 data.
[End of figure]
Figure 5 shows the number of investments developed by federal agencies
(excluding DOD) in the information and technology management
category. Appendix III provides similar charts for three other
functional areas: supply chain management, human resources management,
and financial management.
Figure 5: Number of IT Investments by Federal Agency (excluding DOD)
within the Information and Technology Management Systems Functional
Area (as of July 2011):
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Agency: Energy;
Number of investments: 172.
Agency: Justice;
Number of investments: 135.
Agency: HHS;
Number of investments: 127.
Agency: DHS;
Number of investments: 111.
Agency: Agriculture;
Number of investments: 80.
Agency: Transportation;
Number of investments: 70.
Agency: Education;
Number of investments: 68.
Agency: Interior;
Number of investments: 39.
Agency: GSA;
Number of investments: 38.
Agency: VA;
Number of investments: 30.
Agency: State;
Number of investments: 25.
Agency: EPA;
Number of investments: 25.
Agency: Labor;
Number of investments: 21.
Agency: HUD;
Number of investments: 18.
Agency: Commerce;
Number of investments: 16.
Agency: USAID;
Number of investments: 16.
Agency: SSA;
Number of investments: 13.
Agency: Treasury;
Number of investments: 11.
Agency: SBA;
Number of investments: 8.
Agency: NASA;
Number of investments: 6.
Agency: NARA;
Number of investments: 6.
Agency: NRC;
Number of investments: 5.
Agency: OPM;
Number of investments: 5.
Agency: Army Corps of Engineers;
Number of investments: 4.
Agency: NSF;
Number of investments: 4.
Source: GAO analysis of exhibit 53 data.
Notes:
(1) Due to the large number of DOD investments in this category, we
have omitted that agency from this chart. See figure 4 for information
on DOD's investments.
(2) Key to agency names: Energy = Department of Energy; Justice =
Department of Justice; HHS = Department of Health and Human Services;
DHS = Department of Homeland Security; Agriculture = U.S. Department
of Agriculture; Transportation = Department of Transportation;
Education = Department of Education; Interior = Department of the
Interior; GSA = General Services Administration; VA = Department of
Veterans Affairs; State = Department of State; EPA = Environmental
Protection Agency; Labor = Department of Labor; HUD = Department of
Housing and Urban Development; Commerce = Department of Commerce;
USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development; SSA = Social
Security Administration; Treasury = Department of the Treasury; SBA =
Small Business Administration; NASA = National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; NARA = National Archives and Records Administration;
NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission; OPM = Office of Personnel
Management; NSF = National Science Foundation.
[End of figure]
OMB's Guidance on Reporting IT Investments Does Not Ensure Complete
Reporting or Facilitate Identifying Duplicative Investments:
The guidance that OMB provides to agencies on how to report on their
IT investments does not ensure complete reporting or fully facilitate
the identification of duplicative investments. Specifically, OMB's
definition of an IT investment is broad, and agencies interpret it in
different ways. The 10 agencies we evaluated differed on what systems
they include as IT investments. For example, 5 agencies reported that
they include all research and development systems, and 5 do not. As a
result, not all IT investments are included in the federal
government's estimate of annual IT spending. In addition, OMB's
guidance to federal agencies on how to categorize their investments
requires them to map each investment to a single primary function.
This limits OMB's ability to identify potentially duplicative
investments both within and across agencies because similar
investments may be organized under different functions.
OMB's Guidance on Reporting IT Investments Does Not Ensure Consistent
or Complete Reporting:
In its annual request for agencies to report on their IT investments
using the exhibit 53, OMB uses the definition of IT from the Clinger-
Cohen Act of 1996.[Footnote 13] Both the act and OMB's guidance define
IT as any equipment used in the automatic acquisition, storage,
analysis, evaluation, manipulation, management, movement, control,
display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or
information. The exhibit 53 requires agencies to provide, among other
things, a description, cost information, and FEA function for each IT
investment in the agency's portfolio. After agencies submit an initial
draft of the exhibit 53, OMB reviews the draft and then provides an
evaluation, including any areas requiring remediation. Through this
process, agencies work with OMB to determine which major and nonmajor
investments will be reported in the President's budget.
However, OMB officials reported that they have given agencies the
flexibility to determine what to include as an IT investment, and
agencies have chosen to interpret the definition of IT in different
ways. Specifically, in implementing OMB's guidance, 6 of the 10
agencies we evaluated exclude systems that fit the definition of an IT
investment.[Footnote 14] One case involves space systems. Both NASA
and Commerce include a spacecraft's ground systems (such as satellite
command-and-control systems and satellite data-processing systems) in
their exhibit 53s. However, neither agency includes the technology
components on the spacecraft itself--including instruments, computers,
and transponders--even though these components acquire, manage, and
transmit data. As a result, these investments are not included in the
annual exhibit 53 submissions. For example, in its fiscal year 2011
exhibit 53 submission, Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) included only $215.75 million of the $690.6
million budgeted for its Geostationary Operational Environmental
Satellite-R series and only $181 million of the $382.3 million
budgeted for its Joint Polar Satellite System. Thus, at least $676
million in IT-related development was not included on the IT Dashboard
for those two systems. Further, NASA's reported $1.8 billion in IT
investments comprises a very small portion of its over $68 billion
portfolio of major space-related projects.[Footnote 15]
In another case, five agencies--the Departments of Transportation,
Commerce, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Homeland
Security--stated that they do not always include systems that are in
research and development as IT investments. For example, the Federal
Railroad Administration (within the Department of Transportation)
includes three research and development systems in its exhibit 53, but
does not include others, such as the Positive Train Control system.
This system is meant to integrate command, control, communications,
and information systems for controlling train movements at a cost of
about $27 million (as of 2008).
Because agencies choose to exclude certain systems or categories of
systems when they report to OMB on their IT investments, key costs are
not included in OMB's estimate of annual spending on federal IT
investments. OMB officials acknowledge that agencies are able to
interpret the definition of IT in different ways, but stated that they
want to provide agencies some flexibility in deciding what they report
on. Until OMB clarifies and enforces its requirement that agencies
should be reporting on all IT investments, selected IT investments
will not be subjected to the enhanced oversight, and OMB's estimates
of federal IT investments will be significantly understated.
OMB's Guidance on Categorizing IT Investments Limits Efforts to
Identify Duplication:
OMB's guidance to federal agencies on how to categorize IT investments
allows for analysis of investments with similar functions; however, it
does not go far enough to allow identification of potentially
duplicative investments. According to OMB guidance, each investment
needs to be mapped to a single functional category within the FEA.
This feature allows the identification and analysis of potentially
duplicative investments across agencies.
However, IT investments could fit into more than one category. For
example, an agency could identify an inventory system as a financial
management system or a supply chain management system. Thus, if an
organization planned to develop an inventory system and searched for
potentially duplicative investments in a group labeled as financial
management systems, it would miss seeing potentially duplicative
systems categorized as supply chain management systems. We recently
reported on a DOD financial management system that was identified in a
different functional category--supply chain management.[Footnote 16]
We noted that because DOD had categorized the system as supply chain
management, the cost of this system was not included in OMB's estimate
for financial management systems. Thus, we recommended that OMB take
actions to facilitate accurate reporting of spending on financial
management systems.
As another example, an agency seeking to develop a wildfire management
system would likely assess whether there is a similar system listed in
the category of disaster preparedness; however, the agency would miss
seeing an investment by the Department of Interior for a wildfire
management system because it was grouped in the information management
and technology category.
OMB officials acknowledged that there may be limitations in allowing
agencies to choose only one descriptive category but noted that
agencies can provide additional information on other applicable
functions in their supplementary descriptions. However, searching
through supplementary material is more labor-intensive than simply
searching on primary and secondary functions. Until OMB requires
agencies to identify additional functions, where applicable, it will
be more difficult to identify similar and potentially duplicative
investments within and across government agencies.
OMB and Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Address Potentially
Duplicative Investments, but Results to Date Are Mixed and More
Remains to Be Done:
OMB and federal agencies have undertaken several initiatives to
address potentially duplicative IT investments. For example, OMB has
efforts under way to consolidate similar functions through its LOB and
FEA initiatives and has eliminated duplicative systems identified
during its TechStat sessions. In addition, several of the agencies we
evaluated have established guidance for ensuring new investments are
not duplicative with existing systems. However, most of OMB's recent
initiatives have not yet demonstrated results. Further, several
agencies do not routinely assess legacy systems to determine if they
are duplicative. Until agencies routinely assess their entire IT
portfolios to identify and remove or consolidate duplicative systems,
such duplication will continue to exist.
OMB Has Efforts Under Way to Address Duplicative Investments, but the
Results of These Initiatives Are Mixed:
OMB has multiple initiatives under way that are to identify,
eliminate, or avoid duplicative IT investments. These include its E-
government, LOB, and FEA initiatives, as well as targeted IT
modernizations and TechStat reviews. However, the results of these
initiatives are mixed. A discussion of each follows:
* E-government initiatives. OMB and agency officials have reported
that several of the e-government initiatives were successful at
reducing duplication across the government. According to OMB, the E-
payroll initiative consolidated 26 separate payroll systems down to 4
e-payroll providers. Similarly, 21 agencies now use the E-gov travel
service and have seen a reduction in costs. For example, according to
OMB, the Department of Housing and Urban Development decreased travel
voucher costs from $75 per voucher to about $13.75. According to OMB
officials, their shared services initiative--still in its planning
stages--is a continuation of these e-government initiatives.
* LOB initiatives. OMB currently has nine LOB initiatives to
consolidate redundant IT investments and business processes across the
federal government in the areas of case management, grants management,
human resources management, federal health architecture, information
systems security, budget formulation and execution, geospatial
information, financial management, and IT infrastructure. According to
OMB's annual reports on e-government and LOB initiatives as of fiscal
year 2010, since 2006, federal agencies have reported spending about
$445 million on LOB initiatives. However, the benefits of these
initiatives are mixed. In its 2011 annual report, OMB stated that
agencies had made progress in developing guidance and obtaining buy-in
from multiple agencies. For example, OMB reported that the federal
health architecture LOB allowed federal agencies to coordinate with
each other and with tribal, state, local, and private sectors to begin
developing standards for health information exchanges. Similarly, OMB
reported that the budget formulation and execution LOB allowed the
federal budget community to begin to develop common tools and best
practices. However, the 2011 annual report described demonstrated cost
savings for only three LOBs, of which only two provided the estimated
amount of savings. Specifically, OMB reported that the geospatial and
the information systems security LOBs resulted in cost avoidance or
savings of about $9 million and $7.6 million, respectively, by
allowing for blanket purchase agreements. OMB also reported that the
grants management LOB allowed agencies and other organizations to
reduce the number of systems, but it did not provide a number or
specify which systems were eliminated.
* FEA. When originally developed in 1999, the FEA was intended to
provide federal agencies with a common construct for their
architectures and thereby facilitate the coordination of common
business processes, technology insertion, information flows, and
system investments among federal agencies. As part of the fiscal year
2004 budget cycle, OMB required agencies to align proposed IT
investments to the FEA reference models; this information was then
used to develop the initial LOB initiatives. Since that time, agencies
have established individual enterprise architectures and used them to
characterize their IT investments and to guide plans for the future.
In 2004, we reported that the FEA was a work in progress and was still
evolving.[Footnote 17] To this point, the Federal Chief Enterprise
Architect recently began planning changes to the FEA framework--such
as updating existing reference models and adding reference models for
software applications, infrastructure, and security--to further assist
agencies in reducing duplication and improving mission performance.
OMB's Chief Architect reported that comprehensive changes to the FEA
are planned for fiscal year 2012.
* Targeted IT initiatives. OMB officials reported that ongoing IT
initiatives, including efforts to consolidate federal data centers and
to develop trusted Internet connections, could help reduce duplication
across government. Specifically, in February 2010, OMB began an
initiative meant to consolidate federal data centers and hardware and
software assets through virtualization, cloud computing, and
consolidation. In July 2011, OMB reported that the federal government
had already closed 81 centers and was on track to close 137 centers by
December 2011 and 800 by 2015. However, in July 2011, we reported that
federal agencies' data center inventories and consolidation plans were
incomplete and recommended that agencies complete their data center
consolidation inventories and plans, and that OMB's data center task
force oversee these efforts.[Footnote 18] Separately, in November
2007, OMB announced its trusted Internet connection initiative to
improve security by reducing and consolidating external network
connections. However, we reported in March 2010 that none of the 23
participating agencies had yet met all of the initiative's
requirements and recommended steps to improve communication and
performance measures.[Footnote 19] In addition, we recently reported
on other governmentwide initiatives and found that the FedRAMP
project, which is to provide, among other functions, continuous
security monitoring of cloud computing systems for multiagency use, is
currently behind schedule, and has not yet defined all performance
metrics.[Footnote 20] Similarly, the FedSpace project, which is to
provide federal employees and contractors collaboration tools for
cross-agency knowledge sharing, is also behind schedule and has not
defined all of its performance metrics. We recommended establishing
metrics so that the benefits of these initiatives can be effectively
measured.
* TechStat reviews. OMB works with federal agencies to identify IT
projects that need increased visibility in the agency; high-risk
projects are then selected for a TechStat session. This program
enables the government to improve or terminate IT investments that are
experiencing performance problems. According to OMB officials, based
on the TechStat reviews held as of March 2011, OMB reduced the scope
of three investments that agencies identified as duplicative.[Footnote
21] While promising, only a small fraction of the over 7,000
investments that were identified by agencies for fiscal year 2011 have
undergone TechStat reviews.
Selected Federal Agencies Evaluate New Investments to Ensure They Are
Not Duplicative, but Do Not Routinely Assess Legacy Systems:
Highly performing organizations manage investments in a portfolio
approach, selecting and evaluating investments by how well they
support the agency mission and "de-selecting" obsolete, high-risk, and
low-value IT investments.[Footnote 22] Our prior work has shown that
major federal agencies have guidance for the selection and oversight
of IT investments.[Footnote 23] This guidance generally calls for
establishing a department-level investment review board to select the
projects to be included in the agency's IT investment portfolio. In
this way, selection decisions can be made in the context of all other
investments, thus minimizing duplication across investments.
Officials from several of the federal agencies we reviewed stated that
they routinely evaluate new investments to ensure that they are not
duplicative with existing systems.[Footnote 24] For example,
investment review guidance at NASA, Justice, and Agriculture requires
officials to assess whether an investment is duplicative before it is
approved. Further, Commerce officials explained that finding
duplication is a challenge, but they attempt to identify duplication
through their investment selection process and through their Commerce
IT review board.
However, several of the agencies do not routinely assess legacy
systems to determine if they are duplicative. Specifically, officials
from several agencies with billions of dollars in investments noted
that they have limited staff resources for performing all of the
investment control processes--including reviewing exhibit 300s and IT
Dashboard data--for the entire agency. However, given the sheer number
of similar investments identified earlier in this report, such as
Energy's 172 information and technology management investments, and
DOD's 657 supply chain management investments, and the large amount of
funds spent on these investments, it appears that thorough assessments
are justified. Until agencies routinely assess their entire IT
portfolios (including both developmental and operational systems) to
identify and reduce duplicative systems, such duplication will
continue to exist.
Conclusions:
Federal agencies spend tens of billions of dollars on IT investments
each year. However, because OMB does not enforce the definition of IT
provided in the Clinger-Cohen Act, agencies exclude key categories of
IT investments--such as space systems--in their annual reports on IT
investments. These excluded investments are not subjected to OMB's IT
oversight process, and their associated costs are not included in
OMB's annual estimate of IT investments. As a result, the nation's
actual annual investment in IT is much higher than the $78.8 billion
identified by agencies. In addition, OMB's guidance on identifying
investments' primary functions has led to a situation in which similar
systems could be in different categories. With clearer
categorizations, agencies and OMB would be better positioned to
identify and address duplication in their system development efforts.
OMB and federal agencies have initiatives under way to help address
potentially duplicative systems. While selected initiatives have had
success in consolidating systems, most have not yet demonstrated
results. Further, the agencies we evaluated do not routinely evaluate
legacy systems to determine if they are duplicative and can be
eliminated or consolidated. Until OMB and federal agencies
consistently target potentially duplicative investments within and
across agencies, federal agencies may continue to spend taxpayer funds
developing systems that perform similar functions.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure that IT investments are adequately identified and
categorized, we recommend that the Director of OMB take the following
four actions:
* specify which executive branch agencies are included when discussing
the annual federal IT investment portfolio;
* clarify guidance to federal agencies in reporting on their IT
investments by specifying whether certain types of systems, such as
those in research and development and space systems, should be
included;
* revise guidance to federal agencies on categorizing IT investments
to ensure that the categorizations are clear and allow agencies to
choose secondary categories, where applicable, which will aid in
identifying potentially duplicative investments; and:
* require federal agencies to report the steps they take to ensure
that their IT investments are not duplicative as part of their annual
budget and IT investment submissions.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We received oral comments on a draft of our report from OMB officials,
including the Federal Chief Enterprise Architect, a senior policy
analyst, and a representative from the office of the General Counsel.
In those comments, OMB generally disagreed with the first two
recommendations and agreed with the second two recommendations.
Specifically, OMB officials requested that GAO remove the first and
second recommendations because they believe that the agency has
already addressed them. Regarding our recommendation to clearly
identify which agencies are included when discussing the federal IT
investment portfolio, agency officials noted that both the A-11
guidance and the "Frequently Asked Questions" section of the IT
Dashboard clearly indicate which agencies are included in the
portfolio of IT investments. However, we believe that the
recommendation is warranted because on its website and in
presentations, OMB frequently refers to "the federal government's $80
billion annual investment in IT" without clarifying that this $80
billion investment does not represent the entire federal government.
Regarding our recommendation to OMB to clarify its guidance to federal
agencies on reporting on IT investments, agency officials noted that
existing guidance (including OMB circular A-11 and OMB memo 11-29)
already discusses how to identify IT investments. We believe that the
recommendation is appropriate because the existing guidance does not
address key categories of IT investments (such as space systems and
systems in research and development) where we found inconsistencies
among agencies.
OMB officials stated that the agency is working to address the third
and fourth recommendations. Specifically, OMB plans to update the
Federal Enterprise Architecture reference models in fall 2011 to
provide additional clarity on how agencies should characterize
investments in order to enhance the identification of potentially
duplicative investments. Also, OMB's IT Reform Plan includes several
initiatives to reduce duplicative investments, including efforts in
data center consolidation, cloud computing, and shared services.
Officials noted that these initiatives will continue to be pursued
with agencies through the annual budget process and related reporting
requirements. While we acknowledge that these initiatives offer
promise in identifying and reducing duplicative investments, we
believe that OMB can do more to encourage agencies to look internally
for duplicative investments.
We also sought comments on a draft of our report from the 10 agencies
in our review. While none of the agencies agreed or disagreed with our
recommendations to OMB, several provided comments. Each agency's
comments are discussed in more detail below.
* In an e-mail, Agriculture's Associate CIO for Technology Planning,
Architecture, and E-Government stated that the department had no
formal comments on the report.
* In written comments, the Acting Secretary of Commerce noted that the
report thoroughly assessed OMB's policy and guidance, and fairly
assessed Commerce's IT information and data. Commerce's written
comments are provided in appendix IV.
* In comments provided via e-mail, an official from DOD's CIO office
provided updated data for DOD's IT investments. We did not make these
changes in our report because we used data as of July 2011 throughout
the report for our analysis.
* In written comments, HHS's Assistant Secretary for Legislation
agreed with the broad findings of the report and pointed out a
distinction between OMB policies and guidance. The agency believes
that this distinction is an issue that needs to be addressed by OMB
and all federal agencies. We agree that it is appropriate for OMB and
federal agencies to work together to determine if there is to be a
meaningful distinction between OMB's policies and its guidance to
agencies. However, this distinction does not detract from our
recommendation that OMB clarify its guidance to agencies on reporting
on their IT investments. HHS's written comments are provided in
appendix V.
* In written comments, DHS's Director of the Departmental GAO/OIG
Liaison Office noted that the agency remains committed to continuing
its work with OMB and other relevant stakeholders to address
challenges related to identifying and eliminating potentially
duplicative systems. DHS's written comments are provided in appendix
VI.
* In an e-mail, Justice's Acting Assistant Director of the Audit
Liaison Group stated that the department did not have comments.
* In comments provided via e-mail, Transportation's Deputy Director of
Audit Relations stated that the Positive Train Control system should
not be included in the department's exhibit 53 submission because the
system will be commercialized, owned, and implemented by an industry.
We used this system as an example of a system in research and
development that is not included in the federal portfolio of IT
investments. Because the agency is expending funds on this system and
it is meant to integrate command, control, communications, and
information systems, we believe that it should be reported as an IT
investment. This example reinforces our recommendation to OMB to
clarify its guidance to federal agencies to specify whether such
investments should be included.
* In an e-mail, Treasury's Audit Liaison stated that the department
had no comments on the report.
* In an e-mail, an official from VA's Office of Congressional and
Legislative Affairs reported that the agency had no comments on the
draft report.
* In an e-mail, NASA's GAO/OIG Audit Liaison stated that the agency
had no comments or technical corrections to add to the report.
* OMB and several agencies also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate.
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 appropriate Congressional committees, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties. In
addition, this report will be available on the GAO website at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or at pownerd@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII.
Signed by:
David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
List of Congressional Requesters:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Tom Carper:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information,
Federal Services and International Security:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Darrell Issa:
Chairman:
The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Ben Quayle:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to (1) describe the current number and types of
information technology (IT) investments reported by federal agencies
on the IT Dashboard, (2) evaluate the adequacy of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) guidance to federal agencies in
reporting on IT investments, and (3) evaluate efforts to identify and
address potentially duplicative investments.
To describe the current number and types of IT investments, we
analyzed data from agencies' fiscal year 2011 exhibit 53 submissions.
We downloaded this data from OMB's IT Dashboard in March and July
2011. To categorize the investments, we used the functional categories
that each agency identified for its own investments. We developed
charts and graphs depicting IT investments by investment type (major
or nonmajor), by life cycle phase (in development or in operations and
maintenance), by agency, and by functional category. We then discussed
the results of our analysis with OMB officials. To determine the
reliability of the data on the IT Dashboard, we reviewed recent GAO
reports that identified issues with the accuracy and reliability of
agency data on the IT Dashboard.[Footnote 25] We determined that the
data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report, which
is to depict the groupings and categories of information drawn from
the Dashboard.
To evaluate the adequacy of OMB's guidance to federal agencies in
reporting on IT investments, we reviewed OMB's guidance on agencies'
exhibit 53 and exhibit 300 submissions. In addition, we evaluated how
10 federal agencies implemented OMB's guidance. We selected the 10
agencies with the largest IT spending as reported in OMB's fiscal year
2010 exhibit 53 data: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice,
Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. We reviewed the guidance these
agencies provided to their program managers for reporting on IT
investments and identified types of investments that were excluded
from reporting. We also met with OMB and agency officials to discuss
current guidance on reporting on IT investments and any planned
changes to this guidance.
To evaluate efforts to identify and address potentially duplicative
investments, we met with OMB officials to understand their
responsibilities and processes related to identifying and addressing
duplication. Then we analyzed documentation related to those
processes, including the 2011 report to Congress on OMB's e-government
initiatives, OMB's 25-point plan to improve IT, and our previous work
on e-government initiatives, the Federal Enterprise Architecture, the
Federal Data Center Consolidation initiative, and the trusted Internet
connection initiative.[Footnote 26] We also analyzed documentation
from the agencies in our review, including capital planning and
investment control guides, investment selection criteria, and
documentation from investment review board meetings, and we
interviewed officials.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2011 to September
2011 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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Selected Federal Agencies' IT Investments:
The figures in this appendix provide information on selected federal
agencies' planned IT investments in fiscal year 2011. Unless otherwise
stated, these figures include both major and nonmajor IT investments.
[Footnote 27]
Figure 6: Number of Department of Defense IT Investments for Fiscal
Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
FEA primary function: Supply chain management;
Number of investments: 659.
FEA primary function: Info & tech management;
Number of investments: 487.
FEA primary function: Human resource management;
Number of investments: 351.
FEA primary function: Defense & national security;
Number of investments: 270.
FEA primary function: Financial management;
Number of investments: 261.
FEA primary function: Administrative management;
Number of investments: 114.
FEA primary function: Health;
Number of investments: 84.
FEA primary function: Planning & budgeting;
Number of investments: 67.
FEA primary function: Controls & oversight;
Number of investments: 28.
FEA primary function: General science & innovation;
Number of investments: 24.
FEA primary function: Environmental management;
Number of investments: 20.
FEA primary function: Workforce management;
Number of investments: 12.
FEA primary function: Intelligence operations;
Number of investments: 6.
FEA primary function: Education;
Number of investments: 5.
FEA primary function: International affairs & commerce;
Number of investments: 4.
FEA primary function: Litigation & judicial activities;
Number of investments: 4.
FEA primary function: Disaster management;
Number of investments: 4.
FEA primary function: Law enforcement;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Legislative relations;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Natural resources;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Disaster management;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Correctional activities;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Community & social services;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Transportation;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Public affairs;
Number of investments: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as drawn from OMB's fiscal year
2011 exhibit 53s, which were downloaded from the IT Dashboard in July
2011.
Note: While the Army Corps of Engineers submits information on its IT
investments to OMB separate from the Department of Defense's
submission, we have included it here as part of the Department of
Defense.
[End of figure]
Figure 7: Number of HHS IT Investments for Fiscal Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
FEA primary function: Health;
Number of investments: 334.
FEA primary function: Info & tech management;
Number of investments: 127.
FEA primary function: Planning & budgeting;
Number of investments: 41.
FEA primary function: Controls & oversight;
Number of investments: 37.
FEA primary function: Administrative management;
Number of investments: 30.
FEA primary function: Human resource management;
Number of investments: 28.
FEA primary function: Financial management;
Number of investments: 25.
FEA primary function: Disaster management;
Number of investments: 18.
FEA primary function: Public affairs;
Number of investments: 18.
FEA primary function: Supply chain management;
Number of investments: 18.
FEA primary function: Community & social services;
Number of investments: 14.
FEA primary function: Regulatory development;
Number of investments: 5.
FEA primary function: Litigation & judicial activities;
Number of investments: 4.
FEA primary function: General science & innovation;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Internal risk management & mitigation;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Energy;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Environmental management;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Income security;
Number of investments: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as drawn from OMB's fiscal year
2011 exhibit 53s, which were downloaded from the IT Dashboard in July
2011.
[End of figure]
Figure 8: Number of DHS IT Investments for Fiscal Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
FEA primary function: Info & tech management;
Number of investments: 111.
FEA primary function: Homeland security;
Number of investments: 104.
FEA primary function: Law enforcement;
Number of investments: 32.
FEA primary function: Disaster management;
Number of investments: 30.
FEA primary function: Human resource management;
Number of investments: 26.
FEA primary function: Controls & oversight;
Number of investments: 19.
FEA primary function: Administrative management;
Number of investments: 19.
FEA primary function: Planning & budgeting;
Number of investments: 17.
FEA primary function: Financial management;
Number of investments: 14.
FEA primary function: Supply chain management;
Number of investments: 6.
FEA primary function: Defense & national security;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Environmental management;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Transportation;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Public affairs;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: General science & innovation;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Health;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Workforce management;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Internal risk management & mitigation;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Economic development;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Intelligence operations;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: International affairs & commerce;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Regulatory development;
Number of investments: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as drawn from OMB's fiscal year
2011 exhibit 53s, which were downloaded from the IT Dashboard in July
2011.
[End of figure]
Figure 9: Number of VA IT Investments for Fiscal Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
FEA primary function: Info & tech management;
Number of investments: 30.
FEA primary function: Financial management;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Human resource management;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Administrative management;
Number of investments: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as drawn from OMB's fiscal year
2011 exhibit 53s, which were downloaded from the IT Dashboard in July
2011.
[End of figure]
Figure 10: Number of Department of the Treasury IT Investments for
Fiscal Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
FEA primary function: Community & social services;
Number of investments: 116.
FEA primary function: General government;
Number of investments: 63.
FEA primary function: Revenue collection;
Number of investments: 36.
FEA primary function: Financial management;
Number of investments: 18.
FEA primary function: Info & tech management;
Number of investments: 11.
FEA primary function: Intelligence operations;
Number of investments: 8.
FEA primary function: Law enforcement;
Number of investments: 5.
FEA primary function: Human resource management;
Number of investments: 5.
FEA primary function: Administrative management;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Income security;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Supply chain management;
Number of investments: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as drawn from OMB's fiscal year
2011 exhibit 53s, which were downloaded from the IT Dashboard in July
2011.
[End of figure]
Figure 11: Number of Department of Transportation IT Investments for
Fiscal Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
FEA primary function: Transportation;
Number of investments: 156.
FEA primary function: Info & tech management;
Number of investments: 70.
FEA primary function: Financial management;
Number of investments: 20.
FEA primary function: Human resource management;
Number of investments: 18.
FEA primary function: Planning & budgeting;
Number of investments: 17.
FEA primary function: Controls & oversight;
Number of investments: 10.
FEA primary function: Supply chain management;
Number of investments: 10.
FEA primary function: Public affairs;
Number of investments: 6.
FEA primary function: Administrative management;
Number of investments: 5.
FEA primary function: Security management;
Number of investments: 5.
FEA primary function: Economic development;
Number of investments: 4.
FEA primary function: Regulatory development;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Investment management;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Knowledge management;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Knowledge discovery;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Data management;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Asset/materials management;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Environmental management;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Workforce management;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Internal risk management & mitigation;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Management of processes;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Communication;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Community & social services;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Education;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Health;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Homeland security;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Litigation & judicial activities;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Legislative relations;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Revenue collection;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Customer relationship management;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Visualization;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Business intelligence;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Development & integration;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Human capital/workforce management;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Search;
Number of investments: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as drawn from OMB's fiscal year
2011 exhibit 53s, which were downloaded from the IT Dashboard in July
2011.
[End of figure]
Figure 12: Number of Department of Justice IT Investments for Fiscal
Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
FEA primary function: Info & tech management;
Number of investments: 135.
FEA primary function: Law enforcement;
Number of investments: 39.
FEA primary function: Litigation & judicial activities;
Number of investments: 29.
FEA primary function: Financial management;
Number of investments: 28.
FEA primary function: Intelligence operations;
Number of investments: 25.
FEA primary function: Administrative management;
Number of investments: 14.
FEA primary function: Human resource management;
Number of investments: 14.
FEA primary function: Planning & budgeting;
Number of investments: 9.
FEA primary function: Correctional activities;
Number of investments: 8.
FEA primary function: Controls & oversight;
Number of investments: 5.
FEA primary function: Internal risk management & mitigation;
Number of investments: 4.
FEA primary function: Supply chain management;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Community & social services;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Revenue collection;
Number of investments: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as drawn from OMB's fiscal year
2011 exhibit 53s, which were downloaded from the IT Dashboard in July
2011.
[End of figure]
Figure 13: Number of Department of Agriculture IT Investments for
Fiscal Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
FEA primary function: Info & tech management;
Number of investments: 80.
FEA primary function: Natural resources;
Number of investments: 39.
FEA primary function: Disaster management;
Number of investments: 35.
FEA primary function: Financial management;
Number of investments: 25.
FEA primary function: Health;
Number of investments: 18.
FEA primary function: Economic development;
Number of investments: 14.
FEA primary function: Controls & oversight;
Number of investments: 12.
FEA primary function: Planning & budgeting;
Number of investments: 12.
FEA primary function: Human resource management;
Number of investments: 12.
FEA primary function: International affairs & commerce;
Number of investments: 10.
FEA primary function: Public affairs;
Number of investments: 8.
FEA primary function: Supply chain management;
Number of investments: 8.
FEA primary function: Administrative management;
Number of investments: 5.
FEA primary function: Income security;
Number of investments: 4.
FEA primary function: Environmental management;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Revenue collection;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Community & social services;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Energy;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: General science & innovation;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Homeland security;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Law enforcement;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Internal risk management & mitigation;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Regulatory development;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: General government;
Number of investments: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as drawn from OMB's fiscal year
2011 exhibit 53s, which were downloaded from the IT Dashboard in July
2011.
[End of figure]
Figure 14: Number of Department of Commerce IT Investments for Fiscal
Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
FEA primary function: Environmental management;
Number of investments: 33.
FEA primary function: Info & tech management;
Number of investments: 16.
FEA primary function: General government;
Number of investments: 15.
FEA primary function: Economic development;
Number of investments: 13.
FEA primary function: Financial management;
Number of investments: 9.
FEA primary function: Human resource management;
Number of investments: 9.
FEA primary function: Planning & budgeting;
Number of investments: 7.
FEA primary function: International affairs & commerce;
Number of investments: 6.
FEA primary function: Natural resources;
Number of investments: 6.
FEA primary function: Administrative management;
Number of investments: 6.
FEA primary function: General science & innovation;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Transportation;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Supply chain management;
Number of investments: 3.
FEA primary function: Income security;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Regulatory development;
Number of investments: 2.
FEA primary function: Disaster management;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Law enforcement;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Internal risk management & mitigation;
Number of investments: 1.
FEA primary function: Public affairs;
Number of investments: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as drawn from OMB's fiscal year
2011 exhibit 53s, which were downloaded from the IT Dashboard in July
2011.
[End of figure]
Figure 15: Number of NASA IT Investments for Fiscal Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
FEA primary function: General science & innovation;
Number of investments: 30.
FEA primary function: Financial management;
Number of investments: 16.
FEA primary function: Transportation;
Number of investments: 9.
FEA primary function: Administrative management;
Number of investments: 8.
FEA primary function: Info & tech management;
Number of investments: 6.
FEA primary function: Planning & budgeting;
Number of investments: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as drawn from OMB's fiscal year
2011 exhibit 53s, which were downloaded from the IT Dashboard in July
2011.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Examples of Primary Functions of Federal IT Investments:
The figures below show the number of investments that federal agencies
have categorized in three key primary functions. For each primary
function, the first figure shows a visual depiction of selected
federal agencies, including the Department of Defense (DOD). The
second figure provides more detail on the nondefense agencies. Unless
otherwise stated, these figures include both major and nonmajor IT
investments.[Footnote 28]
Figure 16: Number of Human Resources Investments for Fiscal Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
DOD: 363 investments; about $1.7 billion in planned FY 2011
expenditures;
Other agencies: 298 investments; over $790 million in planned FY 2011
expenditures.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as drawn from OMB's fiscal year
2011 exhibit 53s, which were downloaded from the IT Dashboard in July
2011.
[End of figure]
Figure 17: Number of Human Resources Investments (excluding DOD) for
Fiscal Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Agency: Energy;
Number of investments: 42.
Agency: HHS;
Number of investments: 28.
Agency: DHS;
Number of investments: 28.
Agency: Education;
Number of investments: 22.
Agency: Labor;
Number of investments: 22.
Agency: OPM;
Number of investments: 21.
Agency: Transportation;
Number of investments: 21.
Agency: State;
Number of investments: 16.
Agency: Justice;
Number of investments: 14.
Agency: Interior;
Number of investments: 14.
Agency: Agriculture;
Number of investments: 12.
Agency: Commerce;
Number of investments: 9.
Agency: EPA;
Number of investments: 8.
Agency: GSA;
Number of investments: 7.
Agency: NRC;
Number of investments: 6.
Agency: USAID;
Number of investments: 6.
Agency: Treasury;
Number of investments: 5.
Agency: SSA;
Number of investments: 5.
Agency: SBA;
Number of investments: 4.
Agency: HUD;
Number of investments: 2.
Agency: VA;
Number of investments: 2.
Agency: NARA;
Number of investments: 2.
Agency: NSF;
Number of investments: 2.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as drawn from OMB's fiscal year
2011 exhibit 53s, which were downloaded from the IT Dashboard in July
2011.
Note: Agency abbreviations are as follows: Energy = Department of
Energy; HHS = Department of Health and Human Services; DHS =
Department of Homeland Security; Education = Department of Education;
Labor = Department of Labor; OPM = Office of Personnel Management;
Transportation = Department of Transportation; State = Department of
State; Justice= Department of Justice; Interior = Department of the
Interior; Agriculture = U.S. Department of Agriculture; Commerce =
Department of Commerce; EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; GSA =
General Services Administration; NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development; Treasury =
Department of the Treasury; SSA = Social Security Administration; SBA
= Small Business Administration; HUD = Department of Housing and Urban
Development; VA = Department of Veterans Affairs; NARA = National
Archives and Records Administration; and NSF = National Science
Foundation.
[End of figure]
Figure 18: Number of Supply Chain Management Investments for Fiscal
Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
DOD: 659 investments; about $3 billion in planned FY 2011 expenditures;
Other agencies: 122 investments; about $347 million in planned FY 2011
expenditures.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as drawn from OMB's fiscal year
2011 exhibit 53s, which were downloaded from the IT Dashboard in July
2011.
[End of figure]
Figure 19: Number of Supply Chain Management Investments (excluding
DOD) for Fiscal Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Agency: Energy;
Number of investments: 25.
Agency: HHS;
Number of investments: 18.
Agency: GSA;
Number of investments: 14.
Agency: Transportation;
Number of investments: 10.
Agency: Agriculture;
Number of investments: 8.
Agency: DHS;
Number of investments: 6.
Agency: State;
Number of investments: 6.
Agency: HUD;
Number of investments: 5.
Agency: Interior;
Number of investments: 5.
Agency: USAID;
Number of investments: 5.
Agency: Labor;
Number of investments: 4.
Agency: Commerce;
Number of investments: 3.
Agency: Education;
Number of investments: 3.
Agency: Justice;
Number of investments: 3.
Agency: EPA;
Number of investments: 3.
Agency: Treasury;
Number of investments: 1.
Agency: NSF;
Number of investments: 1.
Agency: OPM;
Number of investments: 1.
Agency: SBA;
Number of investments: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as drawn from OMB's fiscal year
2011 exhibit 53s, which were downloaded from the IT Dashboard in July
2011.
Note: Agency abbreviations are as follows: Energy = Department of
Energy; HHS = Department of Health and Human Services; GSA = General
Services Administration; Transportation = Department of
Transportation; Agriculture = U.S. Department of Agriculture; DHS =
Department of Homeland Security; State = Department of State; HUD =
Department of Housing and Urban Development; Interior = Department of
the Interior; USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development; Labor
= Department of Labor; Commerce = Department of Commerce; Education =
Department of Education; Justice = Department of Justice; EPA =
Environmental Protection Agency; Treasury = Department of the
Treasury; NSF = National Science Foundation; OPM = Office of Personnel
Management; and SBA=Small Business Administration.
[End of figure]
Figure 20: Number of Financial Management Investments for Fiscal Year
2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
DOD: 261 investments; over $800 million in planned FY 2011
expenditures;
Other agencies: 261 investments; over $800 million in planned FY 2011
expenditures.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as drawn from OMB's fiscal year
2011 exhibit 53s, which were downloaded from the IT Dashboard in July
2011.
[End of figure]
Figure 21: Number of Financial Management Investments (excluding DOD)
for Fiscal Year 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Agency: Energy;
Number of investments: 53.
Agency: Justice;
Number of investments: 28.
Agency: Agriculture;
Number of investments: 25.
Agency: HHS;
Number of investments: 25.
Agency: Interior;
Number of investments: 25.
Agency: Transportation;
Number of investments: 20.
Agency: Treasury;
Number of investments: 18.
Agency: SSA;
Number of investments: 18.
Agency: NASA;
Number of investments: 16.
Agency: DHS;
Number of investments: 14.
Agency: Commerce;
Number of investments: 9.
Agency: EPA;
Number of investments: 9.
Agency: Education;
Number of investments: 8.
Agency: Labor;
Number of investments: 7.
Agency: State;
Number of investments: 7.
Agency: GSA;
Number of investments: 7.
Agency: SBA;
Number of investments: 5.
Agency: USAID;
Number of investments: 5.
Agency: HUD;
Number of investments: 4.
Agency: NSF;
Number of investments: 4.
Agency: Army Corps of Engineers;
Number of investments: 4.
Agency: VA;
Number of investments: 3.
Agency: NARA;
Number of investments: 3.
Agency: NRC;
Number of investments: 3.
Agency: OPM;
Number of investments: 3.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
Note: Agency abbreviations are as follows: Energy = Department of
Energy; Justice= Department of Justice; Agriculture = U.S. Department
of Agriculture; HHS = Department of Health and Human Services; Interior
= Department of the Interior; Transportation = Department of
Transportation; Treasury = Department of the Treasury; SSA = Social
Security Administration; NASA = National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; DHS = Department of Homeland Security; Commerce =
Department of Commerce; EPA = Environmental Protection Agency;
Education = Department of Education; Labor = Department of Labor; State
= Department of State; GSA = General Services Administration; SBA =
Small Business Administration; USAID = U.S. Agency for International
Development; HUD = Department of Housing and Urban Development; NSF =
National Science Foundation; VA = Department of Veterans Affairs; NARA
= National Archives and Records Administration; NRC = Nuclear
Regulatory Commission; and OPM = Office of Personnel Management.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
United States Department of Commerce:
The Secretary of Commerce:
Washington, DC: 20230:
September 12, 2011:
Mr. David Powner:
Director, Information Management Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report, "Information
Technology: OMB Needs to Improve Its Guidance on IT Investments"
(GAO-11-826).
This report thoroughly examines and assesses Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) policy and guidance that directs agencies reporting on
the progress and status of information technology (IT) investment. The
report documents several weaknesses and strengths and highlights newer
processes, such as OMB IT Dashboard reporting and Techstat reviews,
which were conducted solely by OMB and recently delegated to agency
chief information offices. The report assesses fairly the Department
of Commerce's IT information and data.
We have no substantial comments or changes to recommend at this time.
Please let us know if you have questions or need additional
information. Our Department of Commerce point of contact is Terri
Ware, tware@doc.gov, (202) 482-3138.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Rebecca M. Blank:
Acting Secretary of Commerce:
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Office Of The Secretary:
Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
Washington, DC 20201:
September 13, 2011:
Dave Powner, Director:
Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Attached are comments on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's
(GAO) draft report entitled: "Information Technology: OMB Needs to
Improve Its Guidance on IT Investments" (GAO-11-826).
The Department appreciates the opportunity to review this report prior
to publication.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jim R. Esquea:
Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
Attachment:
[End of letter]
General Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS)
On The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Report Entitled,
"Information Technology: OMB Needs To Improve Its Guidance On IT
Investments" (GAO-II-826):
The Department appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on
this draft report. We agree with the broad findings of the report.
However, HHS differs from the GAO finding that OMB needs to improve
its guidance to agencies. HHS finds the guidance documents to which
GAO refers to in the report (OMB memoranda and circulars) to be policy
documents that direct agencies in what actions must be taken regarding
management of and reporting on II investments. There are specific
instances where OMB's policy documents have included direction that
may have created consistency issues in the reporting of required
information, in particular in the definition of IT investment. The
revision of that definition in the FY 2013 edition of OMB Circular A-
11, Part 3, Section 53 and Part 7, Section 300, should allow a
significant improvement in both the consistency and accuracy of
information reported on IT investments in OMB Exhibits 53 and 300, and
on the IT Dashboard.
HHS believes that the distinction between policy and guidance
documents is an issue that does need to be addressed by OMB and all
Federal agencies. Guidance documents would explain how policy
requirements might be implemented at agencies. Implementation guidance
would best be developed in collaboration between OMB and Federal
agencies, and might address the differing implementation issues for
defense, civilian, and small agencies.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
September 8, 2011:
David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Re: Draft Report GA0-11-826, "Information Technology: OMB Needs to
Improve Its Guidance on IT Investments"
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the
U.S. Government Accountability Office's work in planning and
conducting its review and issuing this report.
Although the report does not contain any recommendations directed at
DHS, the Department remains committed to continuing its work with the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other relevant stakeholders
to address challenges related to identifying and eliminating
potentially duplicate systems. By eliminating duplicity among various
systems and creating opportunities for potential cost savings, the DHS
Office of the Chief Information Officer is using its processes ”
Investment Review and Techstat Review ” to strategically align with
OMB goals. This ensures DHS major IT investments are mapped to a
single function within the Federal Enterprise Architecture.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
draft report. We look forward to working with you on future homeland
security issues.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jim H. Crumpacker:
Director:
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Dave Powner at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, the following staff also
made key contributions to the report: Colleen Phillips, Assistant
Director; Kate Agatone; Rebecca Eyler; Fatima Jahan; Lee McCracken;
and Kevin Walsh.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] 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.: July 16, 2010); 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: OMB and Agencies Need to
Improve Planning, Management, and Oversight of Projects Totaling
Billions of Dollars, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1051T] (Washington, D.C.: July 31,
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] According to OMB guidance, a major investment is a system or
acquisition requiring special management attention because of its
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] The 10 federal agencies are the Departments of Agriculture
(Agriculture), Commerce (Commerce), Defense (DOD), Health and Human
Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), Justice (Justice),
Transportation (Transportation), the Treasury (Treasury), and Veterans
Affairs (VA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA).
[4] 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq.
[5] 40 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq.
[6] The E-Government (E-Gov) Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347 (Dec.
17, 2002).
[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262].
[8] GAO, 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).
[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-701].
[10] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262].
[11] The 15 departments are Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education,
Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and
Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation,
the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. The 10 independent agencies are
the Social Security Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
National Science Foundation, U.S. Agency for International
Development, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National
Archives and Records Administration, Office of Personnel Management,
Small Business Administration, General Service Administration, and the
Environmental Protection Agency. The other agency, referred to as a
quasi-official agency within the executive branch, is the Smithsonian
Institution.
[12] For fiscal year 2012 submissions, agencies are only permitted to
choose primary functions from the business reference model.
[13] 40 U.S.C. § 11101(6).
[14] The six agencies are NASA and the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and
Transportation.
[15] GAO, NASA: Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-239SP] (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 3, 2011).
[16] GAO, Financial Management Systems: OMB's Financial Management
Line of Business Initiative Continues but Future Success Remains
Uncertain, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-328]
(Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2009).
[17] GAO, Information Technology: The Federal Enterprise Architecture
and Agencies' Enterprise Architectures Are Still Maturing, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-798T] (Washington, D.C.: May 19,
2004).
[18] GAO, Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete
Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565] (Washington, D.C.: July 19,
2011).
[19] GAO, Information Security: Concerted Effort Needed to Consolidate
and Secure Internet Connections at Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-237] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12,
2010).
[20] GAO, Electronic Government: Performance Measures for Projects
Aimed at Promoting Innovation and Transparency Can Be Improved,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-775] (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 23, 2011).
[21] These three investments were Commerce's BIS ECASS2000+ system,
Treasury's IT Infrastructure Telecom ITT TSS system, and GSA's Federal
Supply Service system.
[22] 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.: Mar. 2004).
[23] GAO, 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).
[24] The Department of Transportation delegates this review to its
operating administrations.
[25] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262] and
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-701].
[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-798T]; GAO,
Information Security: Concerted Effort Needed to Consolidate and
Secure Internet Connections at Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-237] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12,
2010); [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-565]; and
Electronic Government: Performance Measures for Projects Aimed at
Promoting Innovation and Transparency Can Be Improved, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-775] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23,
2011).
[27] According to OMB guidance, a major investment is a system or
acquisition requiring special management attention because of its
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.
[28] According to OMB guidance, a major investment is a system or
acquisition requiring special management attention because of its
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.
[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:
