United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Government Management,

Information, and Technology, Committee on Government

Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

10:00 a.m., EDT

Wednesday

October 8, 1997

THE RESULTS ACT

Observations on GSA’s

Strategic Plan

Statement of

Bernard L. Ungar, Director

Government Business Operations Issues

General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-98-14

Summary 

Results Act: Observations on GSA’s Strategic

Plan

Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, executive

agencies are to develop strategic plans in which they define their missions,

establish results-oriented goals, and identify strategies they will use to

achieve those goals. The Act specifies that strategic plans should contain

six elements: (1) a mission statement; (2) agencywide long-term goals and

objectives; (3) approaches (or strategies) and the various resources

needed to achieve the goals and objectives; (4) a description of the

relationship between the long-term goals/objectives and the annual

performance plans; (5) an identification of key external factors; and (6) a

description of how program evaluations were used to establish and revise

strategic goals. GAO’s July 1997 report—The Results Act: Observations on

GSA’s April 1997 Draft Strategic Plan (GAO/GGD-97-153R, July 11,

1997)—conveyed GAO’s analysis of the April 1997 version of GSA’s draft

plan. Since that time, GSA prepared the plan for submission to OMB and

Congress on September 30, 1997, as required by the Results Act.

GSA’s April 1997 draft strategic plan contained all the six components

required by the Results Act. However, the draft plan generally lacked

clarity, context, descriptive information, and linkages among the

components. GSA has since made a number of improvements, and the six

components now better achieve the purposes of the Act. However,

additional improvements would strengthen the September 30 plan as it

evolves over time. The September 30 plan continues to have general goals

and objectives that seem to be expressed in terms that may be challenging

to translate into quantitative analysis. The strategies component is an

improvement over the prior version but would benefit from a more

detailed discussion of how each goal will actually be accomplished.

Although the external factors in the September 30 plan are clearer and

provide more context, the factors are not clearly linked to the general

goals and objectives. The program evaluations component provides a

listing of the various program evaluations that GSA used, but it does not

include a required schedule of future evaluations. Although the plan does a

much better job of setting forth GSA’s statutory authorities, this addition

could be further improved by linking the different authorities to either the

general goals and objectives or the performance goals. The plan also refers

to three related areas—crosscutting issues, major management problems,

and data reliability—but the discussion is limited and not as useful as it

could be in articulating how these issues might affect successful

accomplishment of goals and objectives. This is especially true for major

management and data reliability problems, which can have a negative

impact on measuring progress and achieving the goals.

Page 1 GAO/T-GGD-98-14
Statement 

The Results Act: Observations on GSA’s

Strategic Plan

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our observations on the General

Services Administration’s (GSA) strategic plan. This plan was prepared for

submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress

on September 30, 1997, as required by the Government Performance and

Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act).1

 Building on our July 1997 report on

GSA’s April draft plan,2

 I will discuss the improvements GSA has made and

areas where GSA’s strategic plan can be improved as it evolves over time.

GSA’s April 28 draft strategic plan contained all the six components

required by the Results Act. However, the draft plan generally lacked

clarity, context, descriptive information, and linkages among the

components. GSA has since made a number of improvements, and the six

components better achieve the purposes of the Act. However, additional

improvements would strengthen the September 30 plan as it evolves over

time. The September 30 plan continues to have general goals and

objectives that seem to be expressed in terms that may be challenging to

translate into quantitative analysis. The strategies component is an

improvement over the prior version but would benefit from a more

detailed discussion of how each goal will actually be accomplished.

Although the key external factors component in the September 30 plan is

clearer and provides more context, the factors are not clearly linked to the

general goals and objectives. The program evaluations component

provides a listing of the various program evaluations that GSA used, but it

does not include the required schedule of future evaluations. Although the

plan does a much better job of setting forth GSA’s statutory authorities,

this addition could be further improved by linking the different authorities

to either the general goals and objectives or the performance goals. The

plan also refers to three related areas—crosscutting issues, major

management problems, and data reliability—but the discussion is limited

and not as useful as it could be in trying to assess the impact of these

factors on meeting and measuring the goals. This is especially true for

major management and data reliability problems, which can have a

negative impact on measuring progress and achieving the goals.

1

P.L. 103-62.

2

The Results Act: Observations on GSA’s April 1997 Draft Strategic Plan (GAO/GGD-97-147R, July 7,

1997)

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD-98-14
Statement 

The Results Act: Observations on GSA’s

Strategic Plan

Background In the 1990s, Congress put in place a statutory framework to address

long-standing weaknesses in federal government operations, improve

federal management practices, and provide greater accountability for

achieving results. This framework included as its essential elements

financial management reform legislation, information technology reform

legislation, and the Results Act.

In enacting this framework, Congress sought to create a more focused,

results-oriented management and decisionmaking process within both

Congress and the executive branch. These laws3

 seek to improve federal

management by responding to a need for accurate, reliable information for

congressional and executive branch decisionmaking. This information has

been badly lacking in the past, as much of our work has demonstrated.

Implemented together, these laws provided a powerful framework for

developing fully integrated information about agencies’ missions and

strategic priorities, data to show whether or not the goals are achieved, the

relationship of information technology investment to the achievement of

those goals, and accurate and audited financial information about the

costs of achieving mission results.

The Results Act focuses on clarifying missions, setting goals, and

measuring performance toward achieving those goals. It emphasizes

managing for results and pinpointing opportunities for improved

performance and increased accountability. Congress intended for the Act

to improve the effectiveness of federal programs by fundamentally shifting

the focus of management and decisionmaking away from a preoccupation

with tasks and services to a broader focus on results of federal programs.

Requirements Under the

Results Act

Under the Results Act, executive agencies are to develop strategic plans in

which they define their missions, establish results-oriented goals, and

identify strategies they will use to achieve those goals. The Act specifies

that all agencies’ strategic plans should have six critical components: (1) a

comprehensive agency mission statement; (2) agencywide long-term goals

and objectives for all major functions and operations; (3) approaches (or

3

The primary financial management reform legislation Congress enacted is the Chief Financial Officers

Act of 1990, as expanded by the Government Management Reform Act of 1994. These laws provide the

basis for identifying and correcting financial management weaknesses that have cost the federal

government billions of dollars and leave it vulnerable to waste, fraud, and mismanagement. They also

set expectations for agencies to deploy modern systems to replace existing antiquated, often manual

processes; develop better performance and cost measures; and design results-oriented reports on the

government’s financial condition and operating performance by integrating budget, accounting, and

program information. Information technology reform legislation, including the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, was based on the best practices used by leading public

and private organizations to more effectively manage information technology.

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD-98-14
Statement 

The Results Act: Observations on GSA’s

Strategic Plan

strategies) to achieve the goals and objectives and the various resources

needed; (4) a description of the relationship between the long-term

goals/objectives and the annual performance plans required by the Act;

(5) an identification of key factors, external to the agency and beyond its

control, that could significantly affect achievement of the strategic goals;

and (6) a description of how program evaluations were used to establish

and revise strategic goals and a schedule for future program evaluations.

Summary of Key

Observations From

Our July Report

We reported in July that the April 28 draft plan included the six

components required by the Results Act and the general goals and

objectives in the plan reflected GSA’s major statutory responsibilities.

However, our analysis showed that the plan could have better met the

purposes of the Act and related OMB guidance. Two of the required

components—how goals and objectives were to be achieved and program

evaluations—needed more descriptive information on how goals and

objectives were to be achieved, how program evaluations were used in

setting goals, and what the schedule would be for future evaluations to

better achieve the purposes of the Act. The four other required

components—mission statement, general goals and objectives, key

external factors, and relating performance goals to general goals and

objectives—were more responsive to the Act but needed greater clarity

and context. We also noted that the general goals and objectives and the

mission statement in the draft plan did not emphasize economy and

efficiency, as a reflection of taxpayers’ interests. Also, the general goals

and objectives seem to have been expressed in terms that may be

challenging to translate into quantitative or measurable analysis, and there

could have been better linkages between the various components of the

plan.

We also reported that the plan could have been made more useful to GSA,

Congress, and other stakeholders by providing a fuller description of

statutory authorities and an explicit discussion of crosscutting functions,

major management problems, and the adequacy of data and systems.

Although the plan reflected the major pieces of legislation that establish

GSA’s mission and explained how GSA’s mission is linked to key statutes,

we reported that GSA could provide other useful information, such as

listing laws that broaden its responsibilities as a central management

agency and which are reflected in the goals and objectives.

Relatedly, the draft plan did not discuss the potential for crosscutting

issues to arise or how these issues might affect successful

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD-98-14
Statement 

The Results Act: Observations on GSA’s

Strategic Plan

accomplishment of goals and objectives. It also made no mention of

whether GSA coordinated the plan with its stakeholders. The plan was

also silent on the formidable management problems we have identified

over the years—issues that are important because they could have a

serious impact on whether GSA can achieve its strategic goals. Finally, the

plan made no mention of how data limitations would affect its ability to

measure performance and ultimately manage its programs. We reported

that consideration of these areas would give GSA a better framework for

developing and achieving its goals and help stakeholders better

understand GSA’s operating constraints and environment.

Improvements Made

in the Strategic Plan

The September 30 plan reflects a number of the improvements that we

suggested in our July 1997 report. The clarity of the September 30 plan is

improved and it provides more context, descriptive information, and

linkages within and among the six components that are required by the

Act. Compared to the April 28 draft, the September 30 plan generally

should provide stakeholders with a better understanding of GSA’s overall

mission and strategic outlook. Our analysis of the final plan also showed

that, in line with our suggestion, GSA placed more emphasis on economy

and efficiency in the comprehensive mission statement and general goals

and objectives components. The September 30 plan also generally

described the operational processes, staff skills, and technology required,

as well as the human, information, and other resources needed, to meet

the goals and objectives. The strategic plan now contains a listing of

program evaluations that GSA used to prepare the plan and a more

comprehensive discussion of the major pieces of legislation that serve as a

basis for its mission, reflecting additional suggestions we made in our

July 1997 report.

Furthermore, the September 30 plan’s overall improvement in clarity and

context should help decisionmakers and other stakeholders better

understand the crosscutting, governmentwide nature of GSA’s operations

as a central management agency. The September 30 plan makes some

reference to major management problems in the program evaluations

component and also addresses the importance of data reliability in the

general goals and objectives component. The improvements that GSA has

made are a step in the right direction, and the six components better

achieve the purposes of the Act. However, we believe that additional

improvements, which are described in the following section, would

strengthen the strategic plan as it evolves over time.

Page 5 GAO/T-GGD-98-14
Statement 

The Results Act: Observations on GSA’s

Strategic Plan

Strategic Plan Can Be

Further Improved

As we discussed in our July 7, 1997, report on the draft plan, the

September 30 plan continues to have general goals and objectives that

seem to be expressed in terms that may be challenging to translate into

quantitative or measurable analysis. This could make it difficult to

determine whether they are actually being achieved. For example, the goal

to “compete effectively for the federal market” has such objectives as

“provide quality products and services at competitive prices and achieve

significant savings” and “open GSA to marketplace competition where

appropriate to reduce costs to the government and improve customer

service.” However, this goal, its related objectives, and the related

narrative do not state specifically how progress will be measured, such as

the amount of savings GSA intends to achieve or the timetable for opening

the GSA marketplace for competition. OMB Circular A-11 specifies that

general goals and objectives should be stated in a manner that allows a

future assessment to be made of whether the goals are being met. The

OMB guidance states that general goals that are quantitative facilitate this

determination, but it also recognizes that the goals need not be

quantitative and that related performance goals can be used as a basis for

future assessments. However, we observed that many of the performance

goals that GSA included in the plan also were not expressed in terms that

could easily enable quantitative analysis, which could make gauging

progress difficult in future assessments.

The strategies component—how the goals and objectives will be

achieved—described the operational processes, human resources and

skills, and information and technology needed to meet the general goals

and objectives. This component is an improvement over the prior version

we reviewed, and applicable performance goals are listed with each of

these factors. Although GSA chose to discuss generally the factors that

will affect its ability to achieve its performance goals, we believe that a

more detailed discussion of how each goal will actually be accomplished

would be more useful to decisionmakers. To illustrate with a specific

example, the plan could discuss the approaches that GSA will use to meet

the performance goals related to its general goal of promoting responsible

asset management using operational processes, human resources and

skills, information and technology, and capital/other resources.

The plan does discuss, in the general goals and objectives component, an

operational/human resource change involving the appointment of a new

Chief Measurement Officer in the Public Buildings Service. More

discussion of this type of change in the strategies component would help

stakeholders better understand GSA’s specific strategies to ensure that it

Page 6 GAO/T-GGD-98-14
Statement 

The Results Act: Observations on GSA’s

Strategic Plan

is achieving its goals and objectives. We also noted that the strategies

component does not discuss priorities among the goals and objectives.

Such a discussion would be helpful to decisionmakers in determining

where to focus priorities in the event of a sudden change in funding or

staffing. Finally, GSA deferred to the President’s budget its discussion

about capital and other resources. We believe it seems reasonable to

include in this component at least some general discussion of how capital

and other resources will be used to meet each general goal.

Although the external factors component in the September 30 plan is

much clearer and provides more context than the draft version we

reviewed, the factors are not clearly linked to the general goals and

objectives. OMB Circular A-11 states that the plan should include this link,

as well as describe how achieving the goals could be affected by the

factors. This improvement would allow decisionmakers to better

understand how the factors potentially will affect achievement of each

general goal and objective. The program evaluations component in the

September 30 plan provides a listing of the various program evaluations

that GSA indicates were used in developing the plan. However, it still does

not include a schedule of future evaluations. Instead, the plan states that

the schedule for future program evaluations is under development and

that GSA intends to use the remainder of the consultation process to

obtain input from Congress and stakeholders concerning the issues that

should be studied on a priority basis. However, OMB Circular A-11

indicates that the schedule should have been completed and included in

the September 30 plan, together with an outline of the general

methodology to be used and a discussion of the particular issues to be

addressed.

Although the plan does a much better job of setting forth GSA’s statutory

authorities in the attachment, this description could be further improved if

the different statutory authorities discussed therein were linked with

either the general goals and objectives or the performance goals included

in the plan. Further, the plan only makes limited reference to the other

important areas we identified in our July 1997 report—crosscutting issues,

major management problems, and data reliability. The plan’s improved

clarity and context should help decisionmakers understand the

crosscutting issues that affect GSA as a central management agency.

However, explicit discussion of these issues is limited, and the

September 30 plan makes no reference to the extent to which GSA

coordinated with stakeholders.

Page 7 GAO/T-GGD-98-14
Statement 

The Results Act: Observations on GSA’s

Strategic Plan

The September 30 plan references major management problems in the

program evaluations component, but it does not explicitly discuss these

problems or identify which problems could have an adverse impact on

meeting the general goals and objectives. Our work has shown over the

years that these types of problems have significantly hampered GSA’s and

its stakeholder agencies’ abilities to accomplish their missions. For

example, the plan could address how GSA will attempt to ensure that its

information systems meet computer security requirements or how GSA

plans to address the year 2000 problem in its computer hardware and

software systems. The plan does reference data reliability in the general

goals and objectives component. However, the discussion of data

reliability, which is so critical for measuring progress and results, is

limited and not as useful as it could be in attempting to assess the impact

that data problems could have on meeting the general goals and

objectives. We continue to believe that greater emphasis on how GSA

plans to resolve management problems and on the importance of data

reliability could improve the plan.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased

to answer any questions.

(240276) Page 8 GAO/T-GGD-98-14
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100